<p>I also think that the relentless focus on Broadway in the rankings misses part of the picture. I noticed in the “Broadway alums” post that both DePaul and CCPA scored pretty low…maybe partly because so many of their kids stay in Chicago and flourish there. I’m guessing that schools like USC and CalArts aren’t Broadway pipelines either, but are excellent if you want to be in movies. Again, no disrespect to the schools that score high, I’m sure they’re great, but it’s a limited metric.</p>
<p>austinmtmom, BW was #11 on the list. I arbitrarily took the top 10 I could have easily taken the top 12, or top 15, or even the top 20. The argument remains valid.</p>
<p>Remember, that is not MY list. It is the list that MTPragmatist came up with. I didn’t want to argue the list here…that was done on the thread where MTPragmatist brought it up. As I said in my original post, I was using that list b/c there is not much else to use. (And, I happen to think the list s/he came up with was quite reasonable. We can argue whether Broadway is a good indicator of success until the cows come home, but this list is ONE way to look at it. Sure, there may be others, but I don’t have those at my disposal.)</p>
<p>My question was why do clearly talented kids who get into some of these top schools get rejected from schools that are farther down on this imperfect but interesting list. I think, if everyone reached deep into their hearts, and put aside their biases of where THEIR kid got into school/attended, etc., you would be able to come up with a list. If we all did that - set our biases aside and wrote down what we thought the top 10 schools were for whatever reason - I think in most cases, there would be a lot of overlap. Particularly for those of us whose kids have not yet been rejected anywhere and have not decided to go to a particular school. Everyone is so defensive about their kids’ school. I understand that. I’m sure I’ll be defensive about my D’s school, too. But I find it interesting that some of these kids get into the schools with great reps, but not others without great reps. And I was asking whether fit or type or yield was the answer. Thank you to those of you who tried to shed some light on this. I think the answer is a little of both. But I think yield does indeed come into play for some of these schools. Interesting…</p>
<p>I myself could not possibly list the top ten schools, on any basis but hearsay. I went to visit some when my daughter was looking and some after she was accepted, but the only school I know in enough depth to talk about is the school she’s at. And I’d be surprised if many of us could make such a list in any educated way. I think it might be interesting to hear professors at different schools make a list like that, or actors agents…but honestly, we’re parents. Most of us aren’t even near the profession (or, I’d say, art) that our kids are studying. Why would our guess at the top ten schools carry any weight?</p>
<p>We will never know the true reason why some of the programs which CC considers to be lesser schools reject some of those applicants who some may consider to be the best candidates. However, I would like to suggest that there is an other factor, a subliminal one. When you have an applicant walking into an audition thinking they are the best now auditioning for a school which he/she assumes to be a lesser, there adds the Diva factor and the attitude that that candidate is better than the school. The college auditors are pretty much experts on what kind of attitudes they want in their programs and teachability and teamwork is an intangible that they are looking for. So, when you talk about fit, it really does go both ways. When the applicant walks on the campus and gets a feeling that he/she does fit vs he/she really just doesn’t want to go that program but is auditioning for a safety, it is really hard for a 17/18 yr old to hide those kinds of feelings and emotions. May I actually end with an additional sigh.</p>
<p>mom2gals, totally agreed!</p>
<p>To add to this (this is a longish post, so bear with me)–As someone who is going through the college application process with my kids for the fourth and fifth time, I can say that this is a <em>highly</em> unpredictable process, not just for theatre, but for <em>all</em> students. It is far, far less predictable now than it was even five years ago. This has to do with the rising number of applicants - the increasing perception that everyone should go to college - combined with the lousy economy and the increasing costs of college and desperation to get in.</p>
<p>My own D’s got into elite colleges and rejected from lower level colleges and other elite colleges. Some colleges offered them fabulous need based grants, others offered them nothing, even those that hinted they would based on their stats. There was no rhyme or reason. I was just talking to my friend, a top guidance counselor, who was telling me of a family friend’s kid who applied to a top Ivy as a double legacy (both parents), with a 4.0, 2300 SATs, top private, etc etc–and who got rejected (not even waitlisted). </p>
<p>Yes, there can sometimes be a Tufts affect.But also this is a <em>very</em> competitive process. When you have admission rates that low, there are going to be irregular and unpredictable patterns. THere is no mystery to that. </p>
<p>But to any college rep who is considering ‘yield’ and the likelihood the student saying yes-- <em>PLease</em> consider finances! My kids have two hurdles–getting in and affording it. And as people have mentioned, the affording part is also extremely unpredictable now too. We have had offers all over the map, not consistent with their EFC. For my own kids, the ‘safety’ may end up being their top choice once financial aid comes into play. </p>
