Tom Loughlin’s MFA in Acting

February 12, 2009 by Dennis Baker 

Go right now and read Tom Louglin’s journey to getting an MFA in acting. Below is a preview:

Let me say that I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Daisey’s point of view. Taken as a whole, MFA programs are by and large selling a false product. But rather than seeing this situation as deliberately fraudulent, I would prefer to cast this more in the light of understanding it as an “emperor’s new clothes” situation. It is not that universities are out there deliberately trying to defraud students of money (the “ponzi scheme” reference), but rather that they are simply refusing to acknowledge what’s right before their very eyes – that the system is stark naked of value or meaning. Mr. Daisey is merely the young child in the crowd pointing that fact out.

What is fundamentally wrong with the MFA system today is exactly what was wrong with it 27 years ago when I was an MFA candidate. Its only true market value lies in the fact that it is a terminal academic degree. Every college professor who has an MFA knows this in their heart, and yet MFA programs in this country by and large are simply unwilling to admit it. Beyond a handful of very exclusive and well-connected programs, it has very little value in the actual theatrical marketplace. Just ask the thousands of unemployed or underemployed actors out there with the degree.

MFA programs are selling an expensive and crumbling myth. If the model had any promise at all – and it probably did when the regional theatre movement had its own promise of community-based ensemble companies – it’s now a castle in ruins.

Filed under: Acting, Graduate School, Theater/Theatre
Tagged:

Living Underneath the Hyphen

February 11, 2009 by Carrie Edel Isaacman 

On one of the first days of class with Jennifer Strycharz at City College of New York in the Drama in Education, the first course in the MS in Educational Theater, she stated, and I regretfully do not remember who she was quoting, but she was quoting someone who talked about being a teaching artist as “living underneath the hyphen”. I really liked this saying about teaching artists and what they do. We are artists who teach.

I hate to sound too over the top but it is just the truth when anyone says the arts will inspire and motivate in a way that traditional learning may miss. In today’s economy where arts are being threatened it occurs to me that to make a commitment to work as a certified teacher in the arts and as a teaching artist it is not enough just to teach, but I have to be an arts advocate.

Some areas that I have taken a real interest in towards including in my work and education is Disabilities in the Arts. During the Teaching Artist 101 course I was so inspired by the representatives that talked about the organization of VSArts.org. I am thinking about purchasing the diversity kit from VSArts.org site. I was so inspired by all that I found there. They even have forms that can help a teaching artist to adjust lesson plans to the particular population that they are working with. I also love all of the informative articles there as well.

I also love to work in any grade level including college age students. I am really enjoying being in education again.

FOLLOW UP: It is Jonathan Neelands is the one who started the term “live beneath the hyphen” . He has several books with wonderful games and exercises that we use in class. Enjoy!

Carrie Edel Isaacman is a regular guest blogger who is currently working as an Adjunct Lecturer through CUNY and substitute teaching in the NYC Public Schools while she pursues her MS in Educational Theater at City College. She is also involved in TA 101 with New York State Alliance for Arts in Education.

Filed under: Educational Theater, Teaching
Tagged:

MFA Theater Programs = Ponzi Scheme?

February 9, 2009 by Dennis Baker 

Various reactions have come up in regards to Mike Daisey’s original blog post about MFA theater programs.

I like how Daisey responds and reminds the readers that his focus was on “institutional choice to charge tuition that have no relationship with the craft they are teaching.” and “If a teacher is teaching in an MFA program that charges a tuition its students can never pay through the craft, the onus is on the teacher to justify for his or herself how this can be ethical.”

Does the teacher, that is within the academic system that charges a total sum of money that can not be paid off within the profession they are being trained for, have a responsibility to justify why this is ethical? Or do they turn the blind eye because they are getting a steady pay check? I agree with an additional post by Daisey when he states:

I would argue that perhaps one of the largest pitfall network effects of a capitalist society is the tragedy of the commons—in this case it is possible that a universally needed resource (future artists) is being exploited to ensure economic stability for the system today. By telling theater artists today that they must have training, and then making that training out of context to the industry they will be practicing their craft in we hurt the art form as a whole. I’ve had some fantastic teachers in my life, and I love teaching myself. That doesn’t absolve me or anyone else of the responsibility to call out a broken system for its problems.

The thrust of Daisey’s argument lies in the idea that it is very difficult for future theater artists to create theater when they are racked with debt from MFA programs. Most MFA acting programs pride themselves with the notion they are creating professional artists and not teachers. Yet many MFA actors have to look for teaching jobs when they graduate to pay off the debt from school as well as to sustain a living. We might not see the ramifications now, but like the Ponzi Scheme, this pattern of behavior will soon catch up with us.

————
If you like what you read please subscribe to either the RSS feed or by email.
Subscribe by RSS Feed
Subscribe by Email

Filed under: Acting, Auditioning, Graduate School, Teaching, Theater/Theatre
Tagged: