<p>Okay, so from here I think people may need a thorough list of hard to get into programs, because we have to be honest, at one point we may have thought to be easy! So, to make this easy…
rate each school on artistic acceptance difficulty on a scale of 1-10
1 being super easy.
10 being close to impossible</p>
<p>Copy and paste this, and add to the list.</p>
<p>[ color=red ]School name: difficulty on scale [ /color ]</p>
<p>Oh yeah- thanks :)</p>
<p>How do you intend to determine difficulty? Purely numeric (# who audition vs # accepted?) or using other factors… which could become subjective rather than objective rather quickly</p>
<p>@toowonderful thanks for clearing that up, you hit the nail on the head, # of auditionees vs # of acceptances</p>
<p>I think that numeric would be valuable info- the other way could open a can of worms… =; </p>
<p>What I think you are looking for, rather than difficulty, is ‘odds’. And to be accurate, male/female auditionees should be considered (although I am not sure where one would get the raw data). </p>
<p>So, what would be helpful would be data like…</p>
<p>Triple Threat University (TTU): [auditioned] 400f/150m [accepted] 10f/10m [odds] f= 40:1, m=15:1 </p>
<p>But do schools really share the number of auditioners? </p>
<p>Although this data will be interesting it won’t be a measure of quality in any way. This data will only measure the odds of admittance.</p>
<p>Expanding on the comment in evilqueen’s post, it is pretty easy to postulate several factors that might significantly bias and thereby severely limit the utility of any data collected on this topic:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>There is likely to be significant variance in the composition of audition pools across the spectrum of MT programs. Some programs draw extremely competitive audition pools from across the nation while some programs may draw relatively large audition pools but may not attract as many uber-talented applicants. Directly comparing numbers from programs with distinct variance in the composition of audition pools may not tell you much. Some very well-established programs that have built a well-known reputation for being highly competitive for entry may attract fewer (but more competitive) applicants than relatively new, well-publicized programs with well-known faculty.</p></li>
<li><p>There is a distinct lack of systematic accounting methods used to estimate the size of audition pools quoted by MT programs. Some programs quote what seem to be fairly fantastic numbers of applicants compared to numbers quoted from other programs. I also suspect that it would be difficult to get accurate numbers of acceptances that include all wait-list offers made.</p></li>
<li><p>Some programs may attract a disproportionately high number of under-qualified applicants.</p></li>
<li><p>Some programs may attempt to maximize the number of applicants, some may not.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>And so on and so forth.</p>
<p>Yup, exactly @EmsDad 
Well said.</p>
<p>EmsDad…excellent points.</p>
<p>Also, most BFA in MT programs have an acceptance rate somewhere between 2 to 10%. So, just based on numerical odds, there isn’t a whole lot of difference between the chances of getting into a school with a 3% acceptance rate than a school with a 9% acceptance rate. Both odds are pretty tough. </p>
<p>With the odds of getting into a particular BFA program being quite low, there is often no rhyme or reason that is apparent why a particular candidate got into X school but not Y school when in some instances, X school is considered more competitive than Y school (not just numbers, but overall reputation, etc.). This happens at schools that have such low acceptance rates that they cannot accept every highly qualified candidate. Thus, there are anecdotes galore of kids who got into CMU but not Emerson, UMichigan but not Penn State, NYU/Tisch but not UArts. This happens outside the MT admissions process when one candidate gets into Harvard and not Yale and another kid gets into Yale but not Harvard. </p>
<p>And as EmsDad points out, the applicant pool varies at these BFA in MT schools. So, percentage of students accepted won’t give you the whole picture as to which school is considered harder to get into than another. With the risk of likely offending someone here (sorry), but I imagine many would agree that it is harder to get into UMichigan than into Emerson even though both have very low acceptance rates. I think many would say the odds are tougher at CMU than at Penn State, even though both have very low acceptance rates. Same idea comparing CCM with Point Park. Same thing with NYU/Tisch and Ball State. </p>