<p>I do have to strongly object to the idea that top ranked schools have the best training. This is just not true. They do often have access to the students with the strongest resumes or talent, often students who already have agents. That doesn’t translate necessarily to the best training. THere are some <em>incredible</em> programs that are ‘less’ well ranked. I don’t know of any professor who would say, “Oh gee whiz, we’re ranked 26, so I guess our teaching sucks.” Every school strives to be the best. And it’s extremely hard to get a job as a professor teaching at these schools too–many are seasoned professionals, even in ‘lesser’ schools. </p>
<p>Finally, as far as schools that have great reputations–marketing and coasting on an older reputation plays into it. Also, from the BFA’s perspective: if you manage to attract kids who already have good agents, then it won’t matter so much how your training is. These kids will go on and have a higher probability of landing a job. You can then claim credit for the training. This happens a fair amount. Ditto for commercial looks–if you recruit based on commercial marketability, you increase your chances that the student will land a commercial job (e.g. TV, commercials, etc). This doesn’t necessarily mean you are giving great training.</p>
<p>If you focus just on immediate stats - x percentage on B’way in y years, z percentage working as an actor 2 years after graduation - you really sell yourself short. I really feel you should look at each program and how much it is a match for you and your needs. I mean, let’s say your goal <em>is</em> to be commercially marketed in LA. Then you might want the school with the best commercial connections in LA. So what? Nothing wrong with that. But know what you want! I think this is the single most important factor is fit. You will be there for FOUR years in a small intensive program. If you are not happy, if the program isn’t leading you where you want to be, if it’s filled with people you don’t click with or who come off as arrogant (to you), if the training style runs against the core of who you are—then how will ranking matter at all? Agents will certainly pay attention if you graduate from, say, Juilliard–that’s true. But they are looking for talent and marketability above all. If you graduate from a 23rd ranked school but are talented, vibrant, filling a high need for the agency–why would that matter?</p>
<p>Awesome posts from mom2gals and connections, and before there is ANY suggestion that connections is just “defending” her kids’ schools…please know that two of her kids have attended programs that are tippy-top in anyone’s book. She knows what she’s talking about.</p>
<p>Connections post is very good in that I think it answers the question. Yes, this does sometimes happen for a variety of reasons. But, there’s nothing you can do about it. Even if you really think your a top tier student you still need some so-called safer choices and if you only get into the top schools and that’s what your after all is well. True safeties would be non-auditioned.</p>
<p>The OP piqued my curiosity about “yield protection,” aka “Tufts Syndrome.” While the blogosphere is full of speculation and outright drivel about the topic, I looked through many pages of Google searches and failed to find any in-depth academic studies of yield protection. From the little that I could find: (a) it seems intuitively obvious that yield protection occurs, at least in some schools, as an out-growth of basic human nature, and (b) it is doubtful that many admissions offices would be willing to disclose much or any information relating to the topic.</p>
<p>I did find one interesting article by an admissions officer at the U Michigan School of Law:</p>
<p><a href=“https://www.law.umich.edu/connection/a2z/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=11[/url]”>https://www.law.umich.edu/connection/a2z/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=11</a></p>
<p>The article contained this quote, one of the few admissions (sorry for the pun) that I have seen from a professional in the field about yield protection:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Extrapolating from the examples cited in the article, here are some possible explanations for an applicant being rejected from an MT program that lacks the notoriety of a school (or schools) at which they do gain an offer:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>A negative/red flag was detected by a school that other schools overlooked, ignored, or did not appear in their process (and these can occur just due to basic differences in faculty personality between schools, not to mention different admissions processes): the applicant ignored audition instructions for material selection or committed some other obvious faux pas, there was a poor explanation in an interview, the application contained one or more unenthusiastic recommendation letters, there was an incoherent or off-putting personal statement in the application, etc.</p></li>
<li><p>No “zing” or “spark” - the applicant had great skills and talent but there was, perhaps, something perfunctory and/or uninspiring about the audition.</p></li>
<li><p>Perceived lack of interest - the applicant did not demonstrate a high level of interest in the school.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>To echo a previous post, any or all of these could be attributed, rightly or wrongly, to a perceived “diva factor” (to put it ungraciously), which I have no doubt occurs in some very capable applicants in at least some circumstances (ego is not a rare quantity in show business).</p>
<p>Combine these factors with other factors noted in previous posts that can cause a poor audition, such as illness, exhaustion, type, style, interpretation, material preferences, etc. and it would surprise me very much if even the most qualified applicant, “got in everywhere.” There seems to be variance in all highly selective processes, even ones much less subjective than the MT audition process.</p>
