<p>I think the equivalent of red shirting is the gap year, which is fairly common in MT and acting programs. There’s no real benefit to the school of their being eligible for all four years, so I can’t see a red shirting program as in big-time sports. </p>
<p>I believe Carnegie Mellon has allowed students to enter a semester or year late in order to finish a professional gig. There was a student at OCU who started a semester late, also due to a professional opportunity. </p>
<p>I know quite a few students at Northwestern have taken time off to do professional shows.</p>
<p>I can imagine that for certain character and vocal types there might be real benefit in a delayed start to a career, while for kids who read young doing the opposite (skipping school and getting to professional work ASAP) might make sense.</p>
<p>When I first saw the term, I assumed “redshirting” meant cutting… ala Star Trek. :)</p>
<p>We have a friend who was accepted at TSU and allowed to defer for a year because he booked a TV show. The show was picked-up for a second season so I don’t think he will go at all.</p>
<p>As I understand it- deferring for a year is not uncommon for professional work- but you still do 4 years in the program. </p>
<p>@evilqueen - Next time you’re perusing your PlayBill collection, maybe you can notice if National Tours seem to be a necessary rite of passage to Broadway for most people. </p>
<p>Yes, @MomCares. Our application numbers are pale in comparison. Hate to think what their numbers would be if they were applying for MT!</p>
<p>Hah - it might require several years (and a few spare sets of parents) to do 86 MT college auditions. Perish the thought!</p>
<p>Note that the Times article actually uses a conservatory applicant as a specific example of excessive applications without commenting on the profound difference between ‘regular’ LAC applications and those that require auditions. </p>
<p>“Brandon Kosatka, director of student services at the Thomas Jefferson School for Science and Technology in Alexandria, Va., recently worked with a student who wanted a spot in a music conservatory program. To find it, she applied to 56 colleges.”</p>
<p>I’d wager we all agree that 56 is overkill but perhaps Mr Kosatka could have reined the student in a bit or at least explained to the Times how such a number might be reached given special circumstances. </p>
<p>In my opinion, if kids inlude a REAL safety (financially safe as well as academically and artistically) they should need under 12 schools on their lists. That said, even though D went into the fall with two firm acceptances she kept applying to extra schools that approached her after she’d gotten through the apps on her original list, either to give herself the maximum number of options or because she’d put herself on essay autopilot and couldn’t stop herself. 
And since she was admitted ED to her top choice, that ultimately just meant more schools from which she had to later pull her applications. That process alone would take weeks with 86 schools!</p>
<p>I think we are so caught up in our own world that we don’t see other programs being equally competitive. All you have to do is look at the engineering threads on CC to see that those people are fighting for spots also. Its basically just damn tough out there. I completely agree that a truly balanced list makes more than 10-12 schools unnecessary and how could your kid really be a fit for more than that??</p>
<p>So true! S is a science kid, and even with virtually perfect stats he also needed to apply to a dozen top schools to feel confident of securing a spot. And I hear these days PostDocs are the (underpaid) equivalent National Tours.</p>
<p>So when you build all those new theaters, be sure to include research labs in their basements! ;)</p>
<p>An article in The Times about equity versus non equity tours: <a href=“Equity Tries to Influence Show Tours - The New York Times”>Equity Tries to Influence Show Tours - The New York Times;
<p>Interesting article. Thanks for sharing it!</p>
<p>
But I wonder how many of the 25 Equity tours are low-paying SETA contracts.
If some actors are really making only $550/week on Equity tours it is sad, though I suppose at least the travel conditions and safety and insurance status is better. And I’m not sure the “recent Broadway production” distinction holds, as I can think of many recent Broadway shows the went straight to non-equity tours.</p>
<p>Here’s another article that does a good job explaining the current touring environment. <a href=“http://www.backstage.com/news/equity-national-tours-explained/”>http://www.backstage.com/news/equity-national-tours-explained/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What stands out to me the most in that NYT article is Martin Charnin saying there’s no difference between Equity and non-Equity. I think that’s the real problem: the fact that non-union tours are only non-union for the ACTORS. They can still use Broadway directors, choreographers, and other creatives like Martin Charnin, and they call it a “Broadway tour” and charge Broadway prices. I don’t think that’s fair. I think there should be solidarity among Broadway professionals: if you’re not using Equity actors, you shouldn’t be able to use Broadway ANYTHING or ANYONE.</p>
<p>Now, let me be clear: I’m NOT saying non-Equity shows shouldn’t exist. It’s fine that they do, and it’s a good way for actors to start building credits before they’re Equity. I’m just saying that there should be a VERY clear demarcation between Equity tours and non-Equity. The Equity tours should be the ones called “Broadway tour” and using the Broadway creative team and charging the Broadway prices. JMO!</p>
<p>Excellent point @actorparent I would guess that AEA has explored this territory with the other unions involved but perhaps that would bear repeating.</p>
<p>For those with kids home for holiday breaks, it would be interesting to hear what, if anything, kids are learning about this recent history and these issues in school. Are schools offering advice about which jobs to take and which to avoid? Are any actors apt to face retribution later if they do non-equity tours?</p>
<p>I know last year when I had occassion to ask a couple NYC old timers about some job choices their “don’t take the non-Union tour” responses were instant and consistent. But it’s not a simple choice for everyone.</p>
<p>None of the non-union actors I know who have worked in non-union tours have suffered repercussions nor retribution. Many are now AEA members. </p>
<p>Non-union actors work at non-union (including non-union jobs at theatres where others are under AEA contract) job opportunities until they are in the union. </p>
<p>I cannot speak for other schools, but where I teach we do talk with current students (generally as part of classes, and specifically when related to job offers) and alums (when asked… which is often) to help them weigh the pros and cons of job offers… including the AEA/ non-AEA question. I would imagine that other schools do as well. </p>
<p>AEA & SAG-AFTRA need to improve outreach to BFA and MFA students with some solid curriculum to help students understand what a union is, what it does and in what jurisdiction, what benefits can be earned, how and why the performers unions were formed, what the relationships are between unions, what the member’s role is within the union, and so on. Given that many more young folk are growing up without a union member as a parent, it’s clear that more basic understanding of collective bargaining in general may be needed. It’s terrific that teachers are addressing some of these concerns on an as-needed basis but consistent curriculum across the country would be a real benefit to students. Misinformation abounds.</p>