<p>It will also vary from year to year. Overall there are more MT applicants than before, say, “Glee.” Sometimes a particular school is “hot” – for example, at the moment Ithaca is probably harder to get into than it used to be. I suspect that the large coaching companies also have influence on where students apply.</p>
<p>If you could actually get these figures, it would be a starting point, but I don’t think you can. There may be some schools here and there that will share that info, but very few. Sometimes a school will throw out an estimate such as: We had 1300 prescreen applications, auditioned 800, accepted 30 and yielded 14 (7 Men and 7 Women). But it is rare. And then there are all the reasons mentioned previously as to why even an accurate statistic is imperfect. There are other issues. If the 1300 prescreen applicants included 200 boys and 1100 girls, who cares what the overall odds were. The odds for boys vs girls is very different. Let’s say a program accepted no tiny blondes and you are a tiny blonde sopranos? But next year they need to compensate by taking three tiny blondes sopranos? All this changes your odds considerably, but you just won’t know it. And never will. It is hard to accept. Do some schools have a reputation for being the most competitive to get into? Yes. Are there some excellent schools that have better odds than those? Yes. Are there some great programs that accept a high number of students? Yes. I would forget about the actual numbers and go with generalities. </p>
<p>^^^^YES!</p>
<p>I do agree with the original OP that it would be interesting statistical information to have a numeric count of how many auditioned and how many were accepted- although I also agree with all the points that have been made the inability to get accurate data, and about how this process is influenced by so much more than numbers. I also think that one would need to reflect on what would be done with the info if it WAS available (the numerics). Would you encourage your child to only audition for programs that took larger numbers of students? That may or may not be effective? My D is going to NYU, which I am fairly certain accepts the largest number of students in terms of straight numerics. But I don’t think it is known as an “easy” program to get accepted, especially given the academic component. I do admit that the VERY small numbers of some programs can be daunting- for example, when I found out Otterbein had a class of 8 I questioned D’s choice to audition there. Turns out 2 of the 4 girls they took are from D’s PA school- what are the odds? BW took 17 this year (according to a different cc post) and we know 4 of the 7 boys…again 3 from PA school. Numbers are interesting- but they are only one part of the story</p>
<p>I have seen exactly the same thing as @toowonderful about the kids in this area. (Not PA schools) Often times they take-up two slots in a class of 20 and at a few schools this is the case for 3 of the 4 years. What are the odds? There really are too many factors to make this a true mathematical computation. </p>
<p>I must chime in, and tell people not to let the numbers scare you away. My son (I know, Boy!) did get accepted to Otterbein for Acting, auditioned for MT. I won’t repeat his background, but the gist of my post is you never know what a school is looking for in the audition, and you won’t have a shot if you don’t audition. I do think a school list should be thoughtfully assembled. With the exception of Pace and CMU, all his schools were most likely financially feasible.</p>
<p>I’m gonna throw out here yet again that those numbers may mean very little at the biggest-name programs (and increasingly at all the programs), mainly because a high number of applicants and a low number of acceptances indicates less about selectivity and more about POPULARITY. A lot of kids apply to CMU, U Mich, etc. (my kids included) because they want a CHANCE to be seen for one of those few coveted slots. It’s the “you’ve got to be in it to win it” mentality. Knowing the acceptance rate isn’t helpful because a lot of kids are gonna apply anyway, simply because they want a shot! And, who knows, your kid could be exactly who they’re looking for that year. </p>
<p>I’d argue that more important than worrying about these numbers is solid audition prep (online, school-based, summer programs, solo, coaching, books, whatever form you choose is fine) and researching schools you can afford IF you get in. To that end, use the merit aid calculators and need aid calculators available online and on school websites, because the worst scenario is getting into the dream school and not being able to go for financial reasons. Or, having to leave after a year because the money runs out.</p>