How long before drama colleges are extinct?

 2 years ago I wrote this blog about how the education system was killing vocational training. Then last year I expanded on this even further in this article this was a matter of weeks before announcing that my own college was going to be a casualty of the underfunding of vocational courses.  Now by some miracle, we survived (thanks to a huge surge of industry support and some very generous benefactors), but the issue of funding loomed ever larger today when ALRA announced that it was closing.  Obviously, I felt a sense of deja vu.

Firstly my heart goes out to the students, staff, and graduates of ALRA. Losing your 'safe place' and your 'college' is disorientating, to say the least. I remember telling our lot so vividly. It ranks up there as one of the worse days of my life BUT we did ensure that all of our staff were paid, our freelancers had been given lots of notice to look for other work, and our students (like ALRA's actually) were all guaranteed a place to continue their training together, the big difference was that our students were TOLD this information in person by myself and the Board. We were there for the hard part. We owed it to our students to tell them in person and to help them to find some satisfactory closure to the whole sorry episode. They could contemplate the news in 'their' building. We remained present online. We didn't run away - we confronted the ugly head-on. 

I don't know what happened at ALRA but it's wrong that freelancers are left with monies owing, and it's wrong that some staff found out on social media. It's wrong that their students were told this information in an email when they weren't even on-site. That's a shitty way to treat your community. Even if they had been locked out of their building - call the students to a "town hall" meeting in a park or something, you can't just vanish.

ALRA is the 2nd drama college of the supposedly elite Federation of Drama Schools to suddenly close. Such an 'elite' organisation that they still haven't updated their website to note that Drama Centre London closed 2 years ago. 

The Federation plays off the fact that they all USED to be 'accredited' colleges, in fact, lots of people still use the term, but actually no course is accredited anymore, that ended with Drama UK - the parent organisation of the Feds.  In fact other than lauding themselves as the elite there is very little to celebrate within their tight-knit little group these days.  How many of their gang got called out for institutional racism back in 2020? How many of the 'gang' have got ongoing investigations around abuse? Some investigations have already concluded and have been found to be guilty. What has the Federation done about it? Absolutely nothing. 

As colleges fold they do nothing to help the students, the safety net comes out from the world of social media where everybody tries to help everybody else. It's a nice by-product of the industry - empathy.

The Federation say that their mission statement is this: 

"To engage in activities, projects and discussions collectively and individually that enable diverse groups of people to receive excellent training for the contemporary profession in all its aspects.

To work with other schools with shared vision, values and approaches in the training to share current best practice and identify opportunities for change and enhancement in the future.

To work with the industry and professional stakeholders to ensure that the training experiences provided allow graduates to enter and sustain professional careers with a current, adaptable and expert skillset.

To be an identified presence in public discussion of both the challenges and values of conservatoire training."

It seems to me that they've done none of this. It's a group of old boys navel-gazing and missing the big picture. It's not even myopic, it's blind!

Vocational training is so hard to fund as it's expensive. You can't sit 100 people in a lecture theatre and pay for one person to teach them all, you need to work in smaller groups, with a lot of contact hours to cover all the relevant work. Small groups, and high contact hours are very expensive. 

Most colleges sold out years ago when they went down the degree route. I've shouted about this for years but they were all too busy staring at what they thought was the golden goose, however, their myopic vision failed to see the Trojan horse. Validating universities are big business, they want value for money and our training courses just don't provide that.

I spent months exploring this option but failed to see how it could be financially viable to ethically train a group of performers with the financial restrictions of a degree. Something had to give, and actually, a lot of colleges have been 'giving' a lot. A reduction in contact hours, an additional charge, additional students to make up the deficit (which actually only increases the debt in the end as you need more studios to house them. .  which means that you end up trying to get more students to fill the half-full studios, and so it continues).

The books don't balance at degree level - that's the takeaway. I fear that ALRA might be a victim of that simple equation.

ALRA won't be the last college to close, we'll see courses closing or reducing in numbers (be that student numbers to reduce the loss, or contact hours to reduce the spending), we'll see independent colleges selling up and joining large universities or large conglomerate organisations.

UK drama training used to be elite - now at best it's functional, because the people that cared, the professionals, are no longer running the show. The accountants took over and the big boys aka the Federation welcomed them in with open arms because they never looked outside of themselves.

Shame on them, and shame on the organisations that have pandered to them (and yes, Equity and Spotlight I'm looking at you again on this).

The biggest shame of all today though is on our industry as we've seen yet again how the 'person' has been lost in the commercial. An increasing pattern of behaviour that does nothing to encourage people to stay in the industry.

The old-school camaraderie is still around though - social media demonstrates that when we hit a crisis. It's just a shame that this lasts for the briefest of moments before the next crisis hits.

We need an urgent review of vocational training in the UK. We need to share good practice. We need to accept that the death knell is tolling for all independent colleges unless something drastic changes. We need to value vocational training, not sell it to the highest bidder for a bigger studio and a branded theatre.

Drama Colleges Need To Stop Enabling Predators

 I've just finished reading the Diversity School's redacted report, you know the one where they invited people to give their accounts of what was happening in drama colleges today. That'll be . .  today. . . some 2 years after all the initial complaints were made that resulted in several colleges having to do formal investigations. Horrifying to read then that the complaints that had previously been upheld after investigation were being replicated some 2 years later. Where's the evolution? Where's the safeguarding? Where are the changes that they all said that they were going to make?

Now the report isn't clear as to whether these latest complaints were checked? I know all too well that some people for whatever reason, are capable of making false or unfounded allegations.  So I'd be interested to know whether the examples cited in the report had been verified by the colleges involved, or were they just taken on face value? Judging by the fact that certain colleges have already issued a statement saying (again) that they must do better, I also feel fairly safe with my next big statement.

WHY HAVEN'T THE COLLEGES SORTED OUT THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT  THAT'S GOING ON WITHIN THEIR BUILDINGS?

This is such an easy fix the only possible reason for the fix not being undertaken is that they don't see it as an issue.

When I opened The MTA I took advice from a lot of people (obviously), and one of the most important pieces of advice I got (from the Casting Director Debbie O'Brien to be precise), was to ensure that I had a strong boundary line between my staff and my students.  We chatted about various stories we'd heard about (keeping in mind this was back in 2008) but I didn't really need much persuading. I knew that both students and staff would be vulnerable without a clear policy on staff contact.

