Does the college MT audition process make any sense?

College Majors Musical Theater Majors
81

<p>By the way, speaking as a parent, when my kids got rejected from an extremely selective BFA program or from a top Ivy League school, I did not chalk it up that the school did wrong by my qualified kids. I KNEW the odds were so long, that even though I was very confident in their qualifications, that it would involve some rejections. I didn’t think it was flawed if a school didn’t take them. I expected that. They got into most of their colleges, the most selective types. But even still, they did not get into ALL of them. I think I can say they were qualified as they got into some of the most selective of all. But top schools and top programs are still turning away very qualified kids as they can’t accommodate them all. I never blamed a rejection on some unfair or flawed process. My kids expected, due to the statistical odds, SOME rejections. </p>

<p>If a student is shut out completely from EVERY college on their list, then their list was not appropriate to them, or adequately balanced in terms of odds. Some people have unrealistic college lists. Some have unbalanced college lists. I knew that my kids had college lists appropriate to them and felt pretty sure they were not going to be entirely shut out of a college. But I also knew they were applying to highly selective schools that have such low odds even for the most qualified kids. Such kids WILL sometimes get rejected due to the low admit rates. </p>

<p>As a college counselor, I can say that even if I have a student who has a 2300 SAT, a 4.0 GPA, the most challenging HS curriculum, strong extracurriculars with achievements in those endeavors, great essays, and so on…I will have to still rate Yale, for example, as a “reach” school, not because it is a reach due to the “stats” of the student, but because the ODDS are reachy/chancy with a 9% acceptance rate, and where way more than 9% of the applicants in that pool also have similar profiles. The same can be said for the most selective BFA in MT programs (I won’t name them but they are the usual suspects). I can have a student who won an NFAA award (that is a national award for MT), has a ton of other achievements, has numerous leads in shows in their own region, has worked professionally, has very strong grades, test scores, class rank, strong HS curriculum, and had trained for years in singing, dance, and acting, and I’d still call the top BFA programs “reach” odds even though they are extremely strong candidates. When a program is taking 4% of those who audition, some of these kids will be rejected, but by the same token, they will not be shut out of attending a BFA program.</p>

82

<p>I have to agree with soozievt that if the audition/admissions process for these BFA programs did not work for the schools (in other words, if the schools found that they were admitting an alarming percentage of students who were not that talented and not that hard working), the schools would definitely change the process. The bottom line is that the process does work, so the schools are taking an “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” </p>

<p>As someone said in the thread above, there is NO question that mistakes are made and that even the best programs admit some students who seem to have great potential which never plays out. And there is NO NO question at all that many very talented kids with tremendous potential are not admitted. (Every good program could probably fill itself three times over with talented kids, but there is just not room.)</p>

<p>But think about this: the audition process is how musicals and plays and productions are cast in the professional world, too, and 9 times out of 10, it works. Experienced auditors, in fact, will tell you that, on the whole, they can tell if someone has the good within the first few bars of a song, or lines of a monologue or sides reading. </p>

<p>By the way, I think the topic is a very interesting one and am glad the OP started it.</p>

83

<p>Interesting. </p>

<p>I wonder, actually, if you, WhyWhy, are so invested in your own premise that the college audition process is flawed, a premise in which some people agreed and others disagreed, that YOU are unable to look at the issues objectively anymore. It seems that you are convinced that you are “right” and perhaps were really only looking for affirmation of your stand on the issue. And that’s fine. You got it from some people. But in that case, you may have been happier with the results overall if you started your thread with a statement, The college MT audition process does not make any sense, instead of a question which begged other opinions.</p>

<p>Maybe you were truly looking for dialogue…I have no idea what your motivations were. And I’d be willing to bet everyone posting here believes in the value of dialogue and what can be learned from it. But it does involve listening, too, and you haven’t come across as being overly open to that. If you just wanted to get your opinion out, you did. You think the college MT audition process is flawed and in need of improvement. You’ve also provided your ideas for improving it. But you’ve also gotten varying opinions on a lot of different issues here and from a lot of very well informed people. Controversial? Hardly. Religion and politics…well, that’s for another forum! :slight_smile: </p>

<p>Hopefully you got what you were looking for out of this conversation.</p>

<p>BTW, personally, WhyWhy, and everyone who has posted…I have found your opinions interesting and valid.</p>

