Defining Gaslighting

My mum, a staunch unionist, always taught me about social responsibility. She would always call out injustice wherever she saw it. She inspired me to do the same.  This ongoing discussion will not help the college, but if it holds an organisation to account then it's a really important conversation to have. I can't turn a blind eye to this (I mean I seriously wish that I could). . . the cost to our industry is too high.

Over the past couple of years lots of people's eyes have been opened to the fact that certain people in the public eye are culpable of gaslighting. I did a poll the other day on twitter asking people if they felt that gaslighting had increased since we've had a PM that literally does nothing else.  A stark percentage believed that his lack of integrity had trickled down through the cracks of society.

For those that aren't sure what gaslighting means, to gaslight is to make people question their own reality. So when Johnson says one thing and then denies it in the next interview, we're all left wondering if we'd imagined the first statement.

In my first blog about all of the Trinity debacle I was clear that I felt that their response to our initial complaint was rather. . . well. . . gaslit. They actually didn't address any of our concerns at all, simply telling me that the report was the report and we just had to suck it up really. To be clear they didn't write those exact words. . . but that was definitely my takeaway. 

I find gaslighting fascinating - take even their initial response, all of my senior faculty had read that report, and we all had input on the corrections, we had all come to the same conclusion that our main assessor's input was missing, yet when faced with a corporate response taking zero accountability, you instinctively have to take a step back and question your own reality. The massive difference here though is that my faculty, the students. . . a LOT of people had heard the same things at the same time. This wasn't one person's word against another. 

Anyway - today they've issued a statement designed to shut down the unofficial social media campaign that would have the potential to damage their reputation. . . and they've disappointingly gone for gaslighting one more time.

So let's just deal with facts shall we . . . here goes

1) Trinity failing to process our pre-validation assessment within a reasonable time frame did massively contribute to our closing. We've been clear all along that they weren't solely responsible. It's no secret that we had announced last year that we were closing. . .so clearly our position was always precarious this year. Suddenly having access to the potential of student funding though was a game changer for us and would have allowed us to be sustainable and indeed viable for the foreseeable future. So both of those facts can just sit side by side comfortably.

2) Even in their statement they've got their facts wrong. . . the company that has named itself as a regulated awarding organisation are now stating that they only watched one in person show. They came to 2. . . maybe it was just a typo eh, but you'd expect a bit more rigour in a statement defending their integrity*

*UPDATED to add that they've now issued a correction notice about this, but when I say a correction notice, it's actually not, they just now say that they watched 2 shows, they've just tried to make it all casual and normal.

2) They say that their work is scrutinised, they spend a long time telling us about their great reputation. It was a 9 page report and we had 6 pages of corrections. Make your own conclusion.

3) We would have been OK with the decision to pause the validation process IF that decision was based on facts taken from the main assessor. The report focussed on dance, it didn't mention our singing or acting at all, other than in the show report for Hair, which states that we had "demonstrated standards of singing, acting and dance required by the diploma"

4) They state that our report had been 'unavoidably delayed' - which is true as I had received our original recommendations back in March, yet the report (with different recommendations) was presented in July.

5) They state that they're working within the "published guidelines". Firstly I'd love to see those as we haven't been able to find them anywhere, but also every college is so different. eg they might have made a recommendation that we had a new building, in which case it would have taken us years to be validated, so validation is a piece of string issue. The difference here is that we were TOLD by the assessors on the day that we could be optimistic to be validated by July. Our main assessor had worked for Trinity for 17 years as their main assessor, he wasn't some rookie prone to error. In my meeting with them, they chastised this assessor for speaking out of turn, noting it as a point of learning. You conclude whatever you like, as we are not able to contact our main assessor. He's not able to speak to us. We did reach out to him, only to be told that he no longer worked for the organisation and therefore couldn't comment. 

6) They've refuted in the "strongest terms possible" our claims about them falsifying parts of that report. Who would be so dumb to suggest that without tangible proof? Not us, though interesting that they've now popped out in the public domain that they've watched a "sample" of online shows. 