So one of our rules is that all communications between our faculty and our students have to go through the college. There's no mutual exchange of phone numbers or email addresses. Staff are not permitted to follow students on social media which back in the day prevented people from DMing or PMing each other (although that is now a moot point when some people just leave their DMs open). By removing literally all ambiguity we're attempting to protect both our staff and students.

We also talk about attraction as let's face it - there is nothing more seductive than talent. If your faculty and cohort are good they should all be falling in love with each other (except of course it's not love, it's lust, it's wanting the 'forbidden fruit' and when that 'forbidden fruit' is gloriously talented it looks ever more appetizing). With a faculty like ours, we would expect students to be in awe of some of the staff and would want to have a 'special relationship' with them (we all want to be friends with the popular people eh?). Similarly, staff can end up in awe of a particularly talented/nice student, it's normal and natural, but by having a strict no-contact policy it just can't go anywhere.

Now for sure - I've had both staff members and students that have tried to 'bend' this rule. Students will try to DM someone and say that they forgot the rule or a staff member might 'forget' and think that it's OK to give out a telephone number if they're needing to check on something . . . BUT this only happens once. A college is based on mutual trust - and I'm lucky that one of the parties will invariably raise a red flag to me if the rule has been breached.  We obviously take each case on merit (and to be fair it's only happened a handful of times), and it's usually cleared up very quickly. 

Twice in our history, it wasn't cleared up quickly though - and on both occasions, the guest creatives were told in no uncertain terms that they were no longer welcome at the college.  One had been doing an external project with some of the students, but their innuendo-laden chit chat had left the students feeling uncomfortable, and the other had been taking one of the students out for a coffee after rehearsals (supposedly to support them. . . but of course on every level that's a strict no-no).  Interestingly one of the perpetrators kind of admitted that they had crossed a line and just took the "do not darken our doors" approach quite calmly, the other though very quickly turned on the students and indeed the college, and denied that the countless meetings had ever taken place. Both reactions are interesting, but both people I believe abused their 'power'. Both might have had innocent intentions - but our rules are clear, and if you're unable to uphold them, it's our job to ensure that you're not around our students. Even more interestingly I've seen both people publicly berate others who are called out for the exact same behaviour that they themselves had done. How manipulative and perverted is it that they know that the behaviour is unacceptable but still choose to do it themselves?

Our staff and students are only permitted to socialise after shows (and then only in the theatre bar where everybody is around), and at our Gradunion ceremony. No ambiguity. Simple but effective hard-fast rules. 

If you have a culture where your students and staff are drinking alcohol together - then you will inevitably have a problem. The line has been blurred. Beer goggles, awe-inspiring talent, the desire for the "forbidden fruit" - it's an incident of abuse of power waiting to happen.

I've heard the line about 'but they're all adults' but let's face it,  it's just a smokescreen for people who know that they're abusing their position. By definition of the word faculty and the word student - one person in the relationship or burgeoning friendship will hold the 'power' and that is not healthy.  

If whatever is going on between people is 'true love', then it can wait until after the student has graduated, or the staff member has resigned their post.  Again . . . no ambiguity. It's uncomfortable for all the other students to observe a 'special relationship' developing between a staff member and one of their peers. It can lead to preferential treatment (or in some cases the opposite, a public bullying to throw people off the scent). However every student pays the same, so every student should be treated the same.

So reading again about sexualised abuse of power at drama schools is devastating, because it means that the people in authority at those colleges are enablers. A strong sentence. . . absolutely. However, they could protect both their staff and their students if they simply implemented, upheld, and policed a no-contact policy. It really is that simple. However, I'd go further . . . if you have staff that have a difficulty with that change in policy. . . ask yourself why, as that's your real problem right there.

Staff and students should expect to be protected from predators in a college environment. Let's stop thinking that performers are just edgy shall we and name it for what it is - predators prowling our drama colleges looking for their next prey.

Get them out!

The Audition Question 2021 Version

Ever since I opened The MTA back in 2009 there's always been a rumbling of grievance around the fact that drama colleges charge for auditions. It's one of the regular 'hot topics' that pop up from time to time.

Before I opened the college I remember reading somewhat aghast as one of the main drama colleges unwittingly (I suspect) informed the members of The Stage Forum that it auditioned X amount of students/year, leading a whole load of us to do the sums. They easily made in excess of £105K/year in audition fees alone. 

If you're unfamiliar with the drama school/conservatoire model you pay for the privilege of getting seen, and probably rejected (as the odds are really stacked against the majority of people due to (back then) the numbers of students that they could accept/year). Auditions back then varied from £25-£75, plus you have to factor in travel expenses, possibly overnight accommodation etc. Now if you're getting an amazing workshop for that money maybe you could argue a case for the cost - but at some colleges, applicants are getting 10mins of somebody's time, at other colleges applicants get cut before being able to show the panels their full skillset, at some colleges you're seen in groups of over 100 people! Years later I discovered that at some colleges if you were successful during their first-round you were gifted the right to pay some more to get your next round audition?

I'm not blameless, we charged a nominal fee for years, as at first it was felt that if we charged nothing we would be underselling our course, so in order to 'fit in' we should value ourselves with a fee in order for people to take us seriously.

We often spoke about scrapping it, but as our policy was to only audition a small number of people each day we were despairing with the number of no-shows, so we not only kept the fee but increased it in order to deter people from wasting our audition places.  Yet still, we discussed it as it just didn't really fit with what we wanted to represent.

Susan Elkin from The Stage used to regularly call this out, and indeed I had many a conversation with her as I grappled with how we could manage the no shows whilst still placing a value on the course. I salved my own conscience by proudly seeing on every single anonymous feedback form since we opened that applicants felt that we had given them value for money. We had spent the day with them, we knew their names, we had workshopped, we had chatted, we had attempted to be helpful whatever the outcome was, and we would always give each applicant written feedback. We only have one round, but then we only audition a maximum of 15 on any one day, so we got the opportunity to see everything that we needed to see on that day, thereby minimizing the cost of a recall. 

Then back in 2017, we introduced #auditionfromhome. A self-tape first round really. Applicants could send us their self-tape and we'd advise them whether we thought that we'd a good fit for each other just based on the skill set. It meant that we were able to save people the additional expense of travel and accommodation if it was clear from the tape that we wouldn't be the best college for them. Interestingly when The Stage ran our press release I had a bit of flack on the old Twitter - people calling us out for making it too easy for applicants, "audition from home" they said, "how lazy". Ironic right now don't you think?

