Are students unhappy at CMU?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most grads from CMU drama/MT programs are jobless after graduation, or are working at Starbucks. My DD, a CMU grad, happens to be one of them.

What are the higher rated drama/MT programs where most grads aren't similarly jobless after graduation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most grads from CMU drama/MT programs are jobless after graduation, or are working at Starbucks. My DD, a CMU grad, happens to be one of them.

What are the higher rated drama/MT programs where most grads aren't similarly jobless after graduation?

There aren't any. Successful actors who went to good schools - Jodie Foster, Natalie Portman - were already famous by the time they enrolled. A swanky degree does nothing for auditions in NY or LA. In fact, it's probably more costly to disappear from professional gigs from ages 18-22. A drama degree is nothing more than a hobby for rich kids. Arts and entertainment are not degree-driven industries. The most successful actors don't have any degrees at all. Maybe some improv programs. Or certain acting or voice coaches. But no one serious is taking four years to study in Pittsburg.

[Anonymous]

Then PP isn't being responsive about the quality of CMU's drama/MT program at all, and rather making a comment about the major generally regardless of school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most grads from CMU drama/MT programs are jobless after graduation, or are working at Starbucks. My DD, a CMU grad, happens to be one of them.

What are the higher rated drama/MT programs where most grads aren't similarly jobless after graduation?

There aren't any. Successful actors who went to good schools - Jodie Foster, Natalie Portman - were already famous by the time they enrolled. A swanky degree does nothing for auditions in NY or LA. In fact, it's probably more costly to disappear from professional gigs from ages 18-22. A drama degree is nothing more than a hobby for rich kids. Arts and entertainment are not degree-driven industries. The most successful actors don't have any degrees at all. Maybe some improv programs. Or certain acting or voice coaches. But no one serious is taking four years to study in Pittsburg.

There are many CMU alums that went on to become famous actors. Ted Danson, Ethan Hawke...just do a google search and you will see the list. Sigourney Weaver went to Yale Drama for a Masters as did several others. Certainly, Julliard has produced many famous actors, musicians, etc.

However, it's foolish to think of CMU theatre/acting or Julliard the same as MIT or CMU feeding software engineers to Silicon Valley. They do actually provide industry connections and talent agents will come to productions to scout talent and sign kids. But the arts are a tough industry...it's why Berklee School of Music always has the lowest median incomes of its graduates of like any college...because only 1% of any graduates will achieve Quincy Jones or John Mayer status and of course many super-successful pop artists never went to college.

[Anonymous]

Exactly. Both things can be true (i.e., CMU has a top drama/MT program and graduates in the major have fairly poor job prospects, though almost certainly better than drama/MT majors at other schools).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. Both things can be true (i.e., CMU has a top drama/MT program and graduates in the major have fairly poor job prospects, though almost certainly better than drama/MT majors at other schools).

So you are saying drama/MT majors at CMU have a 0.002% employment rate while drama/MT majors have a 0.003% employment rate? At a 80K/year at CMU for that 0.001% better odd, LOL....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. Both things can be true (i.e., CMU has a top drama/MT program and graduates in the major have fairly poor job prospects, though almost certainly better than drama/MT majors at other schools).

So you are saying drama/MT majors at CMU have a 0.002% employment rate while drama/MT majors have a 0.003% employment rate? At a 80K/year at CMU for that 0.001% better odd, LOL....

It's basically impossible to make any statement one way or the other because acting jobs are basically freelance positions. Sure, you might get cast on a successful television show that provides an annual recurring (and then residual) income...but most acting jobs are not like that.

That said, every city has a stable of working actors that perform in theatre productions, local commercials, etc. Some of those actors cobble together a career that allows them to act full time. It's unclear the background of those actors.

Seems like you think all arts conservatory programs are a waste.

Here is a blurb from a CMU profile of one of their grads:

He’s far from the first alumnus of CMU’s School of Drama theater program to make a living as an actor, which he credits to how students learn to transform pages of ink into living, breathing characters during their conservatory training.