7) Finally this statement "Further, we wish to make clear that we will not tolerate any personal attacks being made against Trinity’s staff and assessors and any questioning of their integrity in their professional work." Now that's very clever isn't it? That leads the reader by the hand inferring that personal threats have been made to assessors. To my knowledge, not one threat has been made to anybody.  More than that I'd be mortified if it had - that's not the way to hold an organisation up for accountability. A social media shout-out requesting accountability is not threatening behaviour.  Let me go further - I DO question the integrity of the person that wrote the report that we received, and I DO question the integrity of an organisation attempting to gaslight their way out of an issue. I DO NOT question the integrity of John Gardyne, our main assessor, we don't question the integrity of Catherine Dulin who came to assess Hair and took time to speak to us after the performance, and we DON'T question the integrity of Brenda Barratt-Glassman who was our second assessor. I DO find it a shame though THEY weren't so loyal to their assessors in a zoom meeting when they mentioned that one of them hadn't been able to understand a system that we were trialling at Trinity's request.  Note how I would NEVER sell one of those brilliant assessors down the Swanee. In fact - it strikes me that we're standing up for the integrity of the assessors by wanting to see the original report. We believe that report to have been an accurate representation of our course.

To conclude, we are also a charity. . . but I'll save you the gaslighting PR job, as I'd rather just deal with facts.

Expect the Unexpected

 Every year when a new intake joins the college we ask our graduates and 2nd years if they have any advice for the newbies. Without fail one person will always say that to 'survive' #theMTAway they need to expect the unexpected. Now to qualify that really quickly - what they're referring to is our penchant of springing surprise auditions on them all the time. We do it to train our students not to be afraid of auditions, to almost see them as a game. Successful or not, just to have taken part means that it was an audition 'banked'. None of us ever know when the payout of that deposit will be, but if you did your prep, it will eventually pay you back.

Well, this week's event has made me really reflect on that phrase. Monday was truly horrific. Since the Board voted not to run next year late on Friday evening, it's fair to say that my weekend was . . . difficult. I still had a show left to finish writing, and it's REALLY hard trying to write a comedy when you're living in your own private hell. Just to make 2021 really perfect, just a matter of days earlier I had also been home to Wales to attend the funeral of a really close relative. It had been one of those tragic diagnosed one week died 2 weeks later sort of scenarios. With my wife looking after the children I ended up locking myself away in the office for the weekend writing, grieving and stunned actually. 

In a bid to support our students when we broke the news I was flagged by Jon Harris, the Chair of our Board, Sam Hull, a Trustee but also one of our original cohort (so she'd been there on the day that the college opened), plus faculty members Josh Mathieson (Head of Voice/VP), Giles Taylor (Deputy Head of Acting) and Tilly Vosburgh (Head of Acting who had literally ubered across to us after finishing a morning shoot).

The next hour was a blur really, emails scheduled to go out to incoming students, staff, supporters, 2 year groups to tell, a social media live in a private group to tell our graduates. Here's what I do remember though - the first years whilst devastated were instantly galvanised into a group of action, even though the situation was desperate we still managed to find things to laugh about (a very important MTA trait). The irony that they had literally just finished a MT class looking at rep only to discover that the song of the day had been "Tell Me It's Not True"? I mean WTAF? 

The 2nd years were equally stunned, but recognised instantly that they were in many way unaffected by the decision (other than the lack of free dance classes moving forward), so immediately after we finished explaining the situation to them - their response? They asked to go across to the other studio to support their friends in the first year. It was as beautiful as it was devastatingly painful to watch.

Then this is when it all changed - as I had made the decision to personally tell our graduates (college for life and all that, so we have regular contact with them, and this was far too important to just send an email). I nipped into their private FB group to go live and tell them (I should add that the only other time that I've ever done that actually was when it was announced that the UK was closing down for a global pandemic, and we went live in all our groups to reassure them and tell them that we were around to support them).  As with our students, we explained our financial position in detail as we're always transparent with our students, yet even when I made it clear that we were looking to find stupid money very quickly, they were instantly galvanised to try and help.

By that evening a group calling themselves "The MTA Community" has started a Go Fund Me, we had already been contacted about the potential of some larger donations, and by the time the news went public at 7pm it felt like this kamikaze juggernaut that I'd been trying to steer for the last few months had already been taken away from me, with a whole group of people suddenly attempting to steer it instead. 

It was a conscious decision to put out our statement on our own terms via our social media channels, as for quite some time now it's been evident that our industry press has a clear bias supporting the Federation of Drama Schools, and their clickbait social media headlines invariably belie the story of the articles held behind a paywall. We had nothing to hide and A LOT to say, and we wanted the full story out there.  Whilst we felt that it was too late for us, we know that we're not the only college struggling with policy decisions designed to push out true vocational training.

Never in a million years did I think that our post would have the reaction that it did. We felt that we were such an insignificant cog in this beast of an industry that we would be gifted the dignity to slide away quietly. I was aware that we had facilitated change in the training industry, especially around all the mental health stuff, but even that felt like it had been sidelined recently having heard the absolute horror stories that were spilling out in the media. Organisations that had signed up to the #time4change mental health charter had clearly done nothing more than offered lip service to it given what else was alleged to have been going on in these colleges.