Whilst this certainly saved people some money it still didn't fit well with me.  As I bang on and on about I'm from a council estate in Swansea. My family would not have been able to afford for me to apply for lots of colleges, yet here I was - suddenly on the side of the establishment all because we couldn't grapple enough with how to solve the problem of how to place value on our time (even though the applicant's time was valuable too), and how to stop the annoying no-shows, leaving people waiting longer than they needed to in order to audition for us. I mean it was all rather arse about tit, wasn't it? 

So eventually we scrapped our fee. The compromise was to ask people to pay a refundable deposit in order to secure their place. They'd get it back if they turned up for the audition. We kept the day the same, a whole day audition like we'd done from the beginning, no cuts throughout the day, feedback to all applicants, we also threw in some comp tickets to watch one of our shows if applicants wanted to see us in action. Our audition panel was the same as when we started - the senior faculty. The people that the applicants would work with if they'd been successful.

When the pandemic hit we (like the rest of the world) moved straight to zoom. In fact, we were the first drama college to move our auditions to zoom. Obviously, that was just timing as opposed to us attempting to be a 'first', we already had auditions booked in for the first week of lockdown. We had a few practice runs at it and found a way that we felt worked for us, and hoped that it would work for the applicants.

In truth, we were shocked. The interactive online audition told us everything that we needed to know, and seemingly the applicants were leaving satisfied too. We'd changed the day to a half-day in order to avoid zoom fatigue, and we stopped the feedback as by moving it online we committed to only seeing 6-7 students at a time.  

The zoom auditions worked so well we announced back in August 2020 that we would be keeping them post-pandemic. It was a great way to see people without them having to pay a penny (other than the refundable deposit). Finally, it had all fallen into place. We started this academic year giving students the option of a half-day virtual audition or a whole day in-person audition, and that's the way that it's going to stay now I think. I mean who knows what will be thrown at us next. Having recently been bought an Oculus it's not that hard to envisage a VR audition room within the next few years, and I can't wait to embrace it (if only because I love a gadget).

Our auditions cost us money, I have to pay for staff to be in the room, not all of them are on salaries, and even for those that are, I need to pay for staff to cover their classes that day. We lose the potential of a room hire in the audition space - a much-missed source of income at the moment, as it's those rehearsal room hires that pay into our Hardship Fund. The admin takes time, and of course in business time always equates to cost. However, it is our cost to absorb. I got that wrong in the beginning. I just wanted to 'fit into the establishment'. For those of you that have followed The MTA's journey, you'll know how dumb that thought was given that we are forever the course on the outside of the establishment, doing things our way, from the 2 year model to a whole school approach to mental health.

Of course, what's prompted this blog is the social media call to arms to abolish audition fees at a time when a lot of colleges are just doing self-tapes. The irony of somebody calling this out as wrong whilst simultaneously starting a Go Fund Me in order to help people who are financially struggling sums up the disconnect in our industry. 

We shout about what's not right, we celebrate and indeed laud any of the established colleges that knock a couple of quid off their audition fees in the name of 'opening up the room', yet fail to see the systemic failure in the way that we operate. 

Next time you're at an audition, or indeed sat in a lecture theatre on the first day of your course, or see a college online telling you how 'lucky' you are to be offered a place because they've auditioned thousands of people - do the math.  Due to how many people we'd audition on one day we never made money on our auditions. I'm not that sure how many other colleges can say the same with their hand on their heart.

Auditions should be free. . . we got it wrong for really poor reasons actually, however, we've corrected it. Maybe the rest should too, and maybe if you're advocating for a charity or fundraiser trying to help the underprivileged pay those fees, you're inadvertently endorsing the business model.

So. . . I now run an online college?

The MTA's strange academic year worked out well in terms of the CoronaVirus lockdown. We were incredibly lucky that we managed to complete our 5 performance run of our flagship revue show - Something Old, Something New.  Whilst it's important to note that it's not our Showcase, it is an important production to start introducing our graduating year to the industry.

However, our timeframe did mean that we were able to chat with our students before we ended the term and reassure them in person about how we were going to run an online college if the UK did follow the rest of the world and get put into lockdown. We were even able to chat through roughly how it might work.  We were lucky - 2 days later that's exactly what started to happen. Even though we were then on holiday I did a quick live stream to our private group to remind them not to panic as we'd already spoken about what would happen.


I don't know about anybody else, but I must confess I never had a backup pandemic plan up my sleeve ready for a global shutdown, and with no tech department to help me, I think that I undertook the biggest learning curve of my life (and I thought that I'd already made that journey when I opened the 'real' college 11 years ago). However, I had just 2 weeks to create The MTA Online. One of the things that I felt would work in my favour was that when I created 'the other MTA' back in 2008 I had consciously created a course that I could run and monitor remotely. The idea being that after the college was up and running I could go back on tour and continue to run the college in between my 'real work' as an MD*. The college has a policy that all staff have to be currently working, so the online infrastructure was actually already in place and part of our everyday life.  Our classnote system is online, the timetable is online, there's not a day that goes by where we're not communicating with them via private groups, etc. So it was just the actual teaching to sort out <gulp>

So then it was hitting each problem in order of urgency. The priority was to ensure that all the agent 1:1 auditions could at least be offered in an online format.  So I first made friends with Zoom. What a fast-moving world we all live in isn't it? Suddenly we're all speaking about meeting up in zoom, yet most of us had no bloody clue about it before the pandemic.

The majority of agencies immediately agreed to move their auditions with our graduates online, so that was my first relief moment. We wanted to reassure the students as quickly as possible (even though they don't graduate until September I was aware that they were seeing all the #UK2020grad posts going up which were bound to make them anxious even though they were not in the same position as those graduates that had lost their showcase), so back I went online to live stream some more reassurance. I felt that it was important to be 'present' as opposed to just posting notices.

