Playbill: As part of Playbill.com's Back to School week (#BwayBacktoSchool), we have combined past Schools of the Stars features that track where members of the cast for each Broadway show went to college, along with a bit of added research, to present the top 10 colleges currently represented on Broadway (plus a few honorable mentions). This list represents not only Broadway shows that are currently open, but a few shows that have announced casting for the 2016-2017 season.
15 comments:
So, there’s a couple of things to point out with this list. The first is that no designers or production workers are listed, which I think is something that could really shift some schools up or down. For example, I think that Point Park would be moved down a few places given their technical and other programs. I think that Yale, CMU, and Michigan would move up a slot or two considering how many technicians, designers, and managers work on Broadway that are alumni. Another thing to point out, is that each college may have a different focus in what their program produces. For example, Point Park has a very large, respected dance program, so they will have more featured dancers on Broadway compared to Carnegie Mellon. Additionally, it makes complete sense for NYU to be number one considering the connections available due the proximity and location of the school (not to say that their program isn’t respectable).
While applying to college the only goal was get in so you can learn. Its so crazy that now that I am at CMU the goal is learn so that you can get in(to a job.) How crazy is that? Once you reach one goal you are pushed back to square one when reaching the next goal. I continually have to remind myself that the skills I am learning now are the deciding factors in my career and the rest of my life. Making technical theatre art is no longer just some fun thing I did because i enjoyed it and it was pretty. Now, I am doing what I enjoy to hopefully make enough money to pay rent and feed myself every once in awhile. So how do we complete a serious goal and not lose the naive joy that made us do the work in the first place? The answer I still don't know for sure but I think it includes time management, getting out and enjoying non-theatre activities and caring for ourselves physically and mentally. Hopefully, with commitment to this we too can make the list under Carnegie Mellon University (given I do agree with Benjamin in saying there are no technical theatre artists listed.)
I don’t feel that this is a good representation of universities on Broadway because this is just one instance in one moment of time. Do they go outside of just actors and see where designers come from as well as the managers? New York may be on top in this moment but once a show closes then they lose quite a few of the people on their list. I don’t see how this could help get students to their programs.
Yes all these people are on Broadway now, but it doesn’t mean the other universities aren’t successful with their alumni. I feel that way a lot when CMU talks about who has won Tony’s and other awards when they leave here because there are people who work just as hard and have the job they want but don’t get the recognition that others get. It is helpful that we have the Carnegie name on our resume but not everyone wants to be on Broadway and be on top so why can’t we celebrate those who are successful in landing the job they want. I want to love my job and be excited to go to work everyday but that shouldn’t mean I have to be on Broadway to be happy and remembered.
Finally, a college-related list where CMU isn't at the top. Now, I think my main issue with this article is the narrow definition of success as a theatre professional being a person that is on Broadway. Some of the biggest theatre communities in the world, such as Chicago and London, don't even receive mentions. I also wonder how many folks on this list are in supporting or ensemble roles versus how many are featured or leading roles. I also agree with Lia that this is just a momentary snapshot in time, and an especially odd one for Broadway considering there is literally 1 straight play open right now, and many of the colleges mentioned have significant acting portions in addition to Musical Theatre. It also appears that this pertains only to Actors and not Designers, another one of many subtle jabs by the media against the technical fields of theatre. I'm sure that if this encompassed Designers coming out of these programs, the order would be significantly changed. I also think that a university having any alums on Broadway is a success, and there's no true barometer that a university has a batter program based solely on the amount of alums on Broadway at this exact point in time.
I don’t really see the validity in this article. I mean, it lists alumni from all of these colleges that are participating in Broadway productions, but like Jacob mentions none of the roles are weighted; it’s not like those 10 actors mentioned for Wicked are all Fiero and Elphaba. The vaguely undefined parameters of success are definitely what is rubbing people the wrong way about this article (however, it is nice not to see CMU at the top). I feel like the method to get this article out of click-bait territory would be to whip out some excel functions, assign values to roles, factor in number of performances, longevity of tours, and get some hard numbers to really see who’s alma mater really racks up the most points. Not to go back on the “there are no small roles, just small actors” ideology I grew up with, but maybe some fame is a little more famous than others.