How wrong we were.  As people that work with me know I'm fastidious about responding to messages instantly, invoices are literally paid on receipt as I just like to keep on top of my work. However, there was no way that I could keep on top of this. Once I've finished this I've got some serious catching up to do.

We still don't know what's going to happen, we still haven't secured all the funding that we need, however, we have now said that IF we did reach our £250K goal which would enable us to end the course properly for our current first years, we would also run one more first-year group, only this time with no guarantee of a 2nd year, and as the £250K is essentially paying for "ghost seats" for the students that we failed to attract, we committed to filling those seats with disadvantaged students who would never usually be able to afford a vocational college. We'll hold auditions for a diverse group of students who would like to train #theMTAway for a year. They'd get to do 3 shows with us if nothing else. 

My only unfulfilled dream around The MTA was to find a way to fund 50% of our places with 50% funding already in place. Maybe, just maybe our final year would finally allow me to reach that goal. A bittersweet irony, but a hugely gratifying one at that.

The story goes on. . . . 

Here's a link to the Go Fund Me page: https://uk.gofundme.com/f/save-the-mta

End of an Era

 When you're forced to close a business, you're also forced to be self-reflective to work out what went wrong. Over the past few months as the seriousness of The MTA's position became ever clearer to me I've done nothing but self reflect.  The obvious answer really must be that the course didn't work - after all, if it did we'd have people queuing outside the door to come and train with us, except that in many ways we did have those people queuing up - but they all turned away when they found out that our course came with no funding stream. It didn't matter how much we'd try to reassure them that we'd find a way to make it work for them, we know for a fact that it stopped people auditioning.

This dichotomy of running a college that clearly worked - 100% of students securing agent representation is no mean feat when you're not massaging your figures with signings with associated agencies. In total we trained 193 students through to graduation, and a further 15 were trained up to the end of their first year.  When I opened the college I was told that 95% of our graduates would drop out of the industry within 5 years.  I always vowed to base our success on the longevity of the careers that we created. Pre-pandemic a staggering 78% of our graduates were still in the industry with 23% of those having secured West End or No 1 touring contracts. However that's just the PR headline, as the reality is even richer, our graduates went on to perform all over the world, from Lapland to the USA (via China, Malaysia, Australia), working at the National, the RSC, West End, International tours, open-air theatres, schools, community theatre, on screens big and small.

Hard to see the place as a failure when you're looking at the evidence, isn't it?

So where did we go wrong? We stuck to the idea that vocational training was enough to get you a career, we didn't buy into the Tory-inspired myth that people needed a qualification to succeed in our industry. We invested in the students, not in the system. That ultimately was our downfall. With no desire to expand, the business model literally involved securing enough students year after year to train with us. We had various plans in place for low numbered year groups so we plodded along quite nicely. However, in 2019 with the demise of the PCDL, it became harder to recruit students as we suddenly had no funding attached at all. We saw the drop of applicants instantly during the 2020 'audition season'.  We started to explore other options but these things take time, so when we were suddenly facing Brexit (20% of our students tended to come from the EU, but we would no longer be permitted to train them), and then Covid right on top of it, all the wheels that we had started to put in action ground to a halt.

We had exhausted our evaluation of moving to a degree model when we realised that to successfully do that we would need to change our course in order to make it financially viable as we could only realise a certain amount of government funding. It was suggested that we could introduce the idea of a reading week (thereby saving us money), or dropping some of the performances, or putting private study time in - basically filling the course with non-contact hours in order to save money, but at the expense of the training. Then we explored taking on extra students in order to make up the deficit that we would hit should we end up running a degree course which didn't give us the option of adding a top-up. Of course, by taking that route we would once again be diluting the students' training - so we just wouldn't do it. However even if we'd opted to sell out that much in order to secure a degree status course we knew that the timeframes involved in all that (pointless) bureaucracy would be too long, and the pandemic pushed those timeframes ever longer.

We were mid exploring applying to get approved for a named diploma. Whilst we'd gone down this route once before, we were stopped by their criteria of only considering 3-year courses. This time though we pursued it and were negotiating the changing of the wording of that one sentence, setting the criteria at minimum hours/year as opposed to naming the length of the course. The organisation was definitely up for it but needed to discuss it fully as a Board themselves as this was a major change for them. That meeting still hasn't happened over a year later. . . as of course covid has meant that other things have had to get prioritised.

To give you an idea of the timeframes involved, all of this was going on (including independent consultations) whilst we had been forced like every other UK college to put our training online. Even writing that reminds me of the stress that we were under at the time. Desperately restructuring the course to ensure that our students still made progress during 2 terms of online training, attempting our best to pastorally support them all, plus try to strategise how we could protect the college against the oncoming juggernaut of Brexit just 2 years after the demise of the PCDL. 

