<p>Hypothetically, would it be better to go to a well known school like Juilliard, or a very small, obscure school that nobody has heard of, but you would be able to perform in every production?</p>
<p>A well-known good school.</p>
<p>I have to go the direction of a good well-known school (couldn’t resist).</p>
<p>x) I suppose that’s about right, but I more meant, is it better to be a little fish in a big pond or vice versa? Going to a small school would guarantee lots of performing experience, but a well-known school looks more impressive to a prospective employer.</p>
<p>Little fish in a big pond…usually the pond isn’t that big because in schools like Juilliard and CMU only 3rd and 4th year can be in shows so your competing with about 20-40 people.</p>
<p>On a more serious note we somewhat faced this at the high school level - go to a slightly smaller school with a younger thespian program or a larger school with a more popular program. We’re glad we went with the former for our son got more/better roles than he probably would have otherwise. </p>
<p>At the college I would opt for the reverse if they wanted to take their shot at making a living at this. Also I equate better known for better prep along with a better post-grad network.</p>
<p>Well-known school in a heartbeat. They are well-known for a reason. It’s not an accident. This is kind of a crazy example but nobody turns down Julliard because they would rather be the lead in every show in a “small pond”. The goal is not to star in college productions it’s to get the training to build a career.</p>
<p>Exactly what I was thinking. If you’re getting your degree just to get the degree, and want the full experience of being in college shows, go to the smaller program. But otherwise stick with the well known. While you might not get big parts at Julliard, that’s not what a prospective employer is going to care about, they’re going to want to know about the quality of the training. When you get the first job, it’s not going to be in a leading role, and they’re not going to be interested in someone who only knows how to be the star. A production is put on by a team, and is only as good as the weekest member of that team. There are no weak team members who graduate from Julliard.</p>
<p>The question is odd, too; Since for the most part the well-known schools are the good ones.</p>
<p>A program, whether it’s well known or not, is going to be as “good” as the work you put into it. </p>
<p>A well known school will much more likely have a good showcase. A good showcase being a showcase that agents/managers/casting directors ACTUALLY attend.</p>
<p>When my son was deciding between acceptances I asked him whether he’d rather be a big fish in a little pond or a little fish in a big pond. His response, “I think I’d learn more as a little fish.” I think he was right, at least for him.</p>
<p>The thing to watch for in a program with a good reputation, is whether the factors/faculty that made that reputation, are still in place.</p>
<p>Interesting question with only a personal answer. Not sure how one would go about determining whether or not a program with a good reputation still has those factors in place or not. One can’t put a lot of stock in what they read since the people that write tend to be the happiest or the most miserable. It would take years for a program with a good reputation to be gutted unless it is tiny and reliant on just a handful of faculty. </p>
<p>My daughter was of similar mind to jasmom’s son and was not interested in any program that was tiny for that reason. She went into it fully aware that performance opportunities will be harder to come by because there more people to compete with. She felt the learning from a larger peer group mattered more to her. But as I said in my first sentence, that was her personal answer. There is no right or wrong answer to the question if you look at it that way.</p>
<p>I’d definitely never chose a school because it’s small/obscure enough that you will land lots of plum roles, but on the other hand I think choosing based on reputation can also be a mistake. </p>
<p>As has already been pointed out, faculty that build a program’s reputation can leave, burn out, or fall out of sync with a changing industry. </p>
<p>A program’s reputation can also be based on one or two grads who were successful for reasons unrelated to the quality of training a program offered. Or a school can be great at selecting incoming talent without doing much to enhance it over 4 years. It may also be that a program is amazing for some people but fails to offer the specific training YOU most need. Or you might not click with the faculty or philosophy of a program in spite of their reputation.</p>
<p>Much is said here about “fit” of a program, and I think that is truly the most important quality, but IMHO “fit” shouldn’t be confused with a place that strokes your ego either through great casting or a great reputation. Fit should be about finding the training/education that you need to build a solid future.</p>
<p>I too think looking for fit is a huge factor. My S auditioned on campus at one of the “well known” schools and he walked away totally hating the school. We had a long conversation about whether he would go there should he get in simply because it’s one of the top five programs. In the end, he decided yes he wants a great program known to produce working actors, but he still wanted to trust his gut and wouldn’t go somewhere solely based on name. That being said we have had the big fish/little fish conversation many times through this process and he absolutely says little fish - I will learn more and be pushed more.</p>
<p>Ps. It was mutual at the “well known” school he didn’t like - he was rejected. I think it just works out the way it is supposed to in the end…</p>