It’s not uncommon for the drama school’s alums to bump into each other on set or backstage. A few examples include Broadway’s smash-hit “Hamilton,” which features Leslie Odom Jr. (A’03) and Renée Elise Goldsberry (A’93) in starring roles, and the second season of FX’s award-winning and critically acclaimed television show “Fargo,” which features three generations of CMU drama school graduates—Ted Danson (A’72), Patrick Wilson (A’95), and Rachel Keller (A’14). When you’ve been harvesting a crop of working actors year after year since 1914, it’s not so much serendipity as the result of the school’s time-tested techniques.

The school’s success is defined by its consistency, but individual acting careers unfurl in fits and starts. Dive into the biography of nearly any success story, and you’re bound to unearth bouts of unemployment, struggle, and long stretches spent wandering in the dark.

The reality of the business is that no matter one’s pedigree, the odds of success—whether that’s defined as making a living in Hollywood, Broadway, or otherwise—are long. Don Wadsworth, head of the school’s acting program, says that for most actors, the big break—if it comes at all—arrives “not with the first or second job—but with the 40th or 50th.” That’s why the program instills the principles of technique, perseverance, and flexibility. “Those are what could give you a career,” says Wadsworth, “instead of just one or two flashy parts in your 20s.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. Both things can be true (i.e., CMU has a top drama/MT program and graduates in the major have fairly poor job prospects, though almost certainly better than drama/MT majors at other schools).

So you are saying drama/MT majors at CMU have a 0.002% employment rate while drama/MT majors have a 0.003% employment rate? At a 80K/year at CMU for that 0.001% better odd, LOL....

It's basically impossible to make any statement one way or the other because acting jobs are basically freelance positions. Sure, you might get cast on a successful television show that provides an annual recurring (and then residual) income...but most acting jobs are not like that.

That said, every city has a stable of working actors that perform in theatre productions, local commercials, etc. Some of those actors cobble together a career that allows them to act full time. It's unclear the background of those actors.

Seems like you think all arts conservatory programs are a waste.

Here is a blurb from a CMU profile of one of their grads:

He’s far from the first alumnus of CMU’s School of Drama theater program to make a living as an actor, which he credits to how students learn to transform pages of ink into living, breathing characters during their conservatory training.

It’s not uncommon for the drama school’s alums to bump into each other on set or backstage. A few examples include Broadway’s smash-hit “Hamilton,” which features Leslie Odom Jr. (A’03) and Renée Elise Goldsberry (A’93) in starring roles, and the second season of FX’s award-winning and critically acclaimed television show “Fargo,” which features three generations of CMU drama school graduates—Ted Danson (A’72), Patrick Wilson (A’95), and Rachel Keller (A’14). When you’ve been harvesting a crop of working actors year after year since 1914, it’s not so much serendipity as the result of the school’s time-tested techniques.

The school’s success is defined by its consistency, but individual acting careers unfurl in fits and starts. Dive into the biography of nearly any success story, and you’re bound to unearth bouts of unemployment, struggle, and long stretches spent wandering in the dark.

The reality of the business is that no matter one’s pedigree, the odds of success—whether that’s defined as making a living in Hollywood, Broadway, or otherwise—are long. Don Wadsworth, head of the school’s acting program, says that for most actors, the big break—if it comes at all—arrives “not with the first or second job—but with the 40th or 50th.” That’s why the program instills the principles of technique, perseverance, and flexibility. “Those are what could give you a career,” says Wadsworth, “instead of just one or two flashy parts in your 20s.”

I never said such a thing. I just questioned the need to spend almost 87K/yr at CMU drama/MT that you can get the same education/training at VCU for 30K/year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. Both things can be true (i.e., CMU has a top drama/MT program and graduates in the major have fairly poor job prospects, though almost certainly better than drama/MT majors at other schools).

So you are saying drama/MT majors at CMU have a 0.002% employment rate while drama/MT majors have a 0.003% employment rate? At a 80K/year at CMU for that 0.001% better odd, LOL....