Of course, as the 2021 audition season kicked off the world felt a little less certain after months of lockdowns, so we weren't surprised when the applications slowly came in as opposed to all land together as they did every other year. The expectation was of course that we'd get later applications once things were more normal. The Christmas Covid wave was on its way - who the hell would be applying for college then? As the applications started to trickle in we also saw a much larger percentage than normal of withdrawals - even before coming to the audition. Now, this was a new pattern for us. On one of our audition days literally, 2/3rds of the applicants withdrew at the last minute. We'd been forced to move their audition date when we went into lockdown in January, but this was still really unusual.

As we always audition late we usually get a steady stream of applications from May-August each year, in fact, several times in our history it was the August auditions that proved to provide us with a large percentage of our year group. However, those applications just never materialised this year. Then when all the applicants dropped out of our June audition date (again, a first for us), it was clear that things were really bad and potentially critical. Board meetings were hurriedly called in a bid to update but also brainstorm new ideas. Friends of the college started to lend their expertise (very generously I must add) in a bid to see what was going on, the marketing spend increased, hell I even gave up 2.5 months going live on social media 4 times a week in a bid to remind people that we were here and still auditioning. Literally, nothing worked.

Other friends came on board with suggestions of where we could raise charitable donations in a bid to support our class of 2022 to finish their year (with the hope that this was just a 'perfect storm' situation, but next year would be better). A call to action was sent out to everyone and anyone we could think of, but of the 40 or so emails that I sent out we had just one reply, and whilst that person offered a donation, it was clear that we weren't going to hit our figure, or indeed get anywhere near it.  In truth when it came down the fact that we were going to need to raise the funds I knew that we were stuffed. Over the last 3 years we'd undertaken a brilliant fundraising feasibility study, the consultants involved felt sure that we would be able to raise a regular amount of money/year in order to fulfil my dream of running a college where 50% of the places were funded. Yet a couple of brilliant fundraisers later, and a load of rejected applications, and it was quickly evident that people weren't interested in independent colleges. How many times did I read that sentence "we've already allocated our funds to other institutions" only to see the same old names come up time and time again.

We were aware of the ticking clock of the end of the academic year which meant that students would be putting down deposits on houses for the next year, plus of course starting to pay for their 2nd year (or 1st year) So it was at this point that the Board had to make the devastating decision to close as if we didn't close we would run out of money by March.  The business model could not support the size of the year that we had coming in, and the business model of the course was never designed around just one year group (well. . . other than our first year obviously).

So a week ago I had to start making calls to other colleges to try and secure an alternative for our first years. I mean how bloody horrific for your college to close in the middle of your training, but also how horrific to be planning your new London life at your drama college only to get the rug pulled from beneath you 3 months before? Knowing that we were letting down 22 students was by far the hardest part of this journey. Also going into college to work with them whilst knowing that things were not looking great was horrible, and definitely not a position that I'd ever want myself to be in again, and in fairness I wasn't scheduled that much during the first few weeks anyway as I was also trying to write a show whilst this real life drama was unfolding. The only thing I could think of to soften that blow was to try and secure them places at another college.  I am indebted to Leo at Associated Studios who firstly didn't just try to grab the money when I called her, but first offered to sit down with me to see if there was anything that we could do to save the college, but then secondly reassured me that as another 2 year MT course in London she could take on our lot if they chose that option. This of course meant that they could continue their training together. Obviously, it's up to them whether they take this option, but I'm so relieved that the option was offered to them. Plus thanks to Louise at PPA and Adrian at LSMT for also agreeing to see any of our students that were interested in their courses. So nothing here is ideal, but at least there were 3 concrete alternatives being proposed to the 22 students most impacted by this and indeed 2 of those options were considerably cheaper than us, and potentially came with government funding attached.

. . . and so we're here with the announcement of our closure. 

As you can imagine there is so much more to sort out now, and the next few months are going to be difficult for all of us I'm sure. Why the blog? Because I need to remind myself right now quite how hard I fought to save the college that I set up in 2009. I need to hold onto the reality that I really tried everything to save it.  100% I failed, but as no doubt I'll cover in another blog (now that this one is out of my head), there's been a massive shift in the training industry this year, and I think that we're going to see a very different landscape emerging over the next few years unless somebody starts to regulate it.

A College for Life

When I opened The MTA back in 2009 I knew from the outset that I wanted to run a college that would be there for its graduates even at the end of the course.