84

<p>I also find many people discount the academic piece of being admitted to a BFA in MT program. I see many creating a list of schools that offer MT (I see people asking about this on CC all the time) with NO regard to the academic qualifications for that school and if they fit those parameters. So, you can have a very talented kid, for example, who is not a good student and that kid could be turned away from a school like UMich, NYU, Elon, etc. due to not meeting the qualifications the school wants for the student academically speaking. I have seen very talented MT kids with very very very low academic qualifications (I truly mean low), who insist on applying to NYU or Mich where their academic stats will never get in (I truly mean not close). So, part of the issue is the college list each student builds, and not the system itself. If a student is not realistic in the assessment of either their artistic talent OR their academic qualifications vis a vis the programs on their list, it can be problematic. It is already hard enough odds to get in when you DO have the artistic talent and the requisite academic qualifications. Even then you can be rejected. But if you are not really in the ballpark artistically or ACADEMICALLY for a school, it is going to be even more difficult. Academics do matter at many of these programs and they ask for all those pieces and it is not ALL riding on the audition. The audition is the biggest component but not the only component of the admissions decision. Therefore, complaining about having just ten min. to sing/act and one hour to dance isn’t accurate as MORE goes into the admissions decision than that. </p>

<p>The right college list is soooooooo important! And for those who don’t look at the academic aspect of building a college list, that is a big mistake I see often.</p>

85

<p>Incidentally, schools do change their method of auditioning where they think it will better serve their process. UArts implemented a new “day of” call back component similar to what Penn State and some other schools do. This provides additional opportunities to see students after preliminary screening. However, as in all things related to this process, not everyone is happy about the change. There are those who complain that it makes the day too long and those who are disenchanted with the additional stress it creates or the perceived harshness of being rejected on the spot if you don’t get a call back.</p>

86

<p>WHYWHY, if you are still participating (and I do think this discussion is interesting), what are your thoughts on the valedictorian with 2300 SATs, 4.0 GPA, the most rigorous curriculum the high school offers, strong ECs with achievements in them, strong recs and essays, who gets rejected at Princeton? Would you consider the admissions decision flawed? I’m just wondering because the reality is such that some who are rejected are every bit as qualified as those accepted (this isn’t everyone in the applicant pool of course). Same thing happens for the BFA in MT programs who ALSO read the same sort of paper files that BA applicants submit, PLUS hold an audition (so base the decision on even more components). How do you account for the fact that some of the top MT talented kids, who for example, have gotten into a program like CCM or CMU were rejected at NYU, UMich, BOCO, and Syracuse? They obviously have the requisite talent if CCM and CMU accepted them. How is it flawed if the other four schools rejected them? The other four schools did not make a mistake but they had more students who had what it takes to get in than spots in the class. They also had to create a very diverse class of actors (which is also the case with Ivy League schools who want a variety of types of kids). When you apply for highly selective colleges or BFA programs with very low admit rates, it goes with the territory that top students or top talent will also be rejected. I’m curious your take on this issue.</p>

<p>PS, every year on CC (this is my 8th year), I’ll read about parents who are angry at a school like Yale who did not take their very strong student. I have never understood that. My kid got deferred and eventually rejected at Yale and we were never ever upset with Yale, and my kid also did not cry over the rejection. We expected this as a very strong possibility even though we are positive she was qualified. Her own guidance counselor was very upset with Yale and couldn’t understand it and said my D was the best student he had seen in 25 years. But we fully understood the odds. And she got into other top schools (that was her only full rejection). We knew the schools with low admit rates turn away qualified people and there are more people with the same qualifications of those they accept. It just is the nature of elite admissions. Same with BFA in MT admissions. Expect this.</p>

87

<p>I have followed this thread, but held off from posting because I am objective enough about myself to know that I am currently too emotionally involved to be totally objective while currently on this roller coaster. I have had a few thoughts that keep popping up in my head as I read all the pro/con on this subject.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Of course the schools are able to fill their classes with talented student with the current system… and anyone doing a cursory search for information can come up with the low percentage of admission. BUT…</p></li>
<li><p>The system does seem very tilted in favor of those who a. knew from early on that they wanted this and did not deviate much from this path, and b. who’s family had the financial resources to pay for dance/voice /acting as well as travel and audition prep. Anyone whose voice or passion surfaced later and/or whose family could not or would not support this financially and emotionally starts off at a severe disadvantage. Not impossible, but much, much less likely to be able to put to together an appropriate audition(s), AND travel to sites AND apply to a multitude of schools in order garner some acceptances. </p></li>
<li><p>The comparison to professional auditions has some merit, but in my view only in that rejection is part of the profession. For professional auditions, one auditioning should be just that -a professional. In the case of college of auditions, these are kids who are yearning to be given the chance to receive the training and education. They are in other words “amateurs”. Who are, in some cases, going up against the equivalent of professionals and in some cases actual professionals. I (we) have to hope and trust that those on the other side of the table can evaluate more “raw” talent and drive. </p></li>
<li><p>The actual audition process is also made more difficult by the varying requirements for the auditions themselves. Different bar cuts, different time limits, different monolgue requirements, different dance styles. I understand that this is totally the schools prerogative to decide what and how to evaluation. A bit of standardization would help, especially those without a lot of support or coaching to develop several different audition options. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>As an aside, after my D’s audition at American University, along with the decision came a brief, but fairly comprehensive feedback sheet. She (and I) really appreciated it, both the positive and suggestions. I know some school are going to say they get far too many applicants to implement, but maybe more schools could consider doing what Indiana does and video prescreen, audition fewer and make it more meaningful.</p>