It's basically impossible to make any statement one way or the other because acting jobs are basically freelance positions. Sure, you might get cast on a successful television show that provides an annual recurring (and then residual) income...but most acting jobs are not like that.

That said, every city has a stable of working actors that perform in theatre productions, local commercials, etc. Some of those actors cobble together a career that allows them to act full time. It's unclear the background of those actors.

Seems like you think all arts conservatory programs are a waste.

Here is a blurb from a CMU profile of one of their grads:

He’s far from the first alumnus of CMU’s School of Drama theater program to make a living as an actor, which he credits to how students learn to transform pages of ink into living, breathing characters during their conservatory training.

It’s not uncommon for the drama school’s alums to bump into each other on set or backstage. A few examples include Broadway’s smash-hit “Hamilton,” which features Leslie Odom Jr. (A’03) and Renée Elise Goldsberry (A’93) in starring roles, and the second season of FX’s award-winning and critically acclaimed television show “Fargo,” which features three generations of CMU drama school graduates—Ted Danson (A’72), Patrick Wilson (A’95), and Rachel Keller (A’14). When you’ve been harvesting a crop of working actors year after year since 1914, it’s not so much serendipity as the result of the school’s time-tested techniques.

The school’s success is defined by its consistency, but individual acting careers unfurl in fits and starts. Dive into the biography of nearly any success story, and you’re bound to unearth bouts of unemployment, struggle, and long stretches spent wandering in the dark.

The reality of the business is that no matter one’s pedigree, the odds of success—whether that’s defined as making a living in Hollywood, Broadway, or otherwise—are long. Don Wadsworth, head of the school’s acting program, says that for most actors, the big break—if it comes at all—arrives “not with the first or second job—but with the 40th or 50th.” That’s why the program instills the principles of technique, perseverance, and flexibility. “Those are what could give you a career,” says Wadsworth, “instead of just one or two flashy parts in your 20s.”

I never said such a thing. I just questioned the need to spend almost 87K/yr at CMU drama/MT that you can get the same education/training at VCU for 30K/year.

Because this parent never had success as an artist, so she’s desperately and insecurely hoping that her kid will? Just a guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. Both things can be true (i.e., CMU has a top drama/MT program and graduates in the major have fairly poor job prospects, though almost certainly better than drama/MT majors at other schools).

So you are saying drama/MT majors at CMU have a 0.002% employment rate while drama/MT majors have a 0.003% employment rate? At a 80K/year at CMU for that 0.001% better odd, LOL....

It's basically impossible to make any statement one way or the other because acting jobs are basically freelance positions. Sure, you might get cast on a successful television show that provides an annual recurring (and then residual) income...but most acting jobs are not like that.

That said, every city has a stable of working actors that perform in theatre productions, local commercials, etc. Some of those actors cobble together a career that allows them to act full time. It's unclear the background of those actors.

Seems like you think all arts conservatory programs are a waste.

Here is a blurb from a CMU profile of one of their grads:

He’s far from the first alumnus of CMU’s School of Drama theater program to make a living as an actor, which he credits to how students learn to transform pages of ink into living, breathing characters during their conservatory training.

It’s not uncommon for the drama school’s alums to bump into each other on set or backstage. A few examples include Broadway’s smash-hit “Hamilton,” which features Leslie Odom Jr. (A’03) and Renée Elise Goldsberry (A’93) in starring roles, and the second season of FX’s award-winning and critically acclaimed television show “Fargo,” which features three generations of CMU drama school graduates—Ted Danson (A’72), Patrick Wilson (A’95), and Rachel Keller (A’14). When you’ve been harvesting a crop of working actors year after year since 1914, it’s not so much serendipity as the result of the school’s time-tested techniques.

The school’s success is defined by its consistency, but individual acting careers unfurl in fits and starts. Dive into the biography of nearly any success story, and you’re bound to unearth bouts of unemployment, struggle, and long stretches spent wandering in the dark.