When I left college (back in the year when dinosaurs roamed the earth), I felt that I'd literally been thrown off a cliff. For sure they'd given me a backpack full of 'tools', and for all I knew they might have packed a parachute too, but they never had the foresight to let me know so I was just left in freefall for a little while.

Now in fairness times were different then, and my course rather bizarrely used to proudly say that they weren't training professionals and they weren't training teachers. . . but then never did tell us what they were training us for? However I got to create music and theatre all day, every day for 3 years, so I didn't care.

However, on leaving I do remember that feeling of being lost out in an industry that seemingly everybody else had a road map for (or would that be sat nav nowadays?) 

Obviously, training is massively different now, and I intended to open a college with a clear end game - to get performers out into the industry. The business side of our profession was going to be 'taught' alongside the jazz hands. I was adamant that 'my' students would know what was in their tool kit and how to use all the different tools. However, I also wanted to be very clear that I had packed a parachute. Hence the college for life policy.

Being a small college I wanted my graduates to know that the door was always open to them. Not just in a 'pop in and have a chat' way but in a very real, practical way. Rehearsal space is expensive, so I could give them that, dance classes are expensive, so they could come back and join in with ours, even prepping a song for an audition is expensive, so we could help them with that. Most importantly of all though, I wanted them to have the same level of pastoral care and mental health support available to them after graduating as they had received at college.

The MTA takes a whole school approach to mental health, we have 2 members of staff on call 24/7/365 (on of which is a mental health clinician) so it made sense for our graduates to have continued use of that resource? After all, if they had already accessed that support whilst training they would have a shorthand to access the same level of support once they'd graduated.  As our entire pastoral policy is a clinician based system it allowed them to jump back into talking therapies etc as and when they needed it. I've never understood the idea of sessions with a counsellor being time-limited anyway. How awful to start talking to someone, open up that can of worms, only to be told that your 6 sessions are up. Your counselling and/or therapy surely needs to last for as long as you need it?

In a poorly researched blog about The MTA last year I read somebody state that this was an unrealistic vision. They stated that we were a business not a 'community outreach programme' (I might be paraphrasing somewhat, but that was the general gist of the article). Yet my vision of the sort of college that I wanted to open extended way beyond the 2-year model that I had devised. I felt that looking after the graduates was a core belief that we had to achieve.  It's an interesting take isn't it to call an institution out for genuinely trying to help? Yet to me it was always a no brainer. 

We don't really start learning until we're out on the job, yet we all need somewhere to go and ask those questions that couldn't have possibly been known about on the course (as each job and each company will pose their own questions). Very often it's after college that all the self-doubt starts setting in. Prior to opening The MTA I had been told that 95% of graduates drop out of the industry within 5 years, and I completely understood that, as every day is a chore at the beginning isn't it (unless you're lucky enough to walk straight into a nice contract)?

 

I didn't want my lot paying all the money to train with us, but then change careers before they'd given it their best shot. I just wanted them to earn their fees back really.  However in order to help them to achieve that I felt that 'we' should be the parachute. Actually more than that - I felt that we were obliged to be their parachute.

Inherent in the vision for The MTA from the outset was ongoing support. 

As the years moved on our #college4life tag has become something of an in-joke to myself and the students, as it truly is more than just a social media hashtag. It's a lived reality if you chose for it to be so.  It's also helped to create an amazingly vibrant community outside of the day to day college. Our graduates are known to the current students (in reality all their pictures are up on the walls, so they are very present at all times). Lots of them come back at various intervals to take part in classes. It can be a successful reboot if that's what you feel like you need. Or maybe you've just missed a weekly sing-song, so you can nip into the whole college choral class and get those endorphins racing around again. 

Since 2012 our graduation has evolved into a thing called a Gradunion. A mixture of a celebration for the new graduates entering the industry, combined with a reunion for those that have gone before. Last year's 10th anniversary Gradunion was particularly glorious, with nearly half of our graduates returning to celebrate both the arrival of the new lot and the college milestone. 

The raft of well-meaning support projects to support the #coronagrads has really wound me up this year. Not because of all the things that are going on, as each and every project is brilliant and being supported by so many generous people and organisations. However, those students have paid money to institutions to fundamentally get them to the finishing line. To kick start their careers, to enable them to graduate. I obviously understand that these are unprecedented times, after all, there is barely a moment in the day where somebody doesn't use that very word BUT it is up to all businesses to adapt and fulfil our obligations (both contractual and moral) as best as we can. It is not up to the kind hearts in our industry to take up the slack.  

