<p>OK, I’ll paste it there too, but generally on CC, we’re not supposed to post the same thing all over the place. I do see how it fits in with what you wrote though! (my thoughts are not unique on this subject!!)</p>
<p>One thing to consider is that those 16 or 32 bars is supposed to be your BEST and you need to at that point impress someone. If you don’t, you will probably be put into a pool with maybe 200 other talented kids. The auditioners are highly skilled at picking talent. Its their job and most have been doing it for quite some time.</p>
<p>As a side note, I will say that kids that have a LOT of training in arts BETTER stand out. If a kid has very little or no formal training and keeps up or is on par with these other kids… his/her chances will increase exponentially.</p>
<p>No, there is no perfect audition process. The stakes are high for both the student and the school. For example, BOCO spends approximately 10 minutes with each kid for singing/acting/interview and 1 hour+ for dance. Now for the tedious task - 1,000 kids x 10 minutes = 10,000 minutes or 166 hours or 21 (8) hours days in 8 cities. After seeing 1,000 kids they will most likely offer 5 kids acceptance on the spot. Then there are probably another 15 or 20 they would really like to get (and be lucky if they get half). Now the hard part…Fill 30 spots out of some 200 kids that they deemed as yes’s. That’s will take another month figuring out whom they will accept. All totaled a school spends at least 2 full months recruiting out of a school year that is in reality 8 months long is pretty thorough.</p>
<p>soozievt: Post #19 was quite impressive and spot on. You do have to judge your talent against the rest of the United States and not just your little corner of the world! And this is only for your current graduating year. Now go out into the professional world and you are up against the best in the world for maybe the last 15 or 20 years for a role!!!</p>
<p>^^^ heh heh…yep! It only gets worse after you graduate (which is where my 21 year old finds herself today). She is no longer up against everyone her age but against everyone in their 20’s (that number is huge) and people with major credits and so on.</p>
<p>Thank you all for the feedback, but I would like to come back to my original point: “I do not think that a 5-10 minute audition is sufficient to make a decision of this magnitude”. As I said before, I think this is equivalent to deciding leads for a show based on one audition without callbacks (and we all know that NEVER happens). My purpose for this discussion is not to just criticize the system but to try to improve it. </p>
<p>So here are some constructive ideas on improving the college audition process:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Normal Callback: First, do the audition process as is today and spend 5-10 minutes with each application in order to make an initial cut. Then have a callback for the top 50 applicants (or whatever number makes sense for the particular school) and spend an entire day or two working with them. I know people will say this is too expensive, etc, but we are talking about 4 years and $$$$.</p></li>
<li><p>Video Callback: First, do the audition process as is today and spend 5-10 minutes with each application in order to make an initial cut. Then have the top 50 applicants (or whatever number makes sense for the particular school) send in videos of past performances. In this day and age every kid has a recording of his/her shows so this would not be a big deal. Also, seeing the kids on stage seems like a much better way to determine if they have the it factor people are referring to. </p></li>
<li><p>Video prescreening: before calling kids to audition, have them submit videos (this can easily be done these days via YouTube or some other electronic medium). Use these videos to make a first cut and then call a limited number to a callback audition where much more time (>>10 minutes) is spent with each applicant.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>These are just some ideas. I am sure other people can come up with even better ones. My point is the process NEEDS to be improved and CAN be improved if simple technology (like videos) are used. Just because it has been done this way for years does not mean it is the best way.</p>
<p>If there are professors from MT schools reading these posts, please consider some of these ideas. In the end, I think it will improve your admission process and the quality of the students at your school.</p>
<p>Look at Ivy League admissions. They read your file. They narrow the files down. The admissions committee goes into discussions about the contenders and makes their final selections. No kid gets to spend an entire day with the adcoms. Each applicant gets to submit certain pieces to be considered as representative of their background, profile, skills and talents. </p>
<p>And honestly, in the professional world of theater, you get very little time in front of the audition panel. I provided one example earlier of my kid’s first professional audition right after graduating college last May. It was for a National Tour (Equity). She sang ONE song at the audition. She got called back and was sent a song to learn and sides (script) to prepare. Callbacks involved singing the song, acting the sides, and doing a group dance call. She then was cast. She spent a similar amount of time as she had when applying to a BFA program. </p>
<p>I understand your suggestions. On the other hand, I haven’t heard schools complain that their process is not working to get the students they seek. One of your ideas that has students return for callbacks is very costly for the student. </p>
<p>I also wonder if these schools can or should devote any more time to this process. The auditors are the faculty and they do have to spend time teaching the current students. It is not like regular college admissions where there is an admissions staff that don’t ALSO teach and run programs.</p>
<p>As I wrote earlier, some schools like PSU or UArts, have a callback on the same day of the audition and more people see the contenders and they do a little more then. That is a possibility. But I am not sure the schools are making mistakes about who they take in either. </p>
<p>As far as work ethic, lots can be seen by a transcript and recommendations too. Remember, this is not the same as casting a show. This is taking kids in to be students. More is submitted than just the ten min. audition. That is not all they see or examine.</p>
<p>Whywhy
there are some schools who do prescreening: NYU Steinhardt and UMiami do that I know.