Having spent the past year focussing on the college application process, these kinds of lists are not unfamiliar to me. When looking at general lists of colleges like this, it is important to note that just because a school is ranked number one or is regarded as the best of the best doesn't mean that it is the best in the world for everyone. That said, I'd be lying if I said it wasn't at least a little fun to see our name on a list like that. I think that too often colleges are used like brand names. A Harvard degree can be used the same way a Chanel purse can be used to remind the world where you stand and what your status is. College holds different meaning and value to everyone, but for me, college is a place for me to learn. Attending Carnegie Mellon for me means that my hard work has earned me the chance to work even harder to learn about what I love with people who love what they do just as much as I do. I think that not being a the top of this list is fitting for Carnegie Mellon. Not because we aren't the best, but because Carnegie Mellon students know that there is always room for improvement and there is always something new to learn.
Out of all the articles I've read that ranks colleges based on their theater programs, this one is definitely at the bottom of the pile. There are many ways to improve this article and make it more informative and complete. First of all, all this article is is just a list of actors from different colleges who are now on Broadway. When I read the title of the article, I was expecting more than just a list (furthermore, a list of just actors). When I read the article, I just scrolled through the entire list because there is no point in reading the name of every single actor and the name of the show they are on. Despite the fact that these numbers don't necessarily have a positive correlation to how good the school actually is, the author could've easily compiled these data by counting the number of actors from each school that are now on Broadway. Those numbers, along with a few sentences telling the readers more about what these numbers mean would've been more helpful than just a bundle of names.
If playbill is going to rank schools by how many people are representing them on Broadway they should probably include everyone that is representing those schools on Broadway. There are a lot of people working in the technical side of theatre from all of those schools. I understand that playbill mostly appeals to performers, but that does not mean that everyone else does not matter. It is important for young actors to see where all the cool Broadway stars went to school so they can apply to them too. It might even be more important for young people interested in technical theatre to see which schools produce successful Broadway designers and managers. It is harder to figure out which schools are better at technical theatre than others because there are not as many ranking articles and information about them. When I read a playbill at a Broadway show I make sure to read the stage managers’ bios to see where they went to school. Going to a certain school does not guarantee whether you will work on Broadway or not, but it is nice to know a little bit about professionals’ backgrounds.
At first the picture looked familiar and I couldn't figure out why until I remembered the Chosky's seats were re-apolstered and being a freshman I had never seen their previous gray image. It was weird to me seeing University of Michigan being ranked above Carnegie. Living with UofM at my backdoor not that many spoke about the drama program to the point where when I was applying to college I didn't even apply there because no one had said to me 'UM is such a great theater school'. Coming from a high school where you go to Michigan State, Michigan University, or work a shitty job the lack of information on their theater program is odd to me, seeing how many people go to UofM from my area. Speaking to DP specifically I have head around that having a degree from Carnegie helps you skip the bottoms rungs of a workplace ladder and save you a few years working your way up to a higher position in certain jobs. So in that sense the name of the school you attended, the more selective, the more impressive you appear. Especially a DP degree from Carnegie known to have one of the most rigorous undergraduate programs means a lot more stood up against degrees from other less established schools. It was weird how the list was arranged and the only ranking statistics relieved were the number of famous people the school pumped out which seems to be a less important characteristic when researching/comparing schools
Normally articles like this piss me off a little bit. This is because it tends to feel like some random person who works for a company trying to be the next buzzfeed is ranking schools based off of very little knowledge about their programs, and stuff. What I like about this article is that it is basically a list of names of the alumni with where they are currently performing. Like many others, I wish that it included alums on the technical side of the world. The performers would be nothing without us (I know that sounds snobby, but it is kind of true). By doing this the reader would get a clearer representation of the top colleges who actually have alums working on Broadway. Nonetheless, I am proud of my school for making the list, and continuing to make the list.
