<p>Michael…some kids really DO think of the liberal arts classes as liabilities!!! They don’t care about them and wish they didn’t have to take them. My kid does care about them and likes them and loves learning that stuff! She doesn’t think of the liberal arts classes as fallbacks or for another career field. Some do think of it that way but just saying, not all do. I have a feeling you’d agree. :D</p>
<p>Soozie - My daughter feels the same as yours. Learning, for the sheer joy of learning, has always been part of her passion. It’s part of the same passion that she brings to her commitment to her performance studies. She firmly believes that taking liberal arts classes, within the context and time constraints of her BFA program, is essential to her development as a person. Like your daughter, she made a conscience decision to attend a school that included some liberal arts in the curriculum of the BFA program and she would not have it any other way.</p>
<p>Geez … I didn’t realize UArts had such a high standard of liberal learning … :rolleyes: ALL the Accredited American BFA schools include some liberal arts in the curriculum. Some more than others. They have to require a certain number to remain accredited.
Not so much “liabilities.” More like a big honkin’ burnout inducing waste of time that the Brits don’t have to deal with. I sure am glad I don’t have to be bothered with them anymore. Having completed all such requirements, I can now rest assured that my development as a person has been duly nurtured. All those RADA grads must be envious. Pu-leez …</p>
<p>
Actually, I didn’t even say that. I said, “There’s none of this business of hedging bets and minoring/double majoring in something to “fall back on,” pursuing other interests or spending energy on general education classes.” Bleh … Now this is turning into a waste of time. Later</p>
<p>My,my, my fish - how did you come to know so much about the world without liberal arts courses? The answer here is beyond simpicity - one would realize that if one had taken a course (or simply read books on their own) on logic or philosophy. If you want to have a fuller understanding of the world around you and how it came to be - attend a four year university with liberals arts components. If you want to focus exclusively on performing arts - go to a conservatory. This discussion is pretty silly as there are many persons who have had wonderful careers from great universities, there are many folks who have had careers who studied at conservatories, there are many folks who have careers that studied in England, Ireland, France,etc., and there are tons of folks who have had careers that only attended the “school of hard knocks”. There are many paths to take to the Great White Way and/or the West End.</p>
<p>Just one comment from me on all this - I actually strongly emphasize having a second career (or fallback option) when studying anything to do with theatre. Yes, once you are part of a performing arts programme, dedicate yourself to it, give it your all, spend all your time and efforts on it. But also have some other options for yourself that you studied either before your theatre training - or after - or during if you can handle it. Lets face it, there are far too many people for far too few jobs in this industry. Cold fact - most of us will have to work in other jobs at least some of the time. In the UK officially only 10% of all Equity members make their living solely from performance related work. The other 90% (including many RADA and LAMDA, etc. graduates whom I personally know) - have to work in other professions. It really is that simple and I am sure the US can provide similar numbers. So having a part time job for example during your training - may be tough but rather than a distraction from your theatre studies, see it as an addition to your learning curve as an actor. Because once you are out there you will be fighting your way through a day job while thinking about an upcoming audition later that afternoon and race to it in the subway and then back again to your day job. </p>
<p>Yes, believe in yourself and aim for the top but lets be realistic as well. More in my book…</p>
<p>P.S. Studying different subjects can often enhance your acting, being a succesful performer is not just about taking class after class and reading Meisner all day. It’s about the real world, real people, real experiences. Just look at Stephen Fry and Emma Thompson who attended Cambridge. Hugh Grant studied English at Oxford. And being broad-minded and OPEN. Thinking only “theatre, theatre, theatre” in my opinion can be limiting in your scope as an actor. I have learnt more in some “real world” jobs about people and situations than in any acting class. Also - what matters in my opinion is the amount of actual performance experience, not necessarily class. These are important but not the be all and end all. You need to practice your craft as much as possible.</p>
<p>There’s a lot that might surprise you, fishbowelfreshman, including the number of high academic achievers who have chosen UArts not only because of the standards of it’s theatre/performance studies but because of the availability of stimulating and enriching liberal arts classes presented in a manner that integrates well with the primary focus on performance studies. Unfortunately, it’s clear that you have no interest in sharing views with an open mind and understanding and respecting the perspectives of those with a different point of view, many of whom on this Board have a wealth of real world experience as theatre professionals. Perhaps you should have taken some more liberal arts classes.</p>
<p>I knew there was a reason I had not previously participated on this thread. 