The next job - was to move our 100% vocational course online.  Finally, after a few years of really fighting against the 'establishment' because I've refused to turn our course into a formal qualification (because our industry is vocational and therefore it's the training that's important not the piece of paper in terms of getting you into the audition room), The MTA came into its own. We could literally rewrite the course to ensure that this would be a valuable term for our students. I was so mindful that they were still paying their fees so I had an obligation to give them value for money albeit in a different way. I was also mindful that our industry had literally had the rug pulled from under it. The MTA has a faculty of very loyal freelancers - the very people that had completely lost their income. So I wanted to try and help to support as many of them as possible too. After all, a college is only as strong as its students AND faculty.  I felt that there was a moral obligation to try to help (if possible)

So emails were sent out explaining that we were going online, and if they wanted to continue to teach for us, they needed to work out how to run online classes. My only stipulation was that the classes had to be interactive. I felt that videoed classes wouldn't allow us to watch and correct the students in real-time, and therefore not achieve the aims of the course which would, in turn, impact the progression that we needed the students to make this term (pandemic or not)

Suddenly I had an entire faculty on the learning curve with me. With that cog working away in the background next up we had to move our auditions online for our 2020 intake. Once again I didn't see the value of them sending in a self-tape as we wanted to work with them, we wanted to interact with them. The MTA's whole day audition is all about getting to know the people, not just the talent. Cue several senior faculty zoom meetings as we worked out how best to run the online audition. Suddenly lockdown was our friend, as when we needed volunteers to help us work it out we were never short of students and graduates willing to pop into the 'virtual' room to help us try out our latest idea.  A plan was formed, the auditionees were notified and before we knew it my senior faculty and myself were all in a virtual room with several complete strangers.

This turned out to be our lightbulb day though. Whilst for sure there were limitations online, it also offered up so many great things. In many ways, we actually preferred the online audition, and it's certainly going to prompt a serious discussion once the dust has settled about how we audition people moving forward. We already offer a free online first-round audition in a bid to save people money, maybe there's a way to move the main audition online permanently - saving them a fortune in travel & often accommodation. Maybe we could offer both options? I don't know. . . but definitely watch this space.

Having experienced a few hours in the 'virtual' college, we all started to realise that there were endless possibilities that we could explore. The MTA does a 50/50 stage/screen split anyway, so actually working with a lens between us offers us lots of opportunities to explore. We live in a world where more and more auditions are via self-tapes. What an amazing chance we had to really focus on all of this stuff.

The dance staff met up and all were confident that they could offer worthwhile online dance classes, voice, and acting were easy to transfer online. Strangely enough, singing was the hardest area, as whilst 1:1 singing lessons could happen with ease, group singing is just not feasible in our 4G world.  After much asking around it seemed like my only option was for the students to mute their mics and sing to a screen? Our students are not singing for pleasure, they are singing to enhance their skill set, we're looking at the nuances of group singing. They might have been blending beautifully, their harmony line might have been divine - but the tutor would never know. However, we did know that the 1:1 stuff worked really well.

Still on holiday we had another live-streamed chat with our students (& graduates. . . as we have a college for life policy and therefore I needed to check in with them too), and as part of our 'checking in with your mental health' chat, we were chatting about what people could do during this lockdown, and lots of people started chatting about learning to play 'that instrument' that has sat in their room for years but they've never had the time to learn it. Cue the next idea. We are not an actor-muso course, nor do we aspire to be, however we all know that instrumental skills are incredibly useful to a performer. So a quick check who could gain access to a guitar to check that my plan would be worth it - and suddenly 75% of the college are now having weekly guitar lessons. Learning in streamed groups expect to see something spectacular at next year's revue (she jokes, but not really).  Then a group came to me as they had access to a keyboard, could we teach them how to play the piano? We're currently putting this in place.

In our senior faculty meeting, we were chatting about the fact that literally, everybody was available right now - so we should try to get some good Q&As and masterclasses going, as they'd work well with this format. It would also mean that our students always had something to look forward to. Days and weeks of lockdown monotony were going to hit hard. We needed to offer them something to be excited about. What an amazing opportunity this online term was going to offer us. Of course, being online meant that we weren't limited to UK guests - so off I hopped over to Broadway (virtually of course), and with the help of our friends, we suddenly found ourselves with one hell of a term. Q&As with film directors, Dexter Fletcher & Joe Wright, writer David Eldridge returns to the college, masterclasses with Cassidy Janson & Annalene Beechey, Q&As with Broadway stars Claybourne Elder, Laura Osnes, Julia Murney, Kara Lindsay, with West End stars Adam Garcia and Louise Dearman, plus meetings with producers, casting directors, resident directors AND a private screening of the Desperately Seeking The Exit thanks to the ever marvelous Peter Michael Marino. . . and. . . well, who knows? 

We're on day 3 and already we've discovered new things, but again because we're completely independent we can implement new ideas within hours. From an 'oh no' term, we're seeing our Pandemic Term as an 'OMG we could do this too...  .' sort of term.

My virtual office stays open for a while after regular classes, so students and graduates can pop in if they're struggling or just to say hello. Our mental health clinician is still available to the entire college 24/7/365 and is of course now just offering online or phone sessions, but it does mean that our lot (& staff) have instant access to a mental health professional if the lockdown is particularly hard for them. 

So that's it, within the space of just 2 weeks . . . I now run an online college. I sit in mission control for hours on end looking at screens, opening up zoom rooms, and planning. What else can we do? Maybe I'll revisit this blog at the end of the Pandemic Term to see if it was really as exciting as we currently think that it's got the potential to be.

Stay safe all 

*this never happened. Turns out running a college is really busy

Has the education system 'broken' vocational training?

How many wannabe actors or indeed their parents have ever read a casting brief? My suspicion is not very many. Let's face it, when you're young and naive you believe that your talent is so great that one of the great directors or producers is going to spot you in a school play/amdram production, pluck you away from your small-town sensibilities, and whisk you off to the 'bright lights'. As a supportive parent, it's unfeasible to think that your child won't succeed. After all - they clearly have 'it' (whatever 'it' is).

In reality, a casting brief is a set of requirements for a specific role/job - what it never asks for, is your qualification. No brief goes out requiring a BA(Hons) in theatre, or a BTEC in performing arts. So why are colleges flocking to hook up with universities in order to offer these golden pieces of paper then? Quite simply it's all to do with finance. All government funding streams or government top up streams require a college to prove via examination results that they are doing a good job. So when the drama colleges suddenly started to offer degrees just over a decade ago, it wasn't because they felt that it benefitted the future careers of their students, as they know (like we all know), that their degree isn't really the 'back-up' that parents seem to think that it is. If you decide on a career swap, you'll be going back to college anyway in order to be trained in the area that you've chosen your new career to be. However what they don't tell you, is that lots of colleges will also allow you to do these educational top-ups with proof of a different kind of education, and with proof of your career to date. Once you're into postgrad education the criteria for entry is more reflective of life. Of course, by this point you've used up all your government-supported financial help, so you are entirely funding your new career path on your own.

