Saturday, September 26, 2015
How Educational Elitism Is Hurting Theatre
OnStage: We’re getting closer to the end of August, meaning that many students across the nation have just started – or are about to start – the Fall 2015 semester at the college or university that they currently attend. Personally, as I near the start of my last year of college, I am reminded of something that I’m sure many other college theatre students in America have faced at one point or another, and if they haven’t, probably will eventually. It is a problem that I believe is very unfortunate not just for us, but for the entire theatre community. Whenever I tell someone that I went to a local state university in Willimantic – as opposed to one of the larger and more well-known universities in the country – I get very similar reactions from various people. Sometimes it appears in the form of a “Well, why do you go there? Why not [insert school here]?” as if they believe that I am not as smart or talented as someone else might be, while in other cases it appears in the form of either a “Huh” or “Oh, okay” as they nod their heads, heavily indicating that they don’t think much of the college education I have received. In a few other cases, the reaction is merely complete silence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
I agree and disagree with this article. Productions certainly shouldn’t be hiring purely based on which college people went to - there are people good at what they do everywhere. However, I do think there is a reason why “educational elitism” exists: because often education is better at certain schools than others despite our hope that education should be the same everywhere. Of course, colleges don’t define personal skill level/ability, but they do the employers an idea of what kind of training that individual has received. Just like how colleges look at your grades when you apply and how companies of other industries look at your resumés, which school you went to is part of what defines your level of experience.
As a new freshman in college, I’ve been thinking about the value of a college degree/ a well known college name for a while. Obviously, as someone in the drama program here at CMU, I can’t honestly say that I don’t think it matters what college you go to, as if I did believe that, I wouldn’t be at such an expensive university far from my family. During junior year when I began to do research about colleges and theater colleges in general, I realized that a lot of the common advice people give about college isn’t applicable when you want to go into a conservatory program. For me, the answer was clear; I wanted to be a successful theater designer, and I wanted to be a part of a hard-working program. That’s something that has struck me a lot recently; how nice it is to be surrounded by fellow designers, managers, performers, directors and dramaturgs who are as passionate about this art form as I am, and who reached for the most unattainable- seeming theater school they could find, and made it. That being said, of course the amount of people who are able to attend such a prestigious university for an arts degree is an infinitely small part of the population. And to a degree, I do agree with the idea that a lot of the hype around theater schools is the idea of putting an impressive name on your resume. I think I’m still thinking about the value of a prestigious college vs. monetary value, but I’d be lying if I said that I’m not happy to be here.
This article poses an interesting question, and one which gives me some mixed emotions. Because educational elitism is a very real thing, and as someone who is now considered a part of the ‘educationally elite’, it’s weird to be called on my privilege. But also, up until a few months ago, I was in no position to judge. It’s so easy to get caught up in the CMU reputation, and it’s certainly flaunted everywhere you look. Even the walls of Purnell are plastered with the achievements of its alumni. And it’s an exhilarating feeling; knowing that you have a network of success behind you. I don’t think it’s wrong to flaunt these things either. CMU works hard to create an amazing program, and that effort shouldn’t be ignored. But beyond the supportive walls of Purnell, it isn’t difficult to imagine people becoming a bit snobbish. And I’m not sure that’s entirely fair. Because up until a few months ago, I could have just as easily been one of those people studying theatre at a smaller, more local school. I still stand by the statement that college admission is more a game of luck than anything else. I mean, sure, everyone worked hard to get in to CMU, but there were people who were waitlisted, and maybe were just barely not waitlisted. And the difference between that person and myself could have been something as simple as one sentence in an interview. I don’t think those are grounds to think I’m better than someone who didn’t get in to CMU. Talent is talent, regardless of anything else. I’m definitely going to keep this in mind from now on. Even with the thrills of a big name school like CMU, I could just have easily been at any other school.
