<p>I just wanted to comment on what Lorelei said about instrumentalists/string players, and the answer on whether it is better to go to the ‘big school’ depends. The thing about the big schools is because they have the name and hopefully the faculty to back it up, the average level of playing is going to be higher. The upper end orchestra at Juilliard (I am using that term, Juilliard doesn’t have fixed orchestras as such, but they tend IME to pick the top notch kids for certain orchestra performances, and this is what I mean) is incredible and if you compared it to a program with more varied levels of admission or one that is smaller, it might not be as good, and I could argue that going to Juilliard in that case might give an advantage, especially to a student who hadn’t had much orchestral experience until they got into school. On the other hand, is it worth going into ridiculous debt? I would argue no, simply because a lot of instrumentalists go on to grad school these days, and it is just too tenuous to have those kinds of loans.</p>
<p>A lot of it depends on the teacher, too. You can get into a program like Juilliard, Rice, etc, and get a teacher whom you would do worse with then a teacher at a ‘lesser school’. Getting a great teacher, one you know you can fly with, at a ‘lesser’ school could be a lot better than a ‘run of the mill’ teacher at ‘the great school’, which can happen, despite what they will tell you, not all their faculty is going to necessarily be world class, but more importantly, may be great with some students but not a particular one. </p>
<p>There is truth to the idea of a teacher and connections, but it depends on the teacher. Some teachers with a ‘great reputation’ from what I hear on the grapevine may be good teachers, but do little to help push their kids forward, others make it a point to help the kids beyond the lessons, introducing them to people, getting them into programs and so forth. It could be a ‘lesser name’ teacher because he/she has her nose to the ground, at a ‘lesser’ school, knows more people and networks, unlike the ‘great teacher’ who specilalizes in preparing kids for competitions to become the next great soloist…it all depends.</p>
<p>The advantage of the ‘big school’, the one that can be so selective because it has the name and reputation, is that it can drive a student forward, and that is a big deal. Being the big fish in a small sea can work for some students, for others it would cause them to stagnate because there was nothing to ‘reach’ for, whereas being the small fish in the big sea can drive someone to move forward. Being the best student in a good studio may be less rewarding then being the bottom of a great studio. </p>
<p>As far as wind versus strings, this is mostly pure speculation on my part, but I would argue that the quality of the orchestra program along with the teacher is important. Even though most string players will end up in ensemble work, their training is still incredibly weighted towards solo repertoire, and while they of course do orchestra and chamber, they aren’t quite as tied to the ensemble work in school in terms of their learning. Wind, brass and other ‘orchestral’ instruments, on the other hand, do a lot of their teaching on orchestral and ensemble works, that is their ‘rep’ to a large extent IME. Having a great orchestra program IMO could be a big benefit to wind and brass players (btw, I personally am of the opinion that with strings, far too much emphasis is put on the solo rep, that they should be working more on orchestral and chamber pieces; other then certain sonatas, almost all the work is on solo pieces. given the odds of a solo career are worse then mine becoming president, and most musicians do ensemble work, it would make sense) and the quality of the orchestra may be huge. Even for string players the level of playing in orchestra and chamber can be a major factor.</p>