Whilst every day at the moment we're seeing colleges come up with really inventive ways to enable them to showcase their students albeit virtually right now, we're also seeing a lot of colleges and universities not bothering. Literally graduates online begging for help. Where's the colleges' contractual obligation in all of this?

We all need a 'parachute' when we leave training, and in truth, I fundamentally believe that your fees should pay for it (although I know that this is a rather unique thought). However as a bare minimum, we need to ensure that our graduates have a back pack full of tools that will equip them in our industry - they shouldn't be on social media trying to work things out. 

The Mental Health Epidemic within the Pandemic

Last night the unthinkable happened. Theatre in the UK closed its doors. Frustratingly for theatres and producers this came about via a carefully worded recommendation to our audiences as opposed to a directive to them, thereby potentially preventing companies from having a valid insurance claim. Making companies and individuals even more vulnerable than they were already feeling.

I can't be the only one that never thought that we'd see such a day in the UK (or indeed around the world), but here it is and an entire industry is left reeling as each individual tries to work out 'what now?'

Of course we all knew that it was coming. Broadway closed last week so it's been a waiting game since then. The big difference of course is that our American colleagues earn substantially more money than the jobbing actor/techie in the UK. There is more chance that they've saved up for the inevitable rainy day scenario. That said some people just don't have it in them to save regardless of income, so this isn't guaranteed, however the potential to save is there. I don't think that the majority of the UK industry (on and off stage) have this dilemma. We all live in a somewhat hand to mouth environment, and have long since consoled ourselves with the fact that our souls are full even if our bank accounts aren't. The majority of our industry need the next wage packet, which is why you see people closing in a successful show on the Saturday, going to work in their 'crap job' or 'muggle job' by the Monday. In a way it's kept us all grounded for years, it's hard to get 'up yourself' when you know that you'll be back in civvy street within a few weeks.

So suddenly an entire industry faces a very uncertain future. We all go online to tell the world how frightened we are, and we feel the need to let everybody know what our struggle is. Some of us will be resolute, telling our friends that we'll get through this, as after all, a life without hope is no life at all. However now that people have been prevented from going out, the online chatter is at breaking point. Suddenly we're all experts in what the government 'should' have done, we've all understood the logistical variations of this mystery 'virus', we've all researched what every other country has done, and we've all worked out what the solution 'should' have been. More than that, we feel the need to tell everybody about our own discoveries.  Of course the fact of the matter is that none of us have a clue. We're all scared (for ourselves, our loved ones, our industry, even humanity), and are all simply 'acting out' that fear in the only space that's left for us to roam - social media.

We see a 'cure' or a 'prevention' tweet and it becomes our civil duty to share it amongst our friends and followers, as we all attempt to save the world. Of course that's all we've shared is 'fake news', or rather 'fake hope', as hope is the only thing that we have.

I've long blogged about the mental health crises in our industry, and I've always maintained that the industry hasn't created these illnesses, but rather our industry attracts people who are more susceptible to mental illness, as it provides all of us with an altered reality. We can all pretend to live in a different world for a while. A show (ironically given the pressures around doing one), is almost a mental health break. So what now for an entire industry that revels in living in the 'other' now that it's suddenly been catapulted into the here and now, and what's more, the here and now is even more unstable than our industry. To add to the issue nobody amongst us has immunity. For sure there are the wealthy amongst us that can ride this out, but they are few and far between. From graduates to jobbing performers/techies everybody has had the rug pulled from out of them.

People with anxiety who are already trying to make sense of the world have suddenly lost their anchor, people with depression that can see no good in the world can get that view confirmed within seconds on social media, people with OCD desperately trying to control their environment as it is suddenly find themselves in a world that can't control itself. And so the list goes on. The one thing that we can be sure about is that every mental illness will be made worse by this pandemic.  People can no longer run to the theatre to escape their own 'minds'.

So I guess that this is the perfect opportunity to hit these conditions head on. How many people that deliberately keep themselves busy in order not to think have suddenly found themselves in self isolation? As an aside isn't it weird how something like 'self isolation' which sounds like something straight out of a B movie has suddenly become part of our every day language? Anyway I digress.

There are lots of therapies available online - why not check out what's on offer? https://www.england.nhs.uk/mental-health/adults/iapt/ Whilst the NHS is struggling right now there is still free help out there. See the enforced downtime as an opportunity to 'reset' and 'reboot'. How many of you have kept putting it off because you've allegedly been too busy? Well you ain't busy now - get proactive about your mental health.