There are some schools which “callback” during the actual audition, I believe PennState does that—those they think are possibles get called back on the spot.</p>
<p>Some schools accept audition DVD’s (although most are not interested in seeing production footage) Perhaps in the next few years YOUTUBE and other devices may change some of the way colleges do auditions–not necessarily for the better.</p>
<p>You bring up valid points but the issue is simply that soooooo many people want to get into these programs and they can only accomodate a small number. So people who are driven to succeed in this business will follow another path to get to their destination if they can’t get into a BFA program. In the process, hopefully they will go to school somewhere to get an education beyond singing, dancing and acting at the same time (that is always my hope since I am a teacher) Some may simply start auditioning or even go to 2 year training programs. Bottom line, there are many, many ways to get where they are going and colleges do the best they can under difficult circumstances to try to chose their incoming class.</p>
<p>Some schools do a pre-screening…I believe OU does with videos. And some more may go to that process. I have a student this year applying to top programs for Vocal Performance and many of these programs do have a pre-screening CD required. What this can do is to eliminate kids who are totally out of the ballpark and don’t have to bother coming to campus (or Unifieds) to audition. But this also adds a lot of time for auditors. I don’t think this yields them a more talented or better class but it just saves time for those who really are not contenders and don’t need to bother to travel to audition.</p>
<p>(oops…cross posted with CalMTMom)</p>
<p>WhyWhy…do you think that BFA programs are accepting students that really are not that good? I’ve seen or know kids coming out of a lot of these programs and a lot of them are REALLY talented. I’m not so sure the current system is not working. But the reality is such that they can’t take all the talented people and so must reject very talented kids as well. But if a kid has the right list of schools, they should not be shut out of going to college to attend for MT, unless truly not qualified.</p>
<p>Response to post #26: </p>
<p>Soozievt, I think you are still missing my point. Sure IV Leaugue narrow you down based on your file. But this files conains grades and test scores accumulated over YEARS, not a 5-10 minutes audition. Why not simply use past videos as another input? Do you think all the other programs (e.g. sports) that use videos are wrong? Why wouldnt you want to see the kids on stage, “in the game” not in practice. </p>
<p>If they can norrow the pool down with a video prescreening, then they could spend much more time evaluating the selected few.</p>
<p>WhyWhy…re: post 30…</p>
<p>Yes, the file for Ivy League admissions represents achievements garnered over years. But for a MT applicant, I think that is the same too. For one thing, they ALSO submit a file like an Ivy League applicant, to colleges that contain stuff representing years of their life. The audition is not the only factor in MT admissions. But the audition also represents years of training and talent that has accumulated. A flute applicant plays a piece and a lot of years of training went into being able to play that piece at the audition. Same with a singer, actor, and dancer. No need to see prior performances as their current performance should demonstrate the skills and talent acquired over time.</p>
<p>Also, in the case of prior show videos…professional auditions for theater don’t use those either. A resume at least shows what else the student has accomplished. </p>
<p>As far as demonstrating the “it” factor, an audition should be treated as a performance. A student should not just sing a song like a recital but perform it as if on stage in character. That “it” factor should be demonstrated at the audition. </p>
<p>With regard to past videos of shows…Hey, we have a TON of these prior to college but not everyone does. Some places do not allow video, for example. Some kids have not played significant roles and so there is not enough to watch if the kid is in ensemble. But the kid may give a fab audition. </p>
<p>I think the audition combined with the resume and recs…and the entire application file shows a lot. </p>
<p>I did ask you if you think these programs are not accepting qualified kids? I think they are. Not everyone is gonna get into every program. But if you have what it takes, you should get into at least one college where you can study MT, if you have the right list for you.</p>
<p>I think, in the end, the audition process works surprisingly well, but no, it is not perfect. Mistakes do get made. However, on the whole, it works.</p>
<p>^^^ I agree on that Spark Notes summary, LOL!</p>
<p>Occasionally kids get in who don’t have great talent or strong work ethic. And some who get in change their minds once they are in a BFA program that that is not what they want and they leave. But for those who stay and maybe are not that great at MT, the market will decide later. But they’ll have gotten their education. After all, this is just about admission to an education and nothing more. It is not a ticket to success.</p>
<p>whywhy: First off thanks for the post. I guess the overall belief here is that to
the trained eye or (ear) the auditioners get it right. I go back to when my D and I attended a freshman showcase rehearsal and the teacher kept stopping the class after every bar. I consider myself to have a “good” ear and could not understand what the teacher was doing. My daughter on the hand has a “great” ear and heard and understood everything the teacher was doing and she was totally impressed. It’s just that they ARE that good a spotting talent. </p>
<p>Just like watching a Yankee game. I am totally blown away at how right the umpires usually are even in a split millisecond. Perfect no but right almost every time.</p>
<p>WhyWhy, for whatever it’s worth, I feel exactly the same way you do about this process. </p>
<p>But I come from a very naive, inexperienced theatre background. Which usually means I don’t know what I’m talking about with respect to this crazy world of college MT. (As a former college football player, I have used the same analogy that you have attempted to use.)</p>