However, for many non-vocational colleges performing arts courses are a complete cash cow. We are in an oversubscribed industry, with everybody secretly thinking that their talent will be enough to give them a career, therefore it doesn't matter where they train. I once did some work with some 3rd years on a musical theatre degree course at a regular university. They had recently just finished a self-led project aka cheap to run as it required no staff involvement aka a waste of time. They were paying £27K to train themselves. I auditioned someone from another university who was preparing for their showcase. . . a student-directed showcase, which staff could be called in to assist them in should they have a difficulty. This particular student acknowledged that the showcase was simply an end of course show - there was absolutely no chance of an agent coming to see them in their student-led performance. They had been working on the showcase (and their showcase alone) for the whole of the term. They were also paying £27K to train themselves.

As drama colleges clambered to get affiliated to universities with the promise of better resources, more finance, infrastructure support, what some of them lost sight of was the training experience. As the universities saw the numbers of people applying for these courses they increased their intake, and indeed in a few instances increased the number of courses that they were offering too. What they didn't do though was increase the quality of the training.

I taught in HE when this was beginning to happen. I suddenly found myself teaching an acting to camera class with a cohort of students that included students majoring in things like graphic design, engineering, in fact, you name it, there was probably somebody in the class that was studying it. The module had been diluted from its specialism into a 'filler' module for anybody in the university. I resigned after 1 semester of teaching, having taught the course for 2 years previously. The students that needed that module were fighting to get on it but had to fight people that had no requirement of the skillset.

We know that we're in an oversubscribed industry. We also know that the situation has got worse,
with new courses and colleges popping up every year. The long-established colleges have also been expanding, be that with new courses or just by increasing their numbers. Courses that once operated with 20-40 students can now have in excess of 150 students/year. It's the simple economics of supply and demand, isn't it? If you're auditioning thousands of people every year for a handful of places, why wouldn't you expand your model in order to accommodate more students and create a bigger revenue? With a bigger revenue stream, you can build bigger and better premises, which will attract more students, which increases the demand.

And so it continues.

Suddenly training actors has become a lucrative industry for some. Alongside the weird and wonderful new courses that are springing up, we have the bread and butter courses which create a cunning revenue stream for the colleges. Students not actually ready for a 3-year training course, can now easily find a 'foundation course' which will charge them to get prepared for training. If you've done a degree where you've been primarily self-taught, you'll need additional (aka 'some') training, so pop on a post-grad course as well. The bread and butter of the already lucrative filling of the 'main course'.

Obviously having founded a college which pioneered the 2-year model I already have some questions about the traditional 3-year model (though also completely understand why lots of people need that time to solidify things, I just realise that not everybody does). So I have even more questions now that training to be a performer is taking some people 5 years - or to be more specific is costing people 5 years worth of fees.  Yet those same colleges are being urged to think about the socio-economic diversity of their student intake.

It's a tough model to break though. Most wannabe performers grow up wanting to go to one of the 'main' colleges. The colleges that they've seen in programmes since they were little. They don't differentiate the fact that they're seeing that college's name so often because they've been going for 50 or more years, or indeed that they're seeing a college's name because that college is spewing out hundreds of wannabe performers every year, so if only 5% of them are doing well, it's enough to make an impact on the programme references. It's interesting to note that none of these established colleges readily publicise their long term stats. How many of the class of 2005, for example, have actually managed to have a sustained career? Instead, they'll (understandably) focus on the alumni that have the more popular public following, even though they might have graduated decades ago.

The market is cornered. You grow up wanting to be a performer going to the college that your idol went to. You're not good enough for that yet, so they pop you on their foundation course (and charge you for the privilege of course). You're happy to be there, as, after all, your idol went there so it's bound to be great, and surely the £10K investment in the foundation course will get repaid when you secure funding for their main course at the end of the year. Of course in reality that only happens for a few people, the others are still unsuccessful at their dream college, but now they're also £10k poorer, their parents have bought into the myth that they need a degree, so off they pop to the nearest university to get the 'golden ticket' degree. 4 years later and over £50K poorer (adding together living costs and tuition costs), they leave college, with no chance of working, haven't got a clue how to get work (as a lot of the university courses genuinely don't teach you that skill, just check a few internet forums for proof of the number of graduates asking really basic questions around working in the industry), are unable to sign up for Spotlight (which automatically limits their career. . . I mean as unfair as that statement is, it is also a fact) and find themselves looking for a new career, with their parents lauding the fact that their 'fall back' degree has proven to be a saviour.

And so it continues.

Meanwhile, for those of us that have resolutely stayed in vocational training, and have remained small by choice, in order to maintain a good staff/student ratio - our students are being hit from all angles. They have the 'grown-ups' getting concerned because they're not getting a formal qualification, financially they are not entitled to any government support at all - even though they are working in excess of 40 contact hours/week. As they scramble around looking for sponsors organisations like Equity and Spotlight, who are quick to take their money to join up to the union and the register, won't put a purely vocational college on their self assessed 'approved' list, which would allow us to at least submit our students for certain bursary awards like those funded by SOLT, solely because we don't offer a formal qualification. Yet we're the only college to maintain an open record of every single one of our graduates - proving that we're more likely to create a sustainable career for our students than a lot of the other colleges on their list. So to recap, the training is valid enough for a career (our students can join both Equity and Spotlight), but we can't knock down the walls of the establishment in order to get closer to some much needed financial help for our students, because we don't offer a 'golden ticket' degree. That'll be the same degree that you never see requested on a casting brief. Where do most of those casting briefs get posted? On Spotlight.

This week we've seen a long-established college that took the poison chalice of a university 'merger' close. We've already seen other courses at other colleges get shut down as unviable. Is this a trend, or just a few much-needed pruning exercises? As the established colleges get bigger and the complaints about the numbers increase, we see no decline in the number of applicants, as parents (and students) accept the 'herd' mentality, as (please refer back to the first paragraph), and believe that the 'cream will always rise', and 'they have to learn to deal with the competition anyway'. Personally I'd rather my child learn to deal with competition at a school sports day, not when they're 16 and I'm being asked to pay £9k-£14k a year, but maybe that's because I don't have access to that sort of money? The college buildings get bigger and better, enticing more and more people that "College X" is the go-to place - just look at the number of rooms it has? Of course, they only need 120 studios because they have so many students, but a college building of that size will also increase its running costs, so best take an extra 50 students a year in order to support it.

And so it continues.