Although I agree with the author's point, I think that they almost ended up being an example of their own point. I definitely think that it's true that educational elitism is harmful to students going through the college application process. Ranking theater schools creates an adding stress for students that they have to get into one of these schools to be successful, which is simply not true. Some of the programs at "top" schools might not even be right for these students, and they shouldn't be forced to go somewhere that they hate just because people think it's a good school. The most important thing to do is to find a school that's right for you, which was the reason I decided to come to CMU. The fact that that author thinks that, "the best reason to go to one of these top schools in the country is to simply be able to tell future directors, producers or employers that you went there", is in itself elitist. The reason that people come to CMU is for the training that they offer, and this author is spreading the idea that people only come here for a brand name school. Some people may think that CMU is promoting educational elitism, but the reality is that this idea is only perpetuated by people who don't go here. Educational elitism is something that should be eliminated, but it will take a change of attitude from the entire community for it to change.
Programs get reputations for a reason. Before coming to Carnegie Mellon I got a BA in Theatre from Loyola University of Chicago. Never heard of it? Not surprising. It’s a really small program that, honestly, has an ok program. It’s true that really good people can come out of any program, Jennifer Morrison of Once Upon a Time fame graduated from Loyola. I would say though that those people are few and far between. If I hadn’t come to grad school I would NEVER be on the path I’m on now. I certainly would not have developed the skills and gained the connections that I have now. I will say that I did need that general theatre education to get me on the right path and that I would not be here today without the people I met in undergrad. However, without Carnegie Mellon I would be a stuck as a stitcher in studio in Chicago with no dreams of moving up.
Of course educational elitism is a real and present issue. And I do believe that people should be hired based on their talents and abilities, not what school they went to. No artist should be dismissed because they went to a community college. But on the other hand there is a reason people work their hearts out to attend Harvard Law or Yale Drama, there is a reason I am paying thousands of dollars a year to attend Carnegie Mellon. These names stand out on a resume or in conversion. People are impressed when I say where I go to college. But they stand out for a reason, and it's not just the brand name. These programs have built up a reputation by providing some of the best training in their fields, they have excellent facilities and amazing instructors, and by going there you gain experience that you wouldn't get anywhere else. Schools like CMU also give their students a step up by providing an unbelievably impressive network of alum. Every day I can't believe that I'm walking the same hallways as some of my idols.
So while educational elitism does not serve someone looking to hire the best people because they might overlook a great candidate but they also know the quality of the education that someone who attended CMU received and how hard they worked to be where they are. And unfortunately it is easier to look for those buzzwords that translate to talent and ability than actually sifting through ever possible diamond in the rough. Hopefully with more awareness we can do away with this, and people from CMU will have an advantage because of the education they had instead of just the name.
A kid in my school started yelling at me in my last few weeks of school for going to a private college instead of community college. He said, "Community college is the best, most efficient economic decision. If you don't go there, you're an idiot." (Yeah, he really said idiot.) Now, there's nothing wrong with going to community college. Several of my best friends do. But I knew community college could not provide me with the academic rigor I needed. And yes, it will be super cool to put 'Carnegie Mellon - School of Drama' on my resume, but I'm here because I know this school will prepare me for future jobs. Not that another school wouldn't - but I know this in the environment I need, not necessarily the environment someone else would need, though. And yeah, financials are a killer, too. It makes sense why someone wouldn't come, but it also makes sense why someone would.
I got the job I had this summer because I went to CMU.
On the one hand, I frequently hate talking about where I go to school, because it's true, I seem elitist, and annoying and whatever-other-term-you-want. But, I also have consistently been the most driven person at every job I've held since coming here, whether it's been in the theater industry or not. This summer, I worked with a smattering of people on the same "Educational level" (rising seniors) as I, and our differences were astounding, not because their intellect was any less sharp than mine, but because they were all getting BAs, and theater was an educational, rather than vocational, subject for them. I decided to go to theater school as a third-trimester sophomore in high school, when I was through with academia for it's own sake and needed to learn some skills. When those are your goals, there are only a couple of schools that fit. As much as I groan about the place, getting accepted to CMU's program has been the thing that's kept me on the path to reasonable, independent adulthood.