Limit your online surfing - it'll either make you more worried, more angry, or bizarrely make you feel more isolated. Even in self isolation it's possible to live more in the 'real world'. FaceTime and Skype your friends. I went to pop a post up on one of The MTA groups the other day, and instead opted for a livestream as I was aware that a number of my graduates were either stuck in far away places or stuck in self isolation in the UK. So potentially even 'seeing' and 'hearing' my post was more reassuring than some written thing.  I mean I clearly could have made it worse for some of them, but they had the option to turn me off (and I'm confident that at various times over the years they've yearned to do that - so it was a win/win)

Somehow this will pass, and somehow we will all get through it.
Our industry has an amazing sense of community, and right now we need that community more than ever. As you're checking on your friends to see if they have a cough and a fever, maybe check on how their mental health is doing too? I've long believed that mental illness is at epidemic levels within our industry, and I suspect that the physical pandemic will make those levels raise even higher. Now is a time for actioning help, not living in denial it's a great #time4change

24/7 Equity mental health and well-being helpline: 0800 917 6470

Losing your voice

If you're reading this it's because the Charity Commission have now completed their process of raising enquiries with The MTA ( a process which was incorrectly described by others as an 'investigation' - accuracy is everything, people!)

We have always been 99.9% sure that the complaint was a vexatious grievance, and whilst we still don't know the source of the complaint (confidentiality is key to the commission, and rightly so), we have a really good idea.  We are always open to being told we could do things better, especially by our Regulator, but I mean, when you've been shown evidence from several sources that a couple of people have a vendetta out against you, you sort of lessen the odds really don't you?

We knew about the complaint about 4 weeks before The Stage ran with a fair article, but alarming headline of 'Musical Theatre Academy investigated over safeguarding concerns' - it was only actually if you got through The Stage's paywall to read the article that you discovered that we weren't being 'investigated' at all, but rather the Charity Commission had raised certain questions with our Trustees as a result of having received a single complaint. My sadness about the article being ran prior to the Charity Commission's conclusion was that it a) meant that we had to inform our students about the ongoing situation and they were all having a lovely old time of it in Deadwood (rehearsing Calamity Jane) and b) I was aware that several people online were going to have a field day.

Initially I thought that the Charity Commission must have a policy that required them to contact the Press whenever they sent out letters from their compliance team; only weeks later I learned that they have no such policy, meaning that the press had been contacted by the complainant(s).

Having spoken up about Mental Health in the Arts for the past 10 years it seems that you make a lot of people very cross. So I was bracing myself for the salacious comments based on . . . well nothing! What I had to work very hard at though was not commenting on the various posts. For those people that know me. . . that was really hard.

To put this all into context the 'vendetta' had already been running for several months so I was aware that a lot more people might have heard some of the 'stories' that were gathering momentum, and in fairness to everyone - if you just took 'those' stories on face value, there would have indeed been a serious issue that needed addressing. However the stories were (& indeed remain) a complete fabrication, literally no part of them were true. So how do you fight an alternative reality?  Well I guess you don't. You wait for the truth to out.

Annoyingly The Stage broke the story on the day of a college performance - annoying because the show was great and didn't deserve to be overshadowed by anything.  To add to the bizarre nature of this whole thing, that same morning, the director of that show had written a long twitter thread about how The MTA was clearly run through mutual respect between staff and students, and how our whole school approach to mental health really worked.

Watching the resulting conversations on line were fascinating though - especially as for the first time I couldn't comment. Two discussions particularly caught my eye. My favorite was probably the person who claimed that I had threatened to sue them for once making a disparaging remark about the college. A picture was painted of a poor, defenceless 'single person operating stage school' commentator simply giving their opinion, when I, as the 'big boss' of a drama college waded in all legal guns a blazing to stop them speaking? The reality was somewhat different to this. This was a person that is now on their 4th year constantly making disparaging remarks about the college on any forum that mentions drama schools. As for the 'small time performing arts school operator' they were or indeed still are the owner of a franchise operation, so not exactly the 'lone operator', even more ironic given The MTA's independent status.  That said, I categorically knew that I'd never threatened anybody with legal action over a FB post. However recent events had knocked my confidence for sure, so I suddenly found myself checking in with a couple of colleagues who had been part of that online debate to check that I hadn't lost my mind.  The relief when they confirmed my recollection of the discussion was palpable. The 'lone operator' had (probably unwittingly in fairness) merged a truth. Another commentator on the original thread had mentioned that I 'should' sue them for their 'damaging remarks', however this poster had clearly recollected it as me actually threatening legal action against them. And so their version of the truth lives on. Attention to detail is everything.