<p>I have to also add that, IMHO, trying to come up with a definitive rank order of MT programs on which to base comparative judgments about success or failure at various auditions is at best so full of speculation as to be relatively useless. Is Florida State “better” than Penn State because they win some count of grads listed in Playbills 14 to 9? Really?</p>
<p>For a general discussion of yield protection, I found this article from the WSJ was informative:</p>
<p>[Glass</a> Floor: Colleges Reject Top Applicants, Accepting Only the Students Likely to Enroll - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB991083160294634500,00.html]Glass”>http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB991083160294634500,00.html)</p>
<p>These are all very good posts. </p>
<p>I just want to say again that very qualified candidates may get rejected simply because they can’t take every highly talented applicant due to the numbers. The applicant may do NOTHING wrong and may have what it takes to be admitted, but still not be accepted. This is true in competitive MT programs just like at Ivy League schools. The Ivies reject kids with perfect SAT scores, GPAs and the like and will readily state that they could have filled their class two times with just as qualified a class as they did admit. I would not analyze why a highly talented candidate did not get admitted to X school but got into Y school. The sheer low acceptance rate means that it is statistically not likely that even the top candidates will be admitted to all schools.</p>
<p>^ But still, Soozie, if 100 are completely and totally equally qualified in every possible way, yet they can only take 50, there has to be SOME reason a particular group of 50 get chosen. Back to the coin flip…and yeah, they’re not gonna tell us ;)!</p>
<p>^^True…so just know the ODDS going into it and try not to take each rejection personally.</p>
<p>I think this is being overanalyzed. There are two probable reasons:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Talent: As much as we don;t want to hear this as parents, sometimes our kids just don’t audition as well at one place as another. So you might bomb an audition at a lesser known school and nail the one at a more well known school.</p></li>
<li><p>Fit: You could do a great audition but if a program already has three kids with your child’s look, vocal range, etc. odds are they don’t get a spot</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Since the “diva factor” has been mentioned, I will let you in on another secret. If the applicant or his/her parent is rude to the staff, believe me, this will be noted. If the school is on the fence about which student to admit, the nice one will get in. I have been on the staff at many, many auditions, so I know! (Mine were classical music auditions, but I have heard that the stage is the same. In the case of child actors, if it’s a choice of two, the one with the less obnoxious mother will get the nod.)</p>
<p>Prodesse makes a good point. Two summers ago I attended an informational session with the Chair of an MT department. He told the kids and parents there that the first thing they look at during an audition is how one enters the room and interacts with the accompanist. He told all of us that if they see an attitude they pretty much put a line through that person and move on, regardless of the quality of the audition. In his words, they will interview hundreds of very talented kids for about 20 spots. They don’t have to deal with attitudes. They will just turn that person down, and get 20 talented kids who show they can work together with their class and with their professors for 4 years. Their program is like a family, and they don’t see any reason to bring someone in who would disturb that. </p>
<p>None of us like to think our child does not do a good audition, or that their type may not match a program, or heaven forbid that our child would have an attitude that would turn off program X. But each of those things happen, and it’s part of the business. You just try to make sure your child isn’t the one with attitude, and the others (quality of audition and fit), you just hope for the best.</p>
<p>Oh, and one other thing that can distinguish: grades. First thing he said to the kids is they want smart students. So if they have a choice between two they will tend towards the one they know can handle the academics.</p>
<p>All of this is true but it gets uncomfortably close to, “What did I do wrong?” for my tastes. There are lots of times where you did nothing wrong, no flu, no bad attitude, no evil stage-mother, no blowing your audition for whatever reason, and they will choose someone else. Put 100 kids before 10 panels and you will not get the same top ten every time. It’s also a mistake to even think they are going for the top ten. I also believe a national award-winner with a string of professional credits might be a bad “fit” for an unknown little program in the hinterlands. I do believe a school could balk at perhaps being used a safety. Some, like Muhlenberg, are very up front about that and reject those students routinely.</p>
<p>Correct. Sometimes there is no reason other than there are a ton of kids and just a few spots and programs make the best decisions they can. Most programs could probably take any of the top 100 kids that audition and do fine. But there are things within one’s control that should be controlled to not diminish one’s chances.</p>
<p>All of the points being made are true. </p>
<p>Keep in mind, however, that auditioning/talent is very subjective. It is not an exact science. It is not like an SAT score, etc. Not all auditors are attracted to the very same talent in the first place. You can only control just so much. Do your best and try to not analyze why X school said no, while Y school said yes. You’ll never know and just drive yourself crazy.</p>