I’m not interested in the debate on MT vs. Acting and who really can act, etc. I am not interested in debating American training vs. UK training. I am not even interested in debating! LOL</p>
<p>I’ll try to clarify something. </p>
<p>Fishbowl wrote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is exactly what I meant. I was saying that SOME students, and I was talking of some that I know, but actually I think you are one as well, feel that the liberal arts classes are a “waste of time” and they do NOT WANT to take them and have NO interest in them. I am NOT JUDGING that stance whatsoever. I am simply say that SOME feel that way, as I believe you do.</p>
<p>I was commenting that SOME students actually value and WANT to take some liberal arts and theater studies classes. I didn’t say they were necessary or that RADA grads would be envious that American students took them. I am not saying you need them to get to the Great White Way either. I’m not into comparing what path each person has taken as many paths can lead to success. I am not saying you need liberal arts classes in order to be successful and that those who don’t have them should be “envious”. I’m ONLY saying that some WANT these courses. Some feel that the liberal arts courses enhance their overall education and crave an educated mind for their own self. Often that can serve one well in life. They don’t want to only learn a craft but they want to enrich their education for life, for themselves. On top of that, SOME feel that having an education, generally speaking, makes them more employable for life, and not as a fallback career, but simply that an education is valued in the work world. But the other reason SOME WANT liberal arts classes is their personal belief (no “line” they bought into by the colleges themselves) that an educated mind and worldly knowledge can enhance their acting and work in the theater. </p>
<p>It’s perfectly fine that some do not wish to study anything but acting. It’s perfectly fine that some feel that there is no benefit to learn other things in terms of how it affects their work in theater. It is perfectly fine if some feel they don’t need such coursework or even a degree to be more employable across the board. It is perfectly fine if some don’t care about education for their own learning/life. One is not better than the other. Simply was saying that some kids don’t see the liberal arts classes for the purposes of “fall back” or “those dumb requirements” but they actually like and WANT to take such classes for themselves and for life and to enhance their work as an actor. Not all feel the same on this and that was my point. People should pursue what they value, in terms of their education and training. </p>
<p>You also wrote:
</p>
<p>I know exactly what you said and that was exactly what I was commenting on. I was saying that NOT EVERYONE sees the taking of some liberal arts classes in their BFA degree program as “hedging bets” or have any desire to “minor/double major” in something else as a “fall back” option. SOME DO WANT THAT…FOR FALLBACK REASONS. I was saying that SOME want the courses FOR THEIR OWN SAKE and NOT AS A FALLBACK. I have read of students here on CC who want another major/minor or a fallback career, all the time. My point was that NOT ALL who value the liberal arts classes do so for THAT REASON. My kid values the liberal arts classes for DIFFERENT REASONS THAN YOU ARTICULATED. That was MY point. I recognized that some want the courses for the reasons you stated. I see that all the time and I AGREE. But I was pointing out that SOME want the liberal arts classes for their own sake…to enrich their education as they want the educated mind for their life and not for a career. They also believe that their studies outside of the “training” classes, enhance their work as performers. It is OK if you don’t value or want that for yourself. No problemo. My only point was that some see the liberal arts classes as having value and for DIFFERENT reasons than you pointed out (which ALSO are true for some others).</p>
<p>My daughter even tells me that she has peers at her own school who complain about the liberal arts classes and have NO interest in them and try to take the easiest classes they can find. I wonder why they picked that school, frankly. She wonders too as that is part of that school’s program. On the other hand, she loves taking the classes and seeks out ones she is interested in. She has a ten page paper to write for one, but it is on something she is keenly interested in and relates to music, her passion. She enjoys subjects such as politics. She will be an adult citizen and it is enriching to enhance her thinking and her knowledge. Often a good actor is a thinking actor who has a knowledge base to draw upon. An understanding of the world can be helpful. </p>