Since I opened The MTA in 2009 I've been shouting about the fact that our industry needs regulating. To be clear - that's not by the old boy network that has been effectively self-regulating since the start of the time. It needs an independent body to look at ALL the courses and ALL the colleges to see who is really delivering what. Audit the staff, audit the finance, audit the true story around pastoral care (don't get me started on that one again), and audit the true facts of sustainable careers. The government should stop funding those degrees that are purely providing 'life skills' yet claiming to be offering a 'career'. I completely buy into the idea that a college education is great, but when funds are short, let's not be funding a degree that isn't worth the paper that it's written on. Fund the courses that are getting the results. In other words let's get some transparency out there and stop the myth that has been co-created by so many people and organisations, all of whom have a vested interest in the findings. Then let's get those facts out to schools and the wannabes and their parents.

Theory of Diversity

This evening I'm going to attempt to hold an online Q&A with teachers concentrating on what to look for in their HE options for their more talented students.

Having been a member of a teacher's FB group for a while, I've been struck by a) How passionate the majority of the teaching staff are around the performing arts subjects. Without a doubt putting in more hours than the other humanities/sciences etc.  All those after school rehearsals start to add up you know. b) How much they are relying on outside information to inform their recommendations to their students specifically looking to go into performing. However c) that outside information isn't actually available.

What we have instead is hearsay and history.  eg Teachers are still talking about accredited courses..but there are no Drama UK accredited courses anymore.  This is just one of a number of examples...but how on earth do teachers find out these basic facts, when they are already snowed under with additional work?

Anyway you get the idea - I felt really sorry for those teachers desperately trying to do the right thing by their students, but a lack of basic information was not easily available.

Then I was walking my son to school the other day, and as always I'm struck by the diversity of ethnicity in his playground...and as ever, how lovely it is, that at primary school level anyway, the innocence of childhood means that everyone is equal.  Society hasn't yet taught them how to be racist. Parents of different nationalities mix. . . and the children see for themselves that 'we are all equal'...we don't automatically become ghettoised.  They are all taught to have the same dreams and aspirations.

So this thought popped into my head that I'd like to share with you. I'm assuming that most schools these days have a great cultural mix (unless you're a small village school out in the country somewhere). The ethnic diversity is acknowledged and celebrated.  So why aren't we seeing this diversity come through to drama school level?

I would hazard a guess that the largest percentage of ethnic minorities that end up in vocational HE come through youth group links, be that at National or Local level.  Drama has long been the saviour of disenfranchised teens, whatever their cultural background.

My suspicion is that bad career advice might be coming into play, and therefore has an impact on the diversity in vocational training.

We need to educate parents and teachers that a course that offers 16hrs contact time/week should not be considered if that student is truly talented.  We need to start shouting from the rooftops that you don't need a degree to become an actor.  Students who might be struggling academically to get the 'grades' for a degree course might be the most talented students...and there are courses dead right for them.

As an industry we need to be shouting about the courses that are not getting students ready for the industry.  Courses taking 30+ students a year under the pretense of getting them industry ready, are no doubt teaching their students valuable lessons...but they ain't getting them ready for a career in performing.

I did some work with a group of 3rd year students not so long ago at one of these courses.  They could not even warm up their voices properly!! It wasn't their fault....they had barely received any teacher contact time.  Their final performance was not at the level of a year one, term one piece at a vocational college.  This was of no fault of the students or the lecturers actually...it was the fault of a money making course, selling false promises, and parents and secondary school teachers falling for these promises under the pretense of 'it was a degree course therefore it must be good'.

So let's 'inform' parents and secondary school teachers of what's really important. The universities need to rename these Mickey Mouse, Money-Making courses, as a life skill degree (for which it would be good value for money actually, as drama truly does provide you with those skills), and let's start looking at the courses that truly deliver and offer true value for money.

Let's not forget, that all of this nonsense of 'let them get a qualification behind them' is actually costing parents £27k.  So let's scrap those courses, get the student finance being ploughed into them redirected over to the vocational sector, and maybe we'd start seeing a true representative of the modern day Britain in our auditions?

#loveahashtagday

Wow....everything gets 'a day' now doesn't it? Every illness has 'a day', practically every job has 'a day'? What is that about? Is it a hashtag thing? Does 'a day' work? Today is #lovetheatreday will somebody see that hashtag today that has never been to the theatre and think 'I know...I'll give it a go. . . after all they all seem to love enough to give it a hashtag?'

Then who am I to talk about hashtags? I based the entire Mental Health Charter around the hashtag #time4change (I mean I even used 4 instead of for. . . cos that's how things rock in the 140 character world called Twitter)

Originally this blog was going to be about so many thoughts - how it scares me that people are advertising courses just as a 'West End thing'....like theatre stops and starts within a few postcodes? How sad that is, when some of the most creative, exciting stuff happens way outside London. How I didn't think that that was healthy for young professionals - as if that's the only goal, then the majority will fail...and what does that mean to them?

Then I was going to write this about how interesting I'm finding it at the moment, seeing phrases that I categorically know were 'created' by the incredible advertising gentleman called Toby Richards who had donated his time to The MTA back in the day because he believed in our ethos....now being in common usage throughout the industry. How back then I disagreed with Toby over so many of them, as I just didn't think that they 'worked'...but then I remembered that he was a marketing guru for a reason, and I wouldn't allow him to come in and change some of my music. In other words, we all have strengths, and the strongest people are the ones that recognise their weaknesses and work with them.

Then I was going to write a blog about boundaries, and about how important I consider it to be that staff and students don't confuse socialising with networking and vice versa. How strict boundaries should be in place to protect staff AND students from mixed messages that can confuse studio dynamics.

However, one thing just kept coming into my mind...it's Christmas. Christmas is definitely coming. On Monday I started rehearsing this year's panto. . . so I KNOW that it's Christmas very soon.
However, Christmas could maybe even should be hashtagged #crises. Christmas is one of those times when you can be surrounded by people - yet feel so alone. The worse feeling of all.

Actors, musicians, techies up and down the UK will be in 'strange' cities this Christmas, cooking the turkey or nut roast with their panto families, as it seems easier than attempting the Christmas commute, and all the dangers that that entails e.g. will 'work on the line', mean that you're sat on a replacement bus, when you should be on stage for the Boxing Day matinee?

There is no sadder time than seeing everyone so happy, so optimistic for their future, when you are personally struggling.