Also, I rather resent these articles that assume that all theater school is acting school. I don't know, or pretend to know, anything about acting programs, but I know that in management, the durability of ones ultimate career has very little to do with their level of pure talent, and much more to do with both their drive and the skillset they've learned, as well as the connections they make, all of which are things CMU does better than anything else.
Educational elitism is one hundred percent a real thing, but it's not necessarily always an issue. When I first became interested in pursuing a career in theatre, I went to a stage management workshop in New York run by two professional Broadway stage managers (one ASM and one PSM). Since the workshop was for high schoolers, the topic of college programs came up. The PSM made a point of saying multiple times that what mattered most to her when she was hiring someone was their experience, not their degree. Now, better programs will give their students better and more experience, but it's not necessarily always the education that makes or breaks a person's chances of getting a job. This is all very easy for me to say from my viewpoint as a student in the Carnegie Mellon School of Drama, but I do think that while educational elitism is definitely an issue, it's not ubiquitous.
Okay obviously you don’t need to go to a reputable school to be talented. However, there’s a reason the schools are reputable, a reason that being able to put their name on a resume matters. When it boils down to it, enough people have emerged from those schools that it substantiates the program, giving it reputability.
I’ve only been here for a month, but I think the reason schools like this have such good “result” in their alumni is because they push their students to their limits, and then give them another shove. These schools aren’t just “hard to get into” their hard to stay in, hard to do well in. Talented people have to be pushed in order to grow, and the results that come of this growth, though in no way exclusive to these top schools, are simply more common, more recognized. Besides most of this field is who you know anyway.
This article is interesting to me because it raises certain questions about the validity of an educational system I have just recently begun to throw myself into wholeheartedly. I am a strong believer that people should be judged based on their personal qualifications for a job. Sometimes these qualifications take the form of raw talent, sometimes it could be familiarity with a software or metalworking technique. I am sure that if given infinite time and resources to evaluate applicants for positions most employers would in fact consider each applicant in this individualized way. Unfortunately, sometimes that just isn’t practical and so, as there is no standardized testing for scene design ability we turn to the next best thing the degree. Sometimes this can be enough to get you a job on the spot but usually only if the employer has some personal connection and recognizes that that degree signifies a certain level of excellence. More often however it simply becomes another sorting method in our search to find the perfect candidate.
I completely agree with this article. You can't judge someone's potential, skill, or chance of success off their education alone. I know several people who aren't even in school, but they are actually some of the most motivated and hardworking people I know who are reaching their own success, just without a piece of paper that say's they have a college degree. Even just between schools it's ridiculous to look at people as lesser because they had different circumstances than you and ended up at a different school. I know some people in my class joke about Purchase College and the theater program there, but this summer one of my fellow interns was a scenic design student from purchase, and her craft was amazing, more refined than my own and that of many people in my class. Is she lesser for going to Purchase? No, not at all, she's getting an education that works for her and her craft speaks for itself. Educational Elitism is bullshit in theater and from my experience's this summer it can actually be detrimental if engrained too much. This summer when I said I went to CMU most of the theater practitioners I met where impressed or interested in what I had to say, but some kind of scoffed assuming right away that I might be trying to gloat and show off as an elitist. Sure over time I surpassed the elitist presumption those people had of CMU students, but It was only through my skills, and knowledge, the stuff you are actually supposed to go to college for.
This is a debate for theatre mostly because our work's quality is historically difficult to determine. It is also interesting to note that the principles behind quality of work differ so much between actors, designers, directors, and other theatre practitioners. For designers, I think that elitism matters the least, because ultimately a design is a finished product that defines the production, and is therefore the hardest to put up to a standard of quality. For actors, however, elitism (which is an unfairly biased word, but for language sake I will use it) makes perfect sense to me. No, the decision should not be based on where you go to school. If the work is good, the work is good. But with CMU actors come a guarantee of quality training. One may argue that you can't judge the quality of training, because actors with natural talent are everywhere. Yes, natural talent is everywhere. But good training means not only that they can on stage and do something, but that they can talk intelligently about their work, they know how to communicate, they are respectful and hard-working people. You cannot blame a theatre program for being quality, and for having a reputation as such. This article is not something for the theatre community at large, but one for employers and casting directors to read as a reminder that there may be talent elsewhere. We must ultimately acknowledge that some schools are called good for a reason, everyone is in their own process, and there is enough theatre to go around.