<p>She has taken courses where she wrote her own scripts and songs and while she is seeking to be a performer, she is skilled at and would also like to create her own works. Taking the course even led to an offer of a well paying professional job in the city for her these past five months. She isn’t looking for a fallback in another career or subject. But she also knows she doesn’t have to wait tables as she seeks work ON stage. She is paid now to work in other capacities in this field, as an arranger, musical director, accompanist and teacher and so her entire education has been helpful in increasing the odds that she will work in the theater and music worlds in some capacity. She actually LOVES some of the work that is not on stage as well and it is not totally a ‘fallback’ but part of what she does out of INTEREST. A person can do more than one thing and be good at more than one thing. And those things may even all be related in the same FIELD.</p>
<p>In any case, people should seek out the education THEY WANT. If they only want to study acting and nothing else, cool. If they want to study acting, singing, and dancing and nothing else, also cool. If they want to study MT and some liberal arts, cool. If they want to do a BA program but also want to go into theater, cool. All these paths fit different interests and needs and values and it is all about finding the path that suits what YOU want. Many paths will lead to success, however. One path is not more “right” than another.</p>
<p>You can actually compare this to the “can you only be a CEO with an MBA from a top school debate”.</p>
<p>You will find that to be successful in business, you don’t necessarily have to have a degree either. It all comes down to passion, drive, innate ability, the courage to take a risk here and there, and a nice dosis of “being in the right place at the right time”.</p>
<p>I personally have found it fullfilling to learn to speak as many languages as I could. Do I really use them all in my daily life? No, but it may have openend a door here or there. </p>
<p>Life is what you want it to be. Everyone is free to elect their own paths along the way :)</p>
<p>We are talking about talent here so there are, of course, many different ways to find success. Then there is the question of does success mean you have talent? Everytime I see an actress or actor that catches my eye, I love to look up their educational background - it usually surprises me in some way. Just yesterday, I looked up Ellen Page because she is getting good reviews for her new movie and I remember her in “Hard Candy.” Edward Norton - local boy to me so I have kept up with him - graduated from Yale and he offers some interesting tidbits in the article pasted below. </p>
<p>[Edward</a> Norton- Yale Bulletin Interview](<a href=“PowWeb”>PowWeb)</p>
<p>I have attended many conferences and committees dedicated to the question; what is meant by ‘liberal education’ and what sort of study is worthy of being defined a ‘liberal art’ (historically, distinguished from the fine arts). The recent Carnegie Commission defines the ‘liberal arts’ so broadly that it encroaches upon what, historically, has been called the ‘fine arts’. We should remember that only a century ago, some refused to define the sciences, language study, and forms of social analysis (sociology) as 'liberal, arguing that they are merely variants of applied study. In the late 19th and early 20th century, American colleges strategically identified themselves by their particular take on the liberal arts - i.e., the debate between those influenced by the British and those influenced by the Germans. Now, the meaning of the term is quite inclusive: (1) the disciplines that make-up the three regions of knowledge - humanities, sciences, social analysis; (2) interdisciplinary study; (3) multidpsciplinary study (the definition presumed by some of you); and (4) area studies. It’s interesting that conservatory-like theater programs in LACs justify their work as a liberal art by (2), (3) and (4).
After spending 20 years teaching in a small LAC that obsesses over the meaning of the term and challenges departments to demonstrate their liberal-art purity, I am beginning to conclude that there is not all that much difference between a BFA Theater major who has to take a handful of General and Distribution requirements and a Physics-Chem double major at a small top fifty LAC that has to take a handful of General and Distribution requirements. Many students in my LAC complain just as strongly about the coursework that they have to take outside their major.