The reality of the business is that no matter one’s pedigree, the odds of success—whether that’s defined as making a living in Hollywood, Broadway, or otherwise—are long. Don Wadsworth, head of the school’s acting program, says that for most actors, the big break—if it comes at all—arrives “not with the first or second job—but with the 40th or 50th.” That’s why the program instills the principles of technique, perseverance, and flexibility. “Those are what could give you a career,” says Wadsworth, “instead of just one or two flashy parts in your 20s.”

I never said such a thing. I just questioned the need to spend almost 87K/yr at CMU drama/MT that you can get the same education/training at VCU for 30K/year.

Well...if you decide you are going to pay $$$s for your kid to study acting, I can't imagine saying "just go to VCU instead of Julliard or CMU", where the most famous VCU acting alumni are the guy that played Flounder in Animal House and a guy that was on Criminal Minds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. Both things can be true (i.e., CMU has a top drama/MT program and graduates in the major have fairly poor job prospects, though almost certainly better than drama/MT majors at other schools).

So you are saying drama/MT majors at CMU have a 0.002% employment rate while drama/MT majors have a 0.003% employment rate? At a 80K/year at CMU for that 0.001% better odd, LOL....

It's basically impossible to make any statement one way or the other because acting jobs are basically freelance positions. Sure, you might get cast on a successful television show that provides an annual recurring (and then residual) income...but most acting jobs are not like that.

That said, every city has a stable of working actors that perform in theatre productions, local commercials, etc. Some of those actors cobble together a career that allows them to act full time. It's unclear the background of those actors.

Seems like you think all arts conservatory programs are a waste.

Here is a blurb from a CMU profile of one of their grads:

He’s far from the first alumnus of CMU’s School of Drama theater program to make a living as an actor, which he credits to how students learn to transform pages of ink into living, breathing characters during their conservatory training.

It’s not uncommon for the drama school’s alums to bump into each other on set or backstage. A few examples include Broadway’s smash-hit “Hamilton,” which features Leslie Odom Jr. (A’03) and Renée Elise Goldsberry (A’93) in starring roles, and the second season of FX’s award-winning and critically acclaimed television show “Fargo,” which features three generations of CMU drama school graduates—Ted Danson (A’72), Patrick Wilson (A’95), and Rachel Keller (A’14). When you’ve been harvesting a crop of working actors year after year since 1914, it’s not so much serendipity as the result of the school’s time-tested techniques.

The school’s success is defined by its consistency, but individual acting careers unfurl in fits and starts. Dive into the biography of nearly any success story, and you’re bound to unearth bouts of unemployment, struggle, and long stretches spent wandering in the dark.

The reality of the business is that no matter one’s pedigree, the odds of success—whether that’s defined as making a living in Hollywood, Broadway, or otherwise—are long. Don Wadsworth, head of the school’s acting program, says that for most actors, the big break—if it comes at all—arrives “not with the first or second job—but with the 40th or 50th.” That’s why the program instills the principles of technique, perseverance, and flexibility. “Those are what could give you a career,” says Wadsworth, “instead of just one or two flashy parts in your 20s.”

I never said such a thing. I just questioned the need to spend almost 87K/yr at CMU drama/MT that you can get the same education/training at VCU for 30K/year.

Well...if you decide you are going to pay $$$s for your kid to study acting, I can't imagine saying "just go to VCU instead of Julliard or CMU", where the most famous VCU acting alumni are the guy that played Flounder in Animal House and a guy that was on Criminal Minds.

Your kid has to actually get admitted to CMU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CMU is not unnecessarily hard. It seems hard because many universities artificially reduce courses rigor to accommodate the increased unreadiness of nowadays high school graduates. There are big portion of CMU students graduate with high honor. More importantly, CMU students are trained to get jobs done. The practicality and reliability is highly valued in work place, but disdained by many individuals as outdated qualities.

Examples? Most top colleges are still…well, really freaking hard. The difficulty of CMU just sounds like the difficulty of stem degrees. The honest question becomes why does it seem CMU’s education comes at a detriment to the college experience, while peers at other institutions can have both rigorous stem education and an amazing college experience.