This article presents a very troubling idea. I agree with the author that natural talent exists everywhere and many highly talented artists cannot go to a top-ranking university due to financial reasons. That was nearly me. This last spring I had to deal with the fact that I probably couldn't go to this school. My parents hesitated to even let me apply, knowing that an education here would place a huge financial strain on my family. Obviously I'm here now and I am thankful for that. That being said, the quality of training and the connections built at each school varies widely. The professors and class discussions at CMU are mind-blowing. No other school I applied to offered such impressive training. The students here show the effects of this training in their designs and talents, which are far beyond the other schools I was considering. In short, although natural talent exists everywhere, training is extremely important in creating the artist, and that artists work will speak for itself. Good training doesn't need a fancy name to get it a job.
As a current CMU student, this article should probably make me react somehow. My school is, after all, explicitly mentioned in an article about a real and pressing wrong in the theater community. I should probably take up arms in defense of my school, hurling admissions statistics and dropping names in a fury of protective pride. I'm not going to do that, however, for one reason. I agree with (most) of this article. While I do believe that my education is made leagues better by the astronomically talented CMU faculty, and the facilities available to me are truly world class, I have experienced in my life too much of the elitism mentioned in this article. As someone who made the conscious decision to attend a challenged public high school over a more affluent one, I know too well the confusion and (sometimes) outright disdain faced by those of us who make certain educational decisions others may not understand. Too many times have I had to explain that my high school was the right choice for me, that it had the opportunities I wanted and an environment I thrived in. Now, however, I have the opposite problem. People, upon hearing where I go, will exclaim "OH, CMU, that's a GOOD school!" Never mind that I may be unhappy, or woefully unable to achieve my greatest potential here. If those thing were true, my personal needs would take a backseat to the prestige of my school. Educational elitism is real, and it is a problem. I don't know if this issue will be explored in the future, but I'm looking forward to whatever dialogue may ensue on this subject.
I have been thinking a lot lately about this concept, and what a college Degree from somewhere like CMU means in the real world. It's not to be ignored that the name on the resume doesn't do something, and that people are impressed when you say the name, but that happens for a reason. Schools like CMU, and Yale, and Umich aren't just born with the reputation they have now. The reputations are created after many years of turning out exceptional people. This is not to say that everyone who leaves a school with a great reputation will be a star, or that every successful person has to attend one of those schools, but it helps, and that's important too. When you attend a school like CMU you make connections, and friendships that help in your professional lives, ones you wouldn't get at another school. So where you go to college is not this most important thing in the world, but it is important, and that's not to be ignored.
Of course educational elitism is a real thing. I think that my reaction to an article like this would be vastly different if I didn't go to CMU, and would take on more of a root-for-the-underdog type tone. If you look at the NBA, there are all-star players that got drafted straight out of high school and never even went to college because they were already naturally talented enough to play at the pro level and had to learn how to navigate the professional league at a younger age than the players around them. Imagine if we did that in the theatre industry, especially on the technical side of things. CMU, like the other schools listed in the article as the elite schools, also has a very strong alumni network that helps perpetuate the idea of educational elitism because alumni are more likely to, and are encouraged to, hire CMU's more recent graduates, and since getting a job in the theatre industry is "all about who you know", of course they'd naturally gravitate towards people who they have something in common with- their education.
I agree that those who are talented should be able to get the jobs that they fit, no matter the college that they went to. A school is definitely not the top indicator of your talent or intelligence. However, top programs don’t come with only a name. The program a person attends shows the training they receive. Sometimes it is training that really differentiates two candidates for the same job. That is what people are getting when they hire from top tier schools. As with a CMU education, outside employers know that it is an incredibly tough program which students have to work very hard at to succeed. As the article mentions, it also depends on the fit of the school to student that determines where a person will attend. He meant this in why some people choose to attend smaller schools. During the college search, I was looking for the school that fit me. The program I found just happened to come with the CMU name attached to it. I don’t think that anyone should be blamed of elitism or stupidity when they go to the college of their dreams.