If my S goes to a conservatory-like BFA program, will he be sinning against the values that serve as the foundation of LACs? This is a question that I ask myself all the time. Will I be hurting him in the long-run. Am I denying him the opportunity to window shop all of the fractured knowledge-specializations? I do not know for sure, but I think not. I recall decades ago hearing Buckminister Fuller speak. Someone asked him how he became what he became (a liberally educated man). He said that it was his education at the Naval Academy, which, in his day, was very focused on the art of war. That education forced him to encounter all spheres of knowlede. Though very applied, his education was liberal. Though I am perhaps stretching here, there is some similarity between a BFA Theater education (if not too narrow) and Fuller’s education. When my S reads Brecht’s ‘Mother Earth’ for a performance and when it is explained to him what he is doing and why, he is engaged in an inter/multidisciplinary and area study that sticks to his bones. I am not sure that even the cumulative effect of the General and Distribution requirements is that sticky. If he is passionate in his studies, and if he wants to continue them upon completing his formal education, taking this path of study, and then another, then he is liberally educated.</p>
<p>Nicely put, Brian. Thanks for posting that.</p>
<p>Wish I had time for a long post, but I don’t. Probably shouldn’t now that Brian has said something meaningful, but … Let’s see …
Perhaps you should practice a bit of your own medicine. I detected no slight amount of sarcasm in post #79.
I personally find it interesting to speculate on why and how the UK schools have turned out many of the greatest actors of any generation and why and how the US acting schools have had much less success in doing so. I’m not talking about having a wonderful career. Jessica Simpson has a wonderful career. I’m talking about making art.
It’s not just some. It’s a lot. I certainly don’t see anything wrong with someone wanting to take liberal arts classes, pursuing other interests, etc. If that’s your path, go for it. However, my own observation is that most of it seems to be superfluous to actor training. Remember that I attended a liberal arts heavy BFA program for a semester and I’ll say without hesitation that the skill level of the senior actors at that school didn’t even remotely compare to what I’m seeing now. It’s almost a shame that they get the same degree. It’s not about talent, either. Some of those people were mad talented, but talent is dime a dozen. It’s how it’s developed. Again, the work of the British drama school grads certainly hasn’t suffered due to a lack of general education requirements in their training curriculum. I suppose if they felt it was important, they’d go to a university for a couple of years first and then train. It was actually my impression that many do that at least partially because it often takes two or three audition seasons to even get in one of the better UK drama schools.
Why study for that? Maybe it’s different in the UK, but all I’ve seen here is that any job that requires a college education to get will likely inhibit one’s ability to audition on a regular basis. I’ve found that I can make a lot more money waiting tables than many people five years out of college sitting chained to their flourescent lit desks. It’s not difficult to get out, either.</p>
<p>Yes, fishbowelman, and it was appropriate and deserved given your response in #78 to #77 and certain of the posts that preceded it. I did resist the temptation with regard to post 83, regardless of the uninformed attempt to cast aspersions and belittle a point of view that differed from yours.</p>
<p>Fish, it helps when you quote several different people in one post, to attribute the quotes to who said them or it comes across as a response to one poster when in fact, a few posters are quoted. </p>
<p>You wrote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It very well may be a LOT. I didn’t quantify. The point was that some number (high or low) could care less about taking any liberal arts classes and a certain percentage values those classes for educating their minds and learning and/or to enhance their work in theater itself. And there is a certain percentage, like you said in a post, who want the liberal arts classes as some ‘fallback’ career. </p>
<p>You went on to write:
</p>
<p>While SOME may pursue other interests, others see it as broad knowledge of the mind that impacts their interests in theater itself and in life, but has nothing to do with wanting a career in another area as a fallback. Also, at my daughter’s school, there is a significant component in the curriculum (7 courses) in Theater Studies that provides the intellectual and artistic foundation for a professional life in theater. It provides a context for the training in studio. I think this is true of humanities courses as well. I understand you don’t see the value in it and I think that is fine and thus you have chosen a school that is a stand alone conservatory and that is why people need to pick colleges that suit their learning needs and interests. I see nothing wrong with the curriculum you want. You appear to find something negative or “superfluous” with a BFA in Acting/MT curriculum that includes some liberal arts. </p>