88

<p>As someone who’s expecting his third rejection out of six BFA programs to come today:</p>

<p>I would love to think that the process is flawed, if only to validate my ego just a little bit. I would love to blame the schools for not seeing me. Likewise, it’s very easy to blame myself for “not being good enough” or not having the “it” factor. But that’s just not realistic. In the end, I have to assume that if the process doesn’t work out for me this year, it’s not the end of the world. People have talked about living with a college’s rejection for four years. Well, okay. You always have to live with the choices you make and the ones that other people make for you. That said, I’ve started to view each rejection simply as a moment – some sort of juncture. After it’s happened, I can’t change it and I know that they admissions reps at that school certainly aren’t thinking about it. So my only choice is to move on and find my “alternate path”. And if/when I am rejected from every single one of these schools, my path will simply not include going to a BFA program next year.</p>

<p>I do take issue with SoozieVT’s assumption that some ethereal “it” factor exists in some people and not in others. I would steer you to Mamet’s writings on talent (even though he’s full of himself) if you want to read up on it. My personal view is that stage presence and “it”-ness come from an actor’s development. I can mark the point at which people started noticing me in performances very clearly: my smallest role in a show EVER. I was heartbroken at not receiving the lead. I contemplated not even accepting the small role. In the end, I decided to take the casting decisions as a wake up call and truly look at myself objectively. It worked.</p>

<p>My UNCSA rejection said something really interesting: “We urge you not to be discouraged, but to receive our decision as a positive step in the recognition of your talent.” I agree. (I mean, I stormed around and glowered all day when I got the letter, but still). At the end of the day, the only way to truly fall into yourself as a performer is to understand yourself. And that means accepting the heartache and failure as well as the love, success, and ego.</p>

<p>So that’s my view on all of this. There might be technical flaws in the process, but in the end it sends everyone who is truly committed on their path, and isn’t that what we showed up for?</p>

89

<p>Bogface, what I mean about the “it” factor is how I can be watching a high school production and someone in the ensemble stands out who has no lines even, but has that “it” factor that makes you want to watch them. I’m not sure that that can be taught (though it likely does develop over time). I think an audition does involve artistic skill but also it helps to have the “it” factor too, which is hard to define. </p>

<p>You have a good attitude about the rejections. I have a nephew who is trying to enter another major in the arts. He did not get into any of his schools last year. He has taken a gap year, developed further, and so far has all acceptances this year (but went about his college process in an entirely different way and with a different list of schools as well). </p>

<p>If you are truly committed, as you say, you can continue to seek your path to a life in the theater. These rejections will not stop you. </p>

<p>Also, don’t take each rejection to heart. A single audition result is not a commentary on your talent. You could be talented enough and still be rejected as they can’t take each talented person, let alone there are factors beyond your control when they are building a diverse set of types for their class. If you really have it, keep going for it.</p>

90

<p>bogface, I am guessing that you do indeed have the “it” factor if you stood out in your small role. It may be that you just need some help with the audition process. I must also say that your writing is outstanding!</p>

91

<p>I am also impressed by bogface. I think you are going to go far in whatever you do or wherever you land at for college.</p>

92

<p>Thank you all for the feedback! Mompop, the thing about my performance is that I had never stood out before, and haven’t always stood out since. It’s impossible to predict but I know that (for me, at least) it has to do with how committed I am to being with my castmates, so to speak. It’s hard to describe. And thank you for the writing praise! I’ve always loved words.</p>

<p>SoozieVT, the note about your nephew is incredibly encouraging. That might just be me, depending on how this all pans out! (Though I wouldn’t be so brash as to assume that next year I’ll rake in acceptances).</p>