Frankly everyone at top colleges “studies a lot”

Peers at other institutions with rigorous stem education don’t have “amazing” college experiences. If a program is known rigorous, the complains are similar. Though such programs can be small at many universities and thus overshadowed by the overall school experiences.

This simply isn't true. Stanford, Rice and Berkeley are very much STEM-oriented schools that no one would call "easy", yet they have plenty of happy students who have fulfilling experiences in college.

What sets CMU apart is a few factors:

1) CMU kicked off about 80% of its fraternities from 2003-2013 or so. A few have recolonized as shadows of their former selves, but without nearly a century of tradition you aren't going to get anything remotely resembling the same experience.

2) The lack of a D1 sports scene is a huge detriment. There's nothing to rally around or rejoice in on a regular basis, and school spirit is in the negatives.

3) Anecdotally, from the students I've known, CMU does not place a heavy emphasis on high school extracurriculars during the admissions process. Thus, it selects for a very one-dimensional workhorse type of student without social aptitude.

4) The amount of work CMU piles on is absolutely different than peer institutions, as is the grading scale. Professors are completely merciless in both regards.

5) The weather is godawful, which both discourages venturing outside and puts a big wet blanket over your spirits.

These aspects set CMU apart and aside from the nice surrounding city (which most CMU students will never venture more than a mile into, if that) the school basically offers nothing to counterbalance the brutal academics.

Pittsburgh resident here. Totally agree. My kid’s school sends a lot of kids to CMU each year and my kid’s stats are definitely good enough to get in and he won’t even consider applying. Former students from his school who went to CMU have universally stated that it’s a miserable place. It is just insane academics and nothing else that makes up college life and the campus sucks.

Yup--it was that way 30 years ago and has only gotten worse. I know 4 people who have attended in the last 3 years. 1 transferred after freshman year (to UMD). the other 3 graduated but were miserable the entire time and regretted their college choice.

You can find top academics without the grind and unhappiness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most grads from CMU drama/MT programs are jobless after graduation, or are working at Starbucks. My DD, a CMU grad, happens to be one of them.

What are the higher rated drama/MT programs where most grads aren't similarly jobless after graduation?

Northwestern---so well connected with both NY and CA, as well as the vibrant Chicago theater/comedy scene.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just questioned the need to spend almost 87K/yr at CMU drama/MT that you can get the same education/training at VCU for 30K/year.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most grads from CMU drama/MT programs are jobless after graduation, or are working at Starbucks. My DD, a CMU grad, happens to be one of them.

What are the higher rated drama/MT programs where most grads aren't similarly jobless after graduation?

There aren't any. Successful actors who went to good schools - Jodie Foster, Natalie Portman - were already famous by the time they enrolled. A swanky degree does nothing for auditions in NY or LA. In fact, it's probably more costly to disappear from professional gigs from ages 18-22. A drama degree is nothing more than a hobby for rich kids. Arts and entertainment are not degree-driven industries. The most successful actors don't have any degrees at all. Maybe some improv programs. Or certain acting or voice coaches. But no one serious is taking four years to study in Pittsburg.

There are many CMU alums that went on to become famous actors. Ted Danson, Ethan Hawke...just do a google search and you will see the list. Sigourney Weaver went to Yale Drama for a Masters as did several others. Certainly, Julliard has produced many famous actors, musicians, etc.

However, it's foolish to think of CMU theatre/acting or Julliard the same as MIT or CMU feeding software engineers to Silicon Valley. They do actually provide industry connections and talent agents will come to productions to scout talent and sign kids. But the arts are a tough industry...it's why Berklee School of Music always has the lowest median incomes of its graduates of like any college...because only 1% of any graduates will achieve Quincy Jones or John Mayer status and of course many super-successful pop artists never went to college.

I went to high school with Ethan Hawke, he already had made more than one relatively successful movie before going to CMU.