<p>You also stated:
</p>
<p>I don’t see that the differences in skills that you saw between the two schools as necessarily tied into that one BFA program also required some liberal arts. For one thing, I know the two schools you have/are attending and my feeling is that the one you now attend is a more “competitive” program than the other fine program and likely draws a stronger talent pool overall. In terms of reputation, I think this is true in a very general way. But the main thing is that I do NOT believe that the skill level difference is attributable to that those in one BFA program augmented the training with breadth of knowledge or foundation, and some only trained. </p>
<p>You opined:
</p>
<p>I certainly agree. Someone who ONLY does acting training and no other theater studies or humanities hasn’t suffered in terms of their acting skills. Not at all. They may be missing something else in their background but it won’t be acting skills, nope. I venture to say that those who do a BFA that has about a 35% component made up of Theater Studies and Humanities haven’t suffered in their acting training either. They train many hours in studio type classes, as well as work on performing outside of class. Their educational studies are not a detriment to their acting. Some feel that actually such learning benefits their training as an actor.</p>
<p>I agree that those who only train are not less skilled but I offer that those who train and also study are not necessarily less skilled either. And THIS isn’t even counting those who come to acting from a BA path and frankly, there are many successful actors who do a BA program. I know some truly top talented young adults who got into BFA programs but chose a BA path at fine institutions known for good theater which have turned out some very skilled actors. It won’t be the same as BFA training. But all these paths…stand alone conservatory, conservatory in a university, BA, or even just taking classes not in a degree program, can all lead to success in theater. No way is the “best” way. It is about choosing an education that best suits what you are seeking. Just like I wouldn’t want you to have to take a writing or humanities course or have to study Ancient Greek Theater because you do not care to, it would be nice if you were open to those who want to read/write/think as part of their education as an actor and not assume they are less skilled. I totally understand the CHOICES you have made but I don’t think they are “better.” I think they fit what YOU want. Likewise, perhaps you might be open to educational paths to the same end that nobody is saying are “better” but are well suited or valued by SOME (no amounts provided).</p>
<p>QUOTE FISH: “I’ve seen here is that any job that requires a college education to get will likely inhibit one’s ability to audition on a regular basis. I’ve found that I can make a lot more money waiting tables than many people five years out of college sitting chained to their flourescent lit desks.”</p>
<p>This must be the difference between the US and the UK then. A) Waiting tables pays nothing here, like £4.50 an hour. You can’t survive on that in a place like London and eat well every day. I realise that bar tending, etc in places like NY pays a LOT more but in the UK those kind of jobs are not long term opnions to be able to survive living in a super expensive place like London. So you have to look for other jobs which mostly - require a college education. It is simply not true that any job that requires a college education hinders you from auditioning. Not at all. I have been temping on an off for 5 years now (yes, they require a college degree for finance high profile temping that pays well) and never had a problem getting time off for auditions. As long as you do the job well and are usually reliable and offer to make up for lost time etc, people will be understanding. Most of the time anyway. And if I did, I would quit the job and then find another one. Very simple. Fish - I don’t know who told you that you can’t work in a college-ed type job and not audition. It always depends on your employer and the situation. Then again, US employers may not be the same as UK employers, I am only talking about the UK side of things here.</p>