93

<p>bogface, I don’t know your full story but from reading a few posts of yours, you are seeking a BFA in Acting (not MT) but also applied to some BA schools, is that correct? I notice you applied to Vassar, for example (great BA school for theater, though difficult to get into). Is a BFA a “must” for you? I honestly believe for an actor, that the BA route will also suit your goals and purposes. I know some highly talented actors who CHOSE a BA over a BFA (even accepted to BFAs). They have every bit of a chance at succeeding as an actor as BFA students. Further, for acting (way more so than for MT), you can eventually get an MFA after a BA. So, I don’t know that you will be shut out of a school this year at all (unless all your BA schools are of the “reachy” odds variety too). So, if you get into a nice BA, do consider it! Also, I know you started out with rejections but let me say that my theater kid started out with a deferral and a rejection and it was uphill from there. So, a lot remains to be seen for you! Hang in there.</p>

94

<p>Hey Boface you have a great attitude that will get you far in life. </p>

<p>I think one of the biggest problems we face as a society is this fear of failure, win at all costs, and blame the system. Etc. There was a recent pole I read where over 80% of the college graduates thought it was OK to lie or cheat in order to achieve their goal. What kind of children are we raising? Every great inventor had hundreds of previous failures. It is OK to fail or be rejected. </p>

<p>I also disagree with bhmomma about late bloomers being at a disadvantage. First, you have least a year to figure out all the requirements for the schools to learn the required materials. Second and most importantly, schools look very favorably on a prospective student with little or no formal training who performs well at the audition.</p>

<p>SoosieVT is correct when she says people need to be objective when assessing one’s talent. I would love to pitch for the Yankees and believe I can but just in case I am also going to try out for my local over 50 team.</p>

95

<p>SoozieVT, you’re very correct in your assumptions. And yes, all of my BA schools are pretty “reachy” (though I think I have the stats to back a few of them up). Vassar’s really the only one I’d consider getting a theater major in, though. My main hangup about BA programs is more of a personal worry – I tend to get sidetracked by other interesting subjects very, very easily. As much as I know I’d love to study other things, all I truly want is to end up acting, and I’m kind of worried that I would convince myself to settle for something easier. </p>

<p>beenthereMTdad, thanks you! I would tend to agree with you about “failure”. I know students who have been accepted at four Ivy League schools and still were destroyed by rejections from other schools. Students (at least, the ones around me) seem to have the rather destructive habit of viewing each decision as an appraisal of their worth as a person.</p>

96

<p>

</p>

<p>Bogface, I couldn’t agree with you more. I have seen it with my own son, and with others. With very hard work and the right attitude, "it"ness can be developed. Maybe there has to be a certain potential lurking in the individual, and maybe not everybody can reach the same level of accomplishment, but still…</p>

<p>Also I just wanted to say that I am another admirer of your journalistic chops!</p>

97

<p>Bogface, ironically (considering your moniker) you are a breath of fresh air :wink: Keep being awesome and you’ll cause what you want!</p>

<p>Beentheredad – I agree that it is possible for the late bloomers to gain acceptance, and that adjudicators are cognizant of this, as my own “late bloomer” did, but I also know exactly how BHMomma feels, because on the front end of the climb, I can distinctly recall feeling the same way. I think I only got over feeling that way when McSon was admitted and received scholarships to the program of his choice :wink: The blessing in McSon’s case was that he seemed to have just enough of the “it” (not in an acting/mt way) to compensate for a comparatively late start.</p>

98

<p>bhmomma, of course the system favors those who have been training for awhile. Why is that surprising, or even worth discussing? </p>

<p>BFA college admissions are not meant to (and no one I know says that they are) be a democratic system or program aimed at helping those who have not had advantages (such as voice lessons, dance, etc.) compete on a level playing field with those who have had advantages. That’s blunt, I know, but it’s the truth.</p>

99

<p>I think it makes sense that those with more experience and more training are at an advantage for MT admissions. And why shouldn’t they be? They have committed to it and been training for a while. Think of the violin player who has been practicing for years, and performing in numerous concerts, and attending summer music festivals and the like. Someone who picks up the violin in 10th grade is going to be at a disadvantage, it’s true. But doesn’t the person who has trained for this deserve the shot they are being given? I mean I don’t see it as unfair if someone who has only been doing it for two years is not up to the same skill level as someone who has been doing it longer, and the school takes the person with a more solid skill set.</p>

