My DD is in Y9, looking to go to Drama or Musical Theatre training after sixth form. What kind of subjects, qualifications and vocational out-of-school experiences are required by Drama / Musical Theatre training places?
Any advice very gratefully received, feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall at the moment
I think drama schools are unusual in that the audition really is more important than any other factor. Most drama schools that I am aware of do not specify subjects (you can check on each individual school's website). Many do not even specify a set number of A levels or Btec (though I think some will be looking at 2 A levels or equivalent, again you would need to check each school). No qualifications are needed, as such, apart from fluent spoken English (I think this is the one common criteria, from memory).
In terms of vocational, out-of-school experience : well, all the related experiences are likely to feed into/help in preparation for the audition, but none of them is essential. The exception to this will be for Musical Theatre training where they will certainly be looking for skilled, experienced singers and dancers - you would be unlikely to get an MT place if you had never had a dance or singing lesson, I would have thought. They won't necessarily look at grades though, they will assess skill levels and potential at audition.
I watched BBC Young Musicians the other night and was struck by one finalist who got in to Chetham's school of Music at grade 4 level (which one might consider on the low side) but who was at grade 8 level within 6 months of admission. What had been clear at his audition was his talent/potential. This is what the drama schools look for too.
One of the most talented/charismatic students on the course I did had only ever done school plays (this is unusual though I think).
Most drama schools audition all applicants (I think). I believe Central weeds some out via the personal statement (though I don't know this for a fact - someone may be able to put me straight). In most cases, you pay your audition fee and you get your audition slot - this certainly used to be the case. Although this can make it a very expensive business, I do think it's the best way for schools to ensure that they don't miss out on talented individuals - I think it is very hard indeed to be certain that you are choosing good candidates for drama training from a paper/on-line application.
I would also add that watching quality film and t performances as well as getting to the theatre when possible will also prove very useful, so try and do as much as you can.
The highway's jammed with broken heroes on a last chance power drive.
One really handy thing to make sure of is that they understand the business they are going into. So many music and performing arts people don't have the work ethic that means they will be at the front of every queue, or have the nasty stuff learnt and done early on. Some are aware of the facts of life, some aren't.
Looking back to my college students from 1994 when I started teaching (having gone in to deliver a workshop for one afternoon, and stayed for 15 years) - I'm still in touch with most of the ones who 'got there' whatever that means, and it's fun keeping up with them. They're in WWRY, then they go to Mamma Mia, then into Les Mis, getting swing jobs, then the minor parts, then better ones. Some of the musicians work solidly for very average money, having a good life and going places I've never been - but secure in the fact that when this gets too much or they settle down, they can become teachers. I see dancers who delay their professional dance career by doing intensive out of hours dance while training to be a physic - safe in the vastly better pay that lets them then look for dance jobs and take time off from working for BUPA or whoever. The facts are that a tiny proportion are good enough, or just lucky enough to get famous and make serious money. Even dancers who go into choreography don't really make huge sums of money - because fees and competition work against you. The ex-students of mine making decent incomes tried performing professionally, hated the hard work and low money and became teachers, or arts managers of some kind. However, I'd estimate 90% of my old good students work in areas totally distant to performing arts, although they use their performing skills to be better sales people, or estate agents or hospital radiologists (just picking a few at random) Music and performing arts probably used up 30-60 students a year, and after all these years, only one has a name anybody would recognise. So that's maybe 1000 people put into the system - multiply that up for every college feeding in, and it's a bit gloomy.
The only deciding factor is their ability and attitude. The unit and dance colleges know all this - and are very good at spotting it, so the example above is quite right. They can spot talent they can do things with. The music example is quite common - the services do this all the time. Go into the Marines, as one of my girls did, with Viola at Grade 8 - and then they gave her 4 weeks to get to grade 8 on the trumpet. She did - and she's marched playing trumpet, and worn posh frocks at embassies all over the world - and in between been shot at in unpleasant places! It really doesn't matter of it's the Marines or Mamma Mia - the people who act as gatekeepers use paperwork to get you to the audition, then the interview does the rest.