<p>^^^I agree with you, JIJane and do not agree with the quote from fish that a job that requires a college education will inhibit one from auditioning. Actually, my D talks about this all the time and about not having to wait tables (though nothing wrong with waiting tables). She already has been earning money in NYC, albeit without a degree, but of a professional nature doing jobs related to musical theater and she has kept her foot in them because she feels she can do these jobs after college while auditioning because many are flexible and/or she can work as much or as little as she wants. </p>
<p>For instance, she works for a company where she has been asked to teach MT classes for children though she has declined to teach regular classes now due to her own class schedule but everyone who works for this company has a degree and teaches and also auditions. She currently does more flexible jobs for them that she can take as many or as little as she wants where she often works for an hour and gets about $65. She also teaches piano and does it when she can and doesn’t when she can’t and gets $75/hour. She also is a paid accompanist which is flexible and gets paid $25/hour. She is also hired to musically direct which pays good fees for the job, sometimes as much as $250/day. Even back home in our rural area (where she would not be living in order to audition, LOL), she earned $25/hour teaching MT and/or voice. She is paid to transcribe music and can do it on her own time around her own schedule. She could work in a piano bar as a pianist/singer. I realize she doesn’t have a degree but a college degree helps and may allow for some jobs or pay that she can’t do now. </p>
<p>She has tried to set herself up to continue working in these capacities in NYC while auditioning, so that she can earn money related to her craft (doing things she actually loves to do). She talks of friends who waitress to earn money as they don’t have related skills. So, there are jobs one can do in the field, even, that pay a decent wage and are either freelance or flexible and allow one to audition. A college degree is always useful as many jobs would prefer to hire someone with a degree, but this is not always the case. I don’t think my kid is going to be “sitting chained to a flourscent lit desk” because she has acquired skills in theater/music that allow her to work in capacities other than as an actor, and it is not as if these are totally “fallback” but happen to also be enjoyable professional work, yet flexible to be able to do while also auditioning. She knows many who work in the capacities I just described who also audition. It never hurts to have skills in the field beyond performing. You can get jobs but also work for yourself if you have a skill in demand. Currently, my D turns away a lot of work as she there are no more hours in the day but she is pretty confident she’ll be able to work upon graduation doing some of the things she does now, while pursuing auditioning for the stage. Time will tell but I disagree with your assumption, at least from what I observe in my experience.</p>
<p>Just a few observations:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>It may well be true that US training has caught up with UK training. I wouldn’t know about the present. When it starts showing up on stage, I’ll believe it and credit it.</p></li>
<li><p>It may be that acting training in MT programs has caught up with acting training in pure acting programs. I wouldn’t know about the present. When it starts showing up on stage, I’ll believe it and give it credit.</p></li>
<li><p>It may well be that US kids are so well educated nowadays coming out of high school that they should take only trade courses if they want to be actors. My experience working with actors from many different backgrounds is that those with only BFAs tend to be shallow and not remotely up to the demands of the more difficult roles. Overall, I’d say the best actors I’ve worked with have BAs or BSs, coupled with MFAs, with several years of experience in live theater, usually in high-quality theaters where they work with highly skilled, seasoned actors. (Note that, as ALWAYS, there are exceptions). When the actors with only BFAs from programs that are heavy on trade courses start to show that they are capable of doing brilliant Bricks, Willies, Cyranos, Hamlets, Vanyas, and Heddas, I’ll believe it and give it credit.</p></li>
<li><p>I’ve worked with many fine actors who took many different paths, but the most consistently good actors I’ve worked with, top to bottom, have been from the U. of Delaware MFA program.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>When my experience changes, or when I begin to see real changes on stage and screen, I’ll change my opinions in a flash.</p>
<p>For now, I’m going to believe what I see and have seen, absent any other evidence.</p>
<p>I did notice that a number of the actors in residence at American Shakespeare Center had MFA degrees from Delaware.</p>
<p>I absolutely love what Brian said about Brecht and sticky learning and will say that I believe that totally and have witnessed it with my own kid. Couldn’t have said it better…</p>