UK Productions, one of the countries more prolific panto companies has signed the #time4change charter - hopefully, their staff have already received the charter, so people that are already experiencing some mental health difficulties have had warning flags raised.
Some regional theatres e.g. The Nuffield, Wakefield Theatre Royal - have already signed the charter. Meaning that their 'guests' this Christmas, will have easy access to information on mental health crises centres in that area. These things over time WILL make a difference. They are the start of a much bigger conversation.

Then all those thoughts led me to this. . . the crux of this blog...where are all the other colleges? Why is there a resistance to signing up for #time4change? Are people really just so politically driven to think that because another college came up with the initiative they couldn't join up? Or are people thinking that they've got this sussed already? Are your 'policies' really working? The evidence would honestly suggest otherwise.

More and more evidence is being sent or delivered to me about how there already is a mental health crisis in our colleges. We know that you're inundated with people needing your services. We know (as one person told me) that it's like a Tsunami.  Let's face it, we know that the colleges expanded without a thought to pastoral provision, and now everyone is talking about Mental Health, students are using the opportunity of breaking away from home to start to explore their own, deep seated concerns.  Please let's work together and create the most supportive, safe environment for ALL drama and technical study students in the UK. Let's not make this about politics...let's just accept and act on the fact that it's #time4change.

I want to sit in a room with ALL the other colleges and thrash out a plan that could help everyone make the most of their resources, whilst supporting students and staff.

You have to be in it to win it. Rubbish phrase....I know....but our strength here could be in our numbers. Now what was that about recognises weaknesses and working with them?

Is there a drama UK?

The news today that Drama UK have finally disbanded is clearly no surprise to anybody in the industry. The writing was on the wall the moment RADA, LAMDA and all jumped ship a few months ago. Or if you were to believe me...the writing was on the wall even further back.
http://www.thereviewshub.com/blog-annemarie-lewis-thomasa-stamp-of-approval/

For the three of you that follow my blogs you'll know that I have never been a fan of this organisation. I've been appalled with their lack of guidance and indeed interest over the ever increasing Mental Health difficulties facing our colleges (which eventually grew into our #time4change initiative).  I regularly put hand to keyboard to type my disgust at their latest initiatives e.g. going over to China to raise brand awareness for Drama UK? I mean what the hell was that about? Colleges paying a minimum of £6K a year for students to get a showcase in NY? That's right...because it's really easy for a UK resident to just break into the NY acting scene isn't it? Green card anyone?

In my blog the other day I noted how the drama colleges were taking in nearly three times the number of students than they had originally, yet the counselling provision in those colleges had remained the same. Where were Drama UK then? Why weren't they questioning the fact that a college could one day train 40 students, but the next day feel like they had the resources to train 120 students? Why weren't they limiting the number of courses colleges were running? Resources were getting diluted and Drama UK did NOTHING to stop it.  Instead they took their 'subs' and ran....seemingly to China and New York to 'make connections'.

There's another part to this story though that maybe not everyone is getting. Yes, all of 'us' knew that the writing was on the wall for Drama UK (literally everyone would mention it to me whenever accreditation came up)...but actually Joe Public and their parents, those same people who felt like getting their child into an accredited college was the Holy Grail of training, didn't have a clue.  Just last year I was challenged on a popular forum over the fact that we weren't accredited, and when I pointed out that we were vehemently against it, I was literally called a liar, and a 'parent' hypothesised that we must have tried but had been rejected.  It was beyond the realms of their thinking that we wouldn't be aspiring to join this disjointed organisation.

So what happens now? Has it levelled the playing field for a new college such as ours? Well of course it hasn't as we don't have a track record on our side. We don't have decades of training to 'prove' the quality of our graduates. Here's the rub though - do we really know what's going on in all of these well established colleges? We know that Lord whoever trained at the Royal Wherever in the Year whatever but do we know what happened to last year's graduates. . . and I mean ALL of them?

We all hear the sound bites of X, Y and Z who all left 'established college' to walk straight into a Broadway lead (no Green card problem in this fantasy world), but do we know what happened to the other 95% of the students that graduated that year?

The only available stats that we've ever been given by Drama UK was a survey based on the graduates of 2012, but even that was diluted as it lumped together their 5 'best colleges' (which at the time would have really given me the goat if I was the Principal of one of the 'lesser' accredited colleges not mentioned in the survey. A hierarchy amongst the hierarchy it would seem). That survey might have been really unfair to college 'A' which had outstanding percentages, as their stats were watered down by college 'D' that had had a difficult year. Of course, good news for college 'D' though who suddenly weren't doing that bad at all.

Has a college's success been diluted since increasing its numbers? How would we know without regular stats?

Our industry needs to be regulated, I don't know what that should look like. I would like mental health to be part of the regulation e.g. if you're not offering the appropriate pastoral support you're excluded from  'the club' until you do.
I'd like it to cap numbers of students training - because there are too many colleges, offering too many students a false dream. That false dream has a hefty price tag attached to it. Our industry is saturated as it is.  Controversial I know....but when have I ever said anything that wasn't ;-)

I would propose that we all start with transparency. Every year since we've had a graduating year group I've published our stats. That includes our industry 'drop out' rates. These stats are on our website for everyone to see.  Imagine if we all did this, so that we could finally get a true picture of what's going on out there?

I know that this won't happen - it's too costly to be that accountable to the industry, and indeed to their 'business'. However we all want to see rogue colleges closed down. . . and complete transparency as the norm would do this quicker than you could say "Drama UK".

Audition time - advice to parents

Some of you might remember this blog: http://www.thereviewshub.com/blog-annemarie-lewis-thomas-the-audition-problem/ a reflective blog looking at the annual audition 'problems'. If you didn't read it at the time, please do nip across now and have a little look.

As part of my job, and in an attempt to keep up with what's going on in the 'real world', (as us theatricals don't really nip out there enough really do we?) I've been researching drama school auditions and trying to find out what information there is out there for parents.
I know (for example), that when I went to college, my parents, having nothing to do with theatre, were really anxious about me making the 'right choice'.  Like most parents their idea of the 'right choice' proved to be very different from mine.  I found out not that long ago actually, that my father had been holding out for me to go down the Conservatoire route, even though that hadn't been on my radar for one second.  Back then there was a clear choice between a university and a thing called a Polytechnic. Now we don't have those two options anymore, as eventually all the Polys (as we used to call them), morphed into universities.  I think that back then, most people felt like the Poly was the poor man's university.  The thing that you got into if you couldn't get high grades(as they seemed to base their grade requirements on whether they wanted you or not. So I was getting offers of a couple of Es all because they thought that I'd fit in, whereas the universities were asking for Cs and Bs). Well certainly that was my family's take on the whole thing anyway.  So you can imagine the joy when a) having done the rounds of both universities and polys I way preferred the poly approach to teaching and b) I dared to say the immortal words of 'I want to go to this one'...to Middlesex....Polytechnic.  At that time their Performing Arts course was considered to be one of the best in the UK. To be called a BAPA (BA in Performing Arts) was actually quite an honour.  In fact to this day I consider it a major achievement that I was invited to be on that course.