I know this will sound daft - but I got asked by my old college to do a backstage and business talk to their new students on performing arts. He was in despair - applications were lower than usual due to an new local college opening, and he'd got a bunch who had never been in a theatre in their lives - never even been to see something! This is the scary side - you do NOT want to be in a group with people like this, because perf arts and music is hard work, and with uni places being more available, supply wise - are they too taking people who maybe four years ago would never have got passed the paperwork stage?
paulears wrote: This is the scary side - you do NOT want to be in a group with people like this, because perf arts and music is hard work, and with uni places being more available, supply wise - are they too taking people who maybe four years ago would never have got passed the paperwork stage?
Absolutely agree with you on this one. Our limited experience has shown that a many of the students doing a 2 year performing arts course have little or no interest in the industry and this does affect the quality of the course. sad but true. I think it is wise to be considering this for something after 6th form, rather than instead of.
This may sound negative, but you also have to consider the situation that should you not get into a drama school, it may be best to look at A Levels rather than a Btec as it may give an individual a more rounded list of qualifications. I may be old fashioned here but I do work in FE college and have seen what friends of our DS have done and Btec may not always be the best options. I reckon 3 or 4 A levels in Music, drama and possibly english are better.
with regards to the experiences we have had this year, quals are not always the only factor, and experience/ ambition/ talent are key elements to being succesful in auditions along with the personal statement in the case of UCAS listed courses.
Also, Join a youth theare and also do as many school shows as possible to build up your history of performing experiences as this will certainly be asked for in the interview.
To give the other side, BTEC courses can be excellent preparation. Though academically sound, with very good GCSEs my DD did a BTEC in Performing Arts and though I was sceptical (being head of sixth) I now see it was the right choice for her. She had so much experience and guidance for auditioning that she would not have had doing A levels. I firmly belive there is a right individual choice for each person, not one that is inherently better than the other.
The highway's jammed with broken heroes on a last chance power drive.
It's an individual thing. Personally - as an employer, I'd rather have somebody with a BTEC background simply because I know they can do - which isn't the same as somebody who knows about.
However - your own learning style is critical. I'm kinaesthetic - so doing is important to me, A Level typical candidates are auditory and metacogitive. Each does not so well on the wrong kind of course.
So A Level or BTEC is right - for the individual person.
my dd knows of a boy who did a BTEC and got into a top drama school, and others who have, having done A levels ! My dd chose to do A levels as natural progression from GCSES, so that she had a choice of going to UNI to study, keeping her options open as its so tough getting into drama schools and because of employability.
Its like anything though, for example, a friend of mine prefers to take on staff at his company who have had experience working in office environment already, rather than get someone who may be more qualified 'on paper' with a degree, whether its to a Masters level or not, because he doesn't want someone coming in who needs all the training. Those with actual experience just come in and get on with it - rather like those with Btecs behind them, so I understand what paulears is saying.
I was the Principal Examiner for one of the A Level subjects, and I've just finished being a verifier for BTEC. I like the BTEC system - but it depends not just on the kids, but the teachers. A Levels can be taught by almost anybody with the book - as long as they're a chapter ahead of the kids. The spec tells you what to teach, and sometimes even how. BTEC used to leave this to the teachers, assuming they were specialists. The new BTECs are now providing the teacher guidance because some clearly need it. I don't think in terms of value there's much in it.
What is currently worrying me is that many of the colleges are so short of money, they're making people redundant, and the easiest subjects to cancel are the creative arts. Usually justified by the fact there are too many graduates for the available jobs. In my open area, within 30 miles are 3 colleges. One shut up music and performing arts two years ago, another is consulting staff about redundancies, and the third, previously excellent - have lost their long term manager, got rid of full time staff and replaced them with part-timers. Before long, performing may not even be a local option 16-18, and will be a leisure study subject again, like in the old dark days.
The college I used to work at have told the perf arts people their annual end of course BIG show is history. No funding is being made available, so the staff and students are putting on their own events outside college to generate their own money for the college show? I hear some of the local schools are dumping dance - which they promoted heavily until the funding was removed. Now, what was good for the children is deemed to be too expensive to teach. Not good!
but 'in terms of value' ...you can't get into Uni without prerequisite A levels -
Many teachers at dds school and others schools are also part timers too in subjects like Chemistry, Physics, even English teachers float about between different schools !