It sounds as though the author is trying to posit that no school is actually "better" than any other, and that all theatre students learn the same content no matter where they study. If that is indeed what the author is asserting, then what an absurd notion. Sure, not every highly regarded institution picks up all of the most talented individuals, and not all talented individuals pick the most highly regarded institution. But there's a reason the "best" schools are considered the best. There is an inherent difference that sets them apart. And sure, the circle is pretty much self-confirming. The best schools attract some of the best, most talented students in a field, who will then graduate performing at a high caliber, reaffirming that those schools are in fact the best. But there had to be something that attracted those high performing performers (ha.) in the first place. By and large, though the author had some fair points, this sounds like a case of sour grapes not about the author *not* going to an Ivy theatre school, but about the response the program they graduated from garners.
This is a tricky article to take in, particularly because we are all biased when it comes to this issue, everyone in theatre who has attended college, not just those of us here at CMU Drama. Each of us likely has the impulse to defend their decision on where to go to school, I know I do, and it’s really a natural one. Making that decision is a really big one. But trying to leave that aside is something I feel is important to contributing to this discussion.
Honestly, when I toured CMU a little more than two months ago, I got a general campus tour, which included very little of Purnell, I then got a drama tour by a student who was studying performance, and not design or production, and so they couldn’t very well answer me any questions about my program (and I can’t blame that in the slightest for that). I saw the freshman drafting studio, thought it was a neat room (because despite any horror stories that come out of there, it is a visually interesting room) and then I proceeded to have a chat with a faculty member. I met Todd Brown in the lobby, where he persistently told me that this was a hard school, and that I probably didn’t want to rush into a decision about going here, or at least that’s what I took from it. I believe DR then showed me the tension grid so I could see some more of the facilities.
Now, I’m not saying that this was a bad tour experience at all, I actually quite enjoyed it, and it gave me much more information on what my time here would be like than I had previously had. Most schools offer a similar experience, many offer less. But I didn’t have the slightest clue what CMU would be like until I got here, and even then it took months for my notion of this place to stabilize. The point is, none of us know what we’re getting in to when we sign up for classes at a university, not really anyway. We all chose the best option for us in the moment. For me it happened to be CMU, but it could have very easily been somewhere else. Those minute matters of chance shouldn't completely define me as different from others.
There’s a lot of talk that I here around CMU that is super elitist, that CMU is the best place to be as an undergraduate designer, that the only place to go after I graduate if I want to further my education is Yale, that a degree from CMU will provide me jobs for as long as I’m able to network with other alumni, and even if all of that is true (and I’m sure at least some of it is) then that still doesn’t make me any better than anyone else. What it means is that I have been shaped as a person by this organization by the courses I’ve taken and the time I’ve spent here. When I graduate (which I hopefully will) I will have those experiences under my belt, and I will know what I know. But all that that means is that I have those experiences, it doesn’t mean I know how to apply them.
There likely are people who haven’t been provided the opportunity that we all have by being here that can apply any experience to design more effectively then many here. That reflects upon them as a person, which is something I think this article doesn't take into account. Sure, certain universities might afford a better education, but none of that matters if you don’t take something from it. My advice to casting directors (and keep in mind, I am not the person a casting director should listen to) would be to, as much as is feasible, understand the person you’re casting. Knowing their formal education doesn’t mean you know everything about that person, or their abilities, or what they can bring to the table.
Now, please explain to me why people choose certain schools. If someone has the choice to go to a top tier university with a top theatre program and reap the benefits of going to a prestigious school, wouldnt you think they would take the chance? Now this doesnt mean that other schools dont give great education. What i am saying is that certain schools have a "name" and a rank for a reason. The rigor in the curriculum is what pushes the students to be the elite of the industry. Universities shouldnt be scorned for giving their students certain benefits that are available to them. Obviously, not everyone in theatre or film or the arts went to a top theatre program. Many of them didnt. So to say that educational elitism is hurting theatre, is false and not looked into hard enough to make such an assumption. Many people acquire the same skills regardless of where they went to school.
