Britain has some of the finest performing arts training establishments in the world - the 22, including, Royal Conservatoire of Scotland, RWCMD, LAMDA, Guildhall School of Music and Drama and the like, which belong to Drama UK, formerly CDS — and many others. So it’s no coincidence that we also produce some of the world’s most outstanding theatre — as the recent Olympics and Paralympics Opening Ceremonies helped to highlight.
But surely there has to be a saturation point? I suspect we are now training far more performers than the relevant industries could ever absorb, even if every trainee were of star quality.
Whenever I review a drama school showcase for The Stage I do so in the knowledge that many of the 20, 30, 40 or 50 students in front of me will never find work in the field they’ve trained for — partly because there are too many of them and partly because high numbers usually mean a long tail. Yes, of course, actors and other performers have always expected to rest for substantial periods of their ‘working’ life but why are we making it so much more difficult by training so many more than we used to?
And if you don’t believe this is happening, then just look at the way established schools have grown in recent years with new courses, more students, extra staff and bigger buildings. There are also large numbers of new independent schools launching all the time. Some — the Musical Theatre Academy and PPA, for example — are excellent and have acquired enviable reputations for having a large proportion of former students in work very quickly and consistently. Others are distinctly lacklustre.
It’s a jolly good thing, in my view, that there are trainers willing and able to give the established schools a run for their money. I approve of healthy competition. On the other hand, there is only so much business out there, in the form of potentially employable students who really would benefit from this training. This ongoing splitting of the market is not doing the industry any good.
Did I mention money? Because that, of course, is what a lot of this is about. Every student, especially an overseas student, brings a useful dollop of income. And they don’t, at audition stage, even need to be any good. You can just bring armies of them in, charge them and reject them — quite a milch cow. Against a background of funding cuts, the larger schools seem to have become quite adept at alternative ways of enhancing their income — which they need for all those expensive building programmes and the kind of 21st century ethos which styles the principal as a chief executive who has, like other senior staff, to be paid a high salary.
Hardly a week goes by without my hearing of another new school. The motivation of people who start does seem to be generally less mercenary and more altruisitic, at least to begin with. Passionate people want to share their expertise and develop young performers, but they are still running businesses and need at least to be cost-effective - obviously.
I think it’s time we stopped setting so many performing arts students up to fail professionally, and that means not training quite so many. Relentless expansion just means that hundreds and hundreds of young people are being sold short every year. It simply isn’t fair to take their money and foster false expectations.
But what does 'not training quite so many' really mean?
Surely the flip side of this is that already, as shown by the people who do get that sought after place fifth or seventh time, already people aren't getting places who are 'good enough'. And while the test of 'do you want it enough to return' is a good streamer, those who will return year after year and just always happen to be 'talented enough but not with the current year group' are the unlucky ones. Yes, it's indicative of the industry but training is training and if determined and talented enough (and had they been chosen would have been on the same level as their fellow graduates after three years), denying them that seems a tad unfair. Let's say the MTA and PPA didn't exist, their students had only auditioned for the CDS schools. Either those students wouldn't be training now, or some of those at the CDS schools wouldn't be training now because the MTA/PPA students would have their places. Assuming that none of the drama schools had made a mistake with who they took, that means dedicated and talented students are being barred from the industry. Yes, it's a taste of the industry but either the industry is then denied these graduates, or those determined enough will try to break in on their own, possibly less equipped for work and therefore actually less likely to find work than if they had been able to train.
I think first-time drama school rejection is a good filter for those who wouldn't want to come back and re-audition as it goes some way towards stopping people finding out after training that they cannot deal with the industry (yes, I know many who do train will quit anyway). However, for those who really 'can't do anything else' and won't stop trying, I'm not sure what denying them the chance to train really does . They may audition less well in the open calls but will still be there, so actually fewer places may be the thing that does set up these individuals to fail professionally?
I'm not sure we should describe not acting as failing professionally.
I have a universally recognised qualification from three years on an acting course and lots of transferrable skills which make me widely employable. I've not been on stage for five years. Am I a professional failure?
Attending a drama college doesn't give anybody the right to work as an actor. Success in the acting profession is not easily taught but more usually earned. You can prepare students with technique and CV building but even the most forward thinking of institutions will struggle to teach luck and resilience.