<p>After visiting a few college MT programs, my opinion hasn’t changed a whole lot. I still think the audition process is flawed (not the people, but the process). I can get away with that opinion because I don’t claim to have perfect pitch or experience in the field. I am a simple observer of musical theatre, who enjoys watching young kids put on shows.</p>
<p>I catch myself comparing every female MT actor I’ve seen to my own daughter. Which is a ridiculous exercise as no one can be objective in that scenario. But I’ve seen kids get cast in shows and picked for college MT programs that are marginal talents when I’ve seen them perform in real shows. Their auditions must have been excellent, because their performances left plenty to be desired.</p>
<p>I think the main problem is that directors and college auditioners are human beings, with pre-set biases and perceptions. Those biases rule the process at the end of the day. I do not think they are against any kid or “type”, or go out of their way to be unfair. It’s just the nature of an uber-competitive field.</p>
<p>Remember, too, that it is all subjective. Test scores are concrete objective data. Artistic talent is in the eye of the beholder! </p>
<p>Even sports has “stats”…home runs earned, swim times, running times, place results, goal assists, batting average, points per game, etc.</p>
<p>Whatever “injustice” there is with a “flawed” audition system, ultimately is derived from how very few openings there are in MT schools and in the field in general. There is no point in comparing MBA’s or MD’s to Broadway performers. I am sure the number of MBA’s and MD’s ATTENDING Bdway shows on a particular night is greater than the number of actors on stage.</p>
<p>D attended Straw Hats Auditions for the first time and said you barely have time to breathe in the time allotted for auditions. But they have to see so many people for so few openings. If they gave everyone a half-hour to audition and tell there life’s story, would it be any easier when the same number of people are rejected anyway?</p>
<p>I am a music/comp/bfa mom, not an mt mom, but I’ll throw in my two cents regardless. I think Malcolm Gladwell nails it in his book Blink, which describes, in essence, why an art expert can detect a fraud in seconds and without an obviously rational explanation (eg. it appears intuitive, but it’s actually not – just so high-speed it looks that way). After a certain number of hours (obviously more than the 10,000 hrs. of mastery…) I am reasonably confident that within the constraints of the program that a panel of adjudicators can reliably come up with an exceptionally talented class after 16 bars and a “background” check. (And if they can’t, I don’t want my kid going there 
</p>
<p>Note – This is not to say that two different panels will not come up with two different talented classes. Every program has its preference and nuance. But it is to say their choices will very likely be sound, for the following (general) reasons:</p>
<p>Perhaps people underestimate the power of a robust repetoire, or the role that passion plays in pursuing a BFA. A kid who is motivated in performing arts will have performed in the arts – and will have CREATED opportunities if none existed. That will be evident on the repetoire. A kid who is motivated and sufficiently talented will have typically distinguished themselves regionally, or participated in regional/national programs including summer camps. That will be obvious on the resume. A kid who is sufficiently dedicated to the craft will have sought out opportunities to hone their craft, through private lessons, dual enrollment, again, summer camps. etc. That will be evident in recommendations.</p>
<p>Experts do not need to see every nuance of a performer’s capability – the students are applying to their schools to deepen their capabilities. Experts, however, need to directly experience the physical “energetic” presence, or the raw creative source – which you could also argue flows from the experience – of the performer. </p>
<p>The amazing thing to me is how often and how quickly they’re “right” – not the inevitable and occasional missed opportunities. There will always be missed opportunities so long as there are more talented students applying than there are positions.</p>
<p>The tough thing about it is that being rejected from a program does not mean a student is without talent. It just means they didn’t turn up being as “honed” as the selected candidate, or the same “fit” with the program as another, which might suggest they weren’t quite as passionate about pursuing their avocation, or that they got a late start, the later of which can be addressed in a number of ways (gap year, intense training, different undergrad then masters after private training…etc., just being unstoppable in general). At the end of the day, one MUST have a passionate avocation in order to pursue any kind of BFA or BMUS. Otherwise, one is wasting mom’s money Ahem. I mean “their” money. Hi ho.</p>
<p>Why Why: I undertand your ideas for wanting to improve the system…you are a mother and seeing it from the perspective of wanting your child to have their very best shot at something.</p>
<p>However, the schools are not seeing it from this perspective. The only way the system will be dramatically changed is if the process is not working for the schools themselves.</p>
<p>But the process does work for them and year after year they are able to fill openings with talented students. The schools are concerned with who they accept, not who they reject. They understand that they can fill the class many times over with talented students. But as long as the class that they accept ends up yielding them the numbers that they want and those students are productive and graduate, then the system is working for them.</p>
<p>One more note of consolation for those enduring auditions: at least the heartbreak is on the front end. By way of example, I myself attended a BFA program in Canada that was 1-in-10 competitive upon entry, just like MT. However, THAT program used to then “cut” the bottom 50% of students in EACH of 2nd, 3rd and 4th years. It seems comparatively barbaric to me now.</p>