<p>It is a very competitive process and I read on CC people saying that college programs should take kids with potential, and I agree but I don’t think they should necessarily take those with simply “potential” over those who actually are stronger candidates. </p>

<p>That being said, even if someone who has a weaker background over a shorter period of time is at a disadvantage, he/she STILL has a chance of getting in if he/she has raw talent and really shines in the audition. It is harder for them, sure, than someone who has trained a long while, but it is not impossible to get in with far less in one’s background. Schools surely take kids with less training, accomplishments and experiences if they audition well! But these kids are up against kids who have done a LOT (or even kids who attend performing arts high schools and such) and have attained skills to give a strong audition. </p>

<p>Two examples…though not perfect examples but what I can think of off the top of my head…</p>

<p>One…my own daughter. In her case, she definitely has been involved in MT since she was four. Lots of shows her entire life. Dance training her entire life. Involved in music in various facets her entire life. Started private voice in seventh grade. Went away 8 summers to theater camp. However, we have no youth theater programs where we live. We have no drama classes at school. So, for example, she had no acting lessons or classes. I think what she knew of acting was either raw talent or experience from being in shows (which is not the same as training). She did have about a dozen sessions prior to college auditions with an acting coach on the monologues but that was her first and only acting training. While she had significant training in voice and dance, she barely has had anything in the acting category but this coaching right before college auditions. She did well in MT college admissions. But the one thing that was kind of a shocker was when she made the Priority Waitlist at CMU for ACTING! This was the area she did not have training in. And so I think that perhaps she had some raw talent in acting, and she had an “it” factor and had been on stage a lot, and had auditioned a lot, but had no training in what she was doing with that skill area. So from our little rural high school with no drama program, she did all right with the acting auditions. (again, she admittedly has been in MT her whole life and had training in the other two areas). </p>

<p>I can think of one of my students this year. So far, he is doing quite well on several MT admissions. But he has never gone to summer programs. All of his production experience is at his high school and not outside of school. He is involved in music and theatre heavily within his school setting, but that’s it. He has private voice. He has no dance training. He did get coaching this year for the college auditions locally. He did not really have much in the way of “benchmarks” on paper. Having watched a DVD sample, he does have the “it” factor with stage presence. He is doing better on his college results right now than another student who attends a performing arts high school, has had numerous leads in school, summer programs, regionally, and much more training who for sure I thought had a much better chance at this and is a much better student as well. So, I share this because schools do consider those with raw talent who have less training, if they audition well. Auditioning is a skill in itself and so some do well with that and some perhaps not as well. </p>

<p>It is an advantage to be well trained and experienced in MT leading up to college auditions. And it should be. But it is still possible for those with some raw talent who audition very well to still be admitted.</p>

100

<p>I don’t know if this will be of interest to anyone, but I am from the UK, and reading this board has shown me the enormous differences both between the courses, and the audition processes here in the UK and the USA. Firstly, when applying for drama school here (and I am talking about NCDT accredited Acting/Musical Theatre courses here, not university drama courses, and this also applies less to MT courses that are very dance based) you almost have to expect to receive rejections the first year you apply. 18 year olds are very much the minority in drama schools - they generally prefer students who are a bit older, and put a great deal of emphasis on ‘life experience’. Most people apply at least 2 years before getting a place anywhere, and it isn’t actually that unusual for people to be accepted after 4 or more years of applying. MT courses are more likely to accept younger students than acting courses, but even so there generally aren’t that many 18 year olds in a year group. Obviously the number of students applying varies from school to school, but as a rough guide schools accept between 0.5% and 4% of applicants, for example RADA receive over 3000 applicants, and take 30.</p>

<p>The actual audition process is very different as well. I will use GSA as an example of an MT course, as it is one of the most well thought of over here, and the audition is fairly typical. Everyone who applies gets given an audition (although some schools do not audition everyone), and for this you have to prepare 2 songs (the full song, not a 16/32 bar cut) and 2 modern monologues. The panel then hear 1 of each, and they choose which one. There is also a short discussion with the panel, kind of an interview, but not formal. From this they then decide who they want to recall. Recalls take place over 2 days, and consist of an acting workshop, a dance audition, a voice workshop. You have to prepare a pre 1960 ballad, which they hear roughly a 32 bar cut of. There is then an interview. Schools do vary in their audition process, but I think all consist of a first round and then a recall (or 2, or 3 for some schools). Some schools do the entire process on one day, with first round in the morning and recalls in the afternoon.</p>

<p>I don’t know if this will have been of interest to anyone, but if you have any questions I am happy to reply as best as I can.</p>