In 2012 lots of very different people are involved in drama training and that training means something different to each individual. Let's not write them off as failures just because they don't share the same dreams.
Oh gosh - think I've been very misinterpreted! My comment about 'failing professionally' was only in response to the phrase in Ms Elkin's blog- I think both of us used it only in the sense of 'failing to work as an actor when that is the current professional goal of the individual'. I thought it went without saying that choosing to do something else isn't failing at life!!!
Were you just picking up on that or are you arguing that there's a benefit in the training being kept open for those who may eventually take a different route? As an individual journey, I can completely see the benefits of the experience but I don't know if it should be there for that reason - I would probably learn an absolute ton from training as a doctor, but if I then chose to work in a different area afterwards then my time an In no way saying there is anything wrong with a change of direction but I do think it makes sense that these competitive drama school places should be provided on the assumption that those who take them wish to work as actor!
Sorry, typing error there - 'then my time and money may have been better spent more specifically preparing for a career in that area'.
As an owner of one of the schools mentioned (The MTA) I remember getting so much flack when we were first blogged about, with various people (all anonymous...of course) suggesting that we were in the wrong for opening yet another college, thereby giving hope to another group of wannabes. The exchange became very heated with the same 'anonymous' people having a go at us for insisting that all of our staff were currently active in the profession. Well 3 years on and we've proved those doubters wrong - 100% of my inaugural group left college with agent representation and they have all had a successful first year out. Are there too many drama school places? Of course there are - how many of those places are actually turning out industry ready performers? Well that's a much more interesting discussion. I really hope that Drama UK produces an audit of all the colleges on it's register - what percentage of these courses are actually producing working actors, and how long are those actors staying in the profession, and whilst I agree with John that training to be a performer actually produces lots of transferable skills - I opted to open a vocational college - not a transferable skills college - and that is what my students are paying for.
Apologies for 2nd post - but in answer to some of the blog - at The MTA we charge overseas students exactly the same as UK students - after all it doesn't cost me anymore to train them. As for using the audition process as a 'milch cow' we actually cap our auditions (I should also add that students auditioning for us ALL spend a full day with us and ALL get written feedback).
This was a really interesting article to read, and I loved the mixture of comments that people have made about it. I haven't really worked out exactly what I think about this subject yet, but it certainly plays on my mind a fair bit, in half-formed ideas.
I DO think that it is an oversubscribed industry. I've known wonderful actors who have left drama school and not worked at all. I've worked with heaps of actors who haven't trained at all, some of whom have had a lot of success.
If you want to cut down the number of fresh graduate hopefuls entering the industry each year, rather than reducing the amount of school offering courses, you should reduce the class sizes. I've known prestigious drama schools that take on about 60 students in each year group for a particular discipline. I can't imagine training alongside 59 others, I would feel a bit lost I think. No doubt there are financial reasons to take on more students, especially from abroad, but I don't think it helps.
But, at the end of the day, what does it really matter if we have so many actors vying for a career. All it means is that there will be a lot of people who get bored of the chase and have to one day decide "this isn't really what I wanted" and leave the industry. But I don't think there should be any shame involved in ducking out. It's a tough life, and I think you should get some sort of medal for at least giving it a shot. Barking up the wrong tree is a worthwhile pursuit in my opinion - i think it teaches one a lot about life.
I'm sorry a lot of that doesn't really make a great deal of sense. I realise it's a bit of cacophony of words, but if anything that reflects my ambivalence on the whole subject.
thanks again for an interesting article.
Hold on.
I read your most recent blog yesterday about how you said we should be encouraging kids more to believe that drama and performing is a worthwhile career choice... yet here you are telling us that we should stop training so many.
Which one is it?
It isn't really a contradiction. I want drama schools to stop misleading (ripping off?) students. I also want much better informed careers advice for secondary schools students so that they are able seriously to consider the many jobs in the industry beyond acting/performing.
Owing to the increase in the level of interest of the students towards the theatrical paradigm, the huge number of upcoming drama schools are justified. Even if there is a shortage of the market demand, it does not imply that we should reduce the level of intakes in such schools or discourage new schools.