I agree with this article. Educational elitism is an issue, and I also agree that there are so many talented people that come out of schools that don't have as strong a reputation as some of the more prominent colleges. In my opinion, there is a reason for this. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of people that come to schools such as Carnegie Mellon and Yale for only one purpose, which is to get the name of the school on their resume. The education becomes much less important, and the only thing that they see as important is getting through these four years so that they can get the CMU stamp of their resume. People who go to smaller theater schools are much more likely to be there because of a passion for theater and education. Another downside to the elite theater programs is the teaching staff. We have some of the most talented people in their field working here at CMU. These people have major resumes that back up their incredible skill. When it comes to their field, they can do almost everything, except one very necessary thing: teach. That's not to say that all the professors here can't teach, that's not what I'm trying to assert. It's just that these people have worked their whole lives in their field, and teaching is not something that comes naturally to everyone. You can be the best at something and have no idea how to teach it. This can be a negative aspect of "elite" schools, that you won't see as often in smaller theater schools.
So why did I decide to go to CMU? I’ll be honest, I was first drawn to the school by its reputation. But a school’s reputation comes from somewhere. Hopefully, this reputation is directly related to the quality of education that one receives as a student there. One could make this argument for any industry, not just theatre. Why do top technology companies like Google and Apple hire students from MIT, Stanford, Berkeley and CMU? They do so because those students show these companies that they are prepared for a job there (usually through an extensive application process). Theatre works similarly. There isn’t an application process per se, but a theatre professional is vetted throughout their career through the shows they do. Colleagues judge the abilities of a certain professional by the quality of work they do. Budding actors, directors, designers and others need not to go to a top school to become prepared for the professional world, but top schools excel in this preparation. In the theatre world, putting CMU on one’s resume can definitely help one get gigs, but that doesn’t mean anything if one’s performance is sub-par.
I’m reacting to this article in two ways. I attended an “elite” prep school and now, clearly, attend CMU. So I want to agree with the author (and do on some points), but also take issue with much of his argument.
Primarily, the author is clearly very attached to this issue (understandably) but failed to effectively remove him self from his argument (unfortunately). Honestly, a lot of the article read like Mr. Piccione whining about the fact that people don’t throw glitter in the air when he tells them what school he went to. PSA: if I’ve never heard of the school you went to, my reaction will be silence because I have no opinion – I can’t help it if the author takes that as an insult.
I do agree with the author on some of his points. Yes, a school (and/or your admission to it) does NOT define who you are, but it does play an important part in what experience you have and what you’ve been taught. This also involves a concept I like to refer to as “ass-busting.” When someone tells me they went to a prep school, I know to some degree to what level they had to ‘bust their ass” to get through that experience. This isn’t to say that there aren’t people out there who bust their asses at whatever they do in whichever program they are in, but I don’t know that until I have a legitimate gauge of their work and skill (like the author mentions). This also isn’t to say that there aren’t people who go to demanding programs and don’t take full advantage of it, but I do know that they must have exhibited some minimum level of ass-busting. So the program does not define the person and may not give an accurate indication of skill, but it can give a rough estimate and an idea of their experience.
Where I strongly disagree is with the author’s notion that all programs are essentially equal. Please, someone raise the BS flag, because this is just wishful thinking. I may sound like an elitist in saying this, but unfortunately, many programs are better than others and no, they don’t all teach you the same things in similar-enough ways. If that was the case, educational elitism wouldn’t exist in the first place. Unfortunately, because of the limitations set by budget constraints etc. etc. and simply who is actually teaching at a program, some programs are much better or much worse than others, and they definitely teach you different things in different ways. If this wasn’t the case, applying to and choosing a college program would have been a much less stressful process.
Overall, I agree with the author that snobbiness should be avoided, and that we should not make snap judgments on people based on where they attended school. I disagree, however, with the idea that all programs are relatively the same and that you cannot make some sort of assessment of someone’s experiences based on where they have attended. So, we shouldn’t be dismissive, but let’s not be foolish either.
Post a Comment