When I first clicked on this article, I was so excited to see a picture of the Chosky mid-build at very top of the page. Then I read it, and my bubble very quickly popped. I'm getting really sick of how the world seems to define working "on Broadway." To me, it seems more and more that anyone who isn't an actor doesn't count toward making their school proud. It takes a lot to be an actor, but they are a fraction of the body count when it comes to all those involved in making a production happen. Statistically speaking, they should be the one's defending their validity in angry comments. This isn't about fame, it isn't about a round of applause I knew I wasn't going to get anyway - this is about credit. It's one thing to work toward making one's presence unknown while an audience is absorbed in the world of the play - but if that were the WHOLE reason designers, managers, and technicians get so little acknowledgment, articles like these would be considered taboo for revealing that there are real people behind those made-up characters. Most of us who live our lives in the wings know we won't be getting a bouquet at the end of the night, and we don't need it. But we are an integral part of making the show - in fact, we are often the majority. And somehow popularity still determines how proud we make our school, even in the eyes of a website written by people who supposedly know what goes into making theatre happen. Somehow we still have to fight for a mention. We need actors to bring life to the worlds we create, certainly. Why else would we make it? But without us, there is no world. Actors and designers/technicians/managers are like intelligent life and earth. Without each other, we'd just be floating in space. We'd have no meaning. So where's the meaning in an article that only gives half the credit?
SIDE NOTE: Also, what about directors and dramaturgs and choreographers and literally everyone else????? I only leave them out of my comments because I don't know their experiences with credit and/or lack thereof, but seriously? I would think they'd be angry for lack of a mention, too. I really don't mean to seem bitter towards actors because I'm NOT, they didn't ask for this either. But for the love of God, Playbill, how do you live? Naked and still on a bare, silent, pitch black stage? Because THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING FROM THIS ARTICLE.
Disclaimer: I have nothing against actors and have nothing but respect for what they do. I certainly couldn’t do it.
Like Natalia I was excited for this article after seeing the picture of the Chosky mid build right there in the middle of the top of the page. However, it turns out that once again this is an article that defines working on Broadway as being an actor. Now if this article was titled something like “what does it take to be cast in a Broadway show” then that would be fine (there would still be some questionable things, like how all the roles are weighted the same as Kim pointed out). But as it is it makes it sound like its going to include all (or at least most) of the jobs on Broadway and then just doesn’t. This isn’t about getting the same amount of praise as actors or something like that. But it is getting old to see how time and again all the other professions in theater get pushed to the side. What makes it even more disheartening is that this article is aimed at high school students who want to pursue theater in college and for all of the ones who want to pursue something other than acting it gives them practically no useable information since most of these rankings would probably change at least a little if design and production fields were included and even more if directing and dramaturgy were included as well. Also I find it ironic that the only image in this article that’s actually of a theater doesn’t include a single actor. You’d think that if they’re going to only count actors as the people who count towards the success of a school then they’d at least try to use a picture that had some in it.
Spoiler: I can also work on Broadway. I also attend Carnegie Mellon. I also work very hard, and hopefully will be successful and represent my school well. I don't act, I don't sing, I don't dance, and guess what I can still do all of those things. We have to change the way we talk about theater and the arts in general to include the people who are not on the stage. Not only because for every one actor there are probably 10 technicians or managers etc. but because what we do is also important. What we do also changes culture, and decides what will be cool and interesting. The actors convey what we want to say and execute the vision sometimes, but they don't have the vision most of the time. We get change theater and movies and in doing so can decide what an entire generation thinks is interesting. Not only is it annoying that this article does not mention any of the professions that do those things but it is insulting. Yesterday I had a meeting at 11pm on a Saturday for school so I could better myself and be better at what I do, and live up to the name on that list. Except my name wasn't on that list. Because when the article talked about CMU we were not represented. It's unfair and it creates an atmosphere of total disrespect in our business for people who are not actors.
At a first glance I was so excited to see that we are the fifth most represented college on broadway right now! But than I realized I did not see anyone that was not an actor on this list. I understand that the average theater fan may not know or care about where the stage manager went to college but at the same time we work just as hard and should be included on this list too. This list I feel like should be updated. What makes an actor more important than a designer? Nothing. Without every single person working hard the show will not be as good as it can be. Playbill I hope in the future you will add other aspects of theater to this list and not just actors.
It boggles my mind how Designers, Managers, and Directors from Carnegie Mellon could get the same degree as the actors and be represented with far less importance. There are currently quite a few not actors working on Broadway right now creating worlds people gaze at, making costumes the audience is in love with, keeping everything in order for the experience of the audience. The people who created these worlds, who made these costumes, who manage it all, where is their representation. Are they so invisible that they don't need any accolades? Like Sarah said, it is insulting to work as hard as designers and managers work and not get any recompense for it. Things need to change. I am not saying this to discount actors and their profession. I am saying this because this was a lost of school represented on Broadway, CMU was on it, but it's entirety was not represented. Include everyone or don't even mention it.
Post a Comment