As it turned out being a BAPA was perfect for me, the course suited me so well (all practical training with literally about one essay a term....if that).  They assessed me on doing shows.  I mean what more could I have asked for? Even their final exam paper was a 'seen question'..perfect for the practical musician who didn't really see the point of picking up a pen, when she could have been sat at the piano.

Even more interestingly I returned to the BAPA course just 3 months after graduating, this time as 'lecturer' (before you say it....I don't think that that was right either, but at the time, it certainly fed my ego to be invited back to teach on this amazing course, even though I had gained literally no experience since graduating with the exception of teaching on one children's Summer school project). Fast forward 4 years and I was teaching (lecturing) at a 'university' as Middlesex Polytechnic ceased to exist, and Middlesex University was born.  Not a thing had changed, I was still teaching the same things (I did have more experience by this point, and I had started to write modules for the course)....suddenly I was teaching in a place that my parents had wanted me to study.  In other words, it truly was all about 'a name'. Nothing about the reality of the situation.

It's the same with drama colleges really isn't it?  One day they were all offering diplomas, then seemingly overnight they were offering degrees.  All of a sudden 'informed parents' wanted their children to have a degree whilst studying to be a performer, as that seemed better than the old diploma.  I wonder how much the courses changed to accommodate that qualification? A few more essays? Definitely a whole load more paperwork for the teachers I bet, and why did it change? Well it's simple...funding.  A college offering a degree got more core funding than a college offering a diploma.  It was never about the training....it was all about the ££'s.  Just like when the polys became a university.  Nothing really changed, but the bank accounts looked healthier, and the staff looked a bit more stressed with the additional task of working their way through lots of red tape.

From what I can see the information for parents out there is as confusing as it always was.  They are forced onto various forums asking questions from the people that haven't actually any real knowledge, just a sense of camaraderie  from other parents (and students) that have already 'gone through the system'.  Sadly, from what I can see though, it's a bit like googling an illness.....you get told a whole lot of things that you really don't need/want to hear.

There's a whole issue here about why aren't some 6th form drama/dance teachers more informed.  I've certainly heard from a few in my time asking for information on our course, and our entry requirements etc, but compared to how many people are doing A Level Theatre studies/dance or BTEC it's really negligible.  So who the hell is actually informing people of the realities?

So here's some unbiased information for parents currently trying their best to work their way through the maze of the forums.  a) you really do not need a degree to be  a performer...it's the training that the course provides not the piece of paper at the end of it that will enable your child to have a career as a performer(they'd actually succeed with nothing....but seemingly nobody offers that). b) If you go down the degree route your child will receive more funding options e.g. Student Loans, etc. c) In a specialist subject e.g. dance, your child could still become a teacher later on in life without getting a degree now.  There are courses that they can go on later which will enable them to get onto a PG programme in teaching. Let your child work out what route suits them - be it a uni route or a vocational drama/dance school route. They are so different, and only your child will know what fits for them.  Check the contact hours of the uni/college. I think that that's the key to good training. Drama UK (which used to be the parent's Holy Grail of good drama school training with their 'accreditation' programme has slightly disintegrated, as major colleges e.g. RADA, LAMDA have stopped paying their extortionate fees), however they still represent what they consider to be the 'elite' insist that their colleges have a minimum of 30 hours contact time/week.  Check out what industry links the college/staff have? Ask to see their latest statistics - who cares if Sir Imanan Actor trained there 50 years ago....what are the stats for today? Be wary of soundbites. "6 students in the West End straight from college" sounds amazing, until you find out that their course trains 75 in a year? Find out what happened to the other 69 people that they didn't mention. Now it could very well be that all of them found representation, and all of them went straight into employment too...but ask the question. If the college is shouting about the fact that all of their students had found agent representation on graduating, just double check whether the college has an agency of their own...and how many of the 'all' are currently represented by them!

Our industry is notorious for a high drop out rate post graduating.  Find out what their percentages are? If you take the degree route you're going to have to pay £27,000+ for that piece of paper that you believe is so important.  That becomes a very expensive ornament if 6 months down the line your child decides that working in retail is more their thing (before you say it, the money or course wasn't completely wasted because your child 'found themselves' and the experiences offered to them over the 3 years will enhance their lives forever....but admit it, you'd be a little aggrieved).

It's all to do with gut instinct...it has to be.  If you're the parent pushing your child in one direction it's not going to work out.  Had my dad had his way, there is no doubt that I just would have failed, as I had no interest in the route that he considered to be the best for me.

The reality is that if your child wants to be a performer, nobody cares what qualification they've got. We all just care about what they can do.  As I always say, what's the difference between a diploma pirouette and a degree pirouette? When you go into that open dance call and they ask to see "the triple", do you think that they ask to see the piece of paper first to see where you studied? Then does it matter what class degree you got? Are you more likely to secure that film role because you got a first than the person behind you that got a third....but who is better suited to the role. . . . because they're shorter?

Insist on a degree because you think that they have more options later on in life, only to discover that they've been having 10 contact hours a week and have made no industry links at all...you'll soon find yourself looking at spending in excess of a further £15,000 as your child slowly realises that they need to do some sort of post grad course in order to actually get some industry links (let alone more consistent training).  Every year I'm horrified at the number of students that audition for The MTA's course, in their third year of college, or a year out after training at a uni.  Those poor parents are being forced to pay double whammy because they didn't know what questions to ask the first time around.

So I hope that this has helped you a bit. If you have a question....why not call me at The MTA, or any of the other colleges and ask us the questions? Hell call Drama UK (it might actually give them a purpose). Call Equity or Spotlight? Call any professional organisation!  After all it's in our interest to give you the facts, not the fiction of what you think our industry is currently demanding. Be wary of the internet oracle - find out who they are and what they're basing their knowledge on.  Being anonymous can afford some people more status than they perhaps deserve.

Don't forget at the end of the day you're not just another day older . . . you are also potentially £27,000 poorer.

Disclaimer: This of course is just all IMHO...but I really hope that it helps you out a little bit ;-)