Then on twitter it was even more interesting, as a blogger went out of their way with an outrageous allegation, and accused The MTA of 'unhelpfully fetishising mental health issues'.  They'd heard stories apparently - well see above for those I'm sure. They clearly thought that they were onto something when the Chair of the Board actually started to engage with them. The blogger who made the claim had twice been booked into the college to see for themselves the whole school approach to mental health working. They had contacted me asking to observe an audition day, and requesting a separate meeting with me. We have an open door policy so it's a no brainer.  However I've been around a bit, and suspected that all was not what it seemed.

I named to my team that I suspected that this person was digging for dirt, that due to the timing of the request they might have heard some of these false rumours being put out there, but when you don't have any to hide, you just welcome people in and offer them a shovel don't you? The first time they cancelled the night before, the second time they just didn't turn up. Not the best investigative reporting it has to be said.  Our offer to visit the school is still wide open to them, so maybe they'd actually like to come and see for themselves what it is we're actually doing.

What amazed me though was quite how many people went out on a limb to name The MTA as safe, even before contacting me in private to find out what was going on. As one of them said to me - 'you'll find out who's got your back now', and my goodness they were right. Emails, phone calls, texts just checking that I was OK and if the college was OK. Some of those people even went public with their support. Equally interesting to note though was quite how many did the quiet nod of approval to me, but edged their bets in public. I mean I don't blame them - but it's interesting isn't it? We work in a small industry so you wouldn't want to back the wrong horse. We are all at the mercy of our reputations, so best not to tarnish it by association (even if you're happy to do so in private). I will add the disclaimer here though how some people named that they weren't going to publically comment on it all, because they simply didn't want to stoke the fire.

As the rumours flew around (and my goodness I heard a fair few), it was actually the students that were batting them out of the ball park. You see transparency is really useful. With nothing to hide you can tell everybody everything. So whilst I wasn't allowed my voice - the facts were being stated, as everybody knew them. We had already read out the Charity Commission's letter to our current students in its entirety, so that they would feel safe, and 'in the loop' so to speak.

The hardest day was a week after The Stage published its article. I googled The Musical Theatre Academy only to see that 4th on the google listing was The Stage's article - headline a blazing out for all to see. 10 years of working ethically, 10 years of building up a multi-award winning college, all wiped away by some lies. That was harsh. That was the day that I started to write this - as I needed to find my voice again, if only for myself.

It's really interesting in this day and age how things can become 'fact' because somebody's told you, or somebody's written it down in a social media post. This wasn't the first time that I'd had experience of this phenomenon, but it was the first time that it had hit so hard on target.  It's like the Hunger Games version of 'They Said, You Said'. If you take the time to bore down to the truth those facts aren't facts at all, but in reality who does that?  After all, who would lie just for kicks, or because they're ill, or because they're on the defensive? By default we work off an assumption that people are telling us the truth. Fake News is a great term isn't it? Created for these very scenarios.

We worked openly and swiftly with the Charity Commission.  Our Chair of the Board was rigorous and thorough in his own fact finding. Again a strange position for me to be on the outside of something that only existed because I had created it. At all times we kept our students up to speed with how things were progressing.

A few months after the initial letter had landed we found ourselves in a meeting with the Charity Commission as there were some final points to discuss and clarify.  It was felt that a face to face meeting would bring the compliance case to a swifter conclusion than email ping pong. The meeting was robust and fair. We knew (and literally everybody involved in charity work had told me) that some suggestions for improvement would be made, but all things that would make The MTA stronger and even more accountable, so all points of learning that we welcomed and will be implementing straight away - but it should be noted that all of these points were about clearly recording the good practice that we were already doing.

Which brings us to today - where the Charity Commission has officially informed us that they have no concerns about what we're doing. They've given us helpful advice about how to develop our policies and will not be conducting any further "investigation" into The MTA, even though for a few months now, a misleading headline suggested that an "investigation" was already taking place

Throughout it all I noted with interest two specific things that were said online:
1) Somebody mentioned that any "investigation" would be a white wash - meaning that even before the compliance case had even started a group of people had decided that regardless of the outcome we must be in the wrong. Whereas in reality the compliance case was really thorough, and had there been any irregularities or wrong doing - they would have been 'discovered' and it would have led to a statutory investigation. As an independent college the Charity Commission held us accountable, and I believe that to be a good thing
2) The blogger questioned whether we were 'sin free' and concluded that we weren't but with what evidence? Firstly he made the point that we're a business not a 'community outreach programme', well you know sometimes in this world businesses do exist that are trying to simply achieve their objectives. Our aim has always been to send people out into the 'real world' industry-ready with access to free ongoing support. That is our objective, and that is exactly what we do. Then secondly the old favorite of 'no smoke without fire'.  I too have probably always believed that adage - however this is what I've learned, and in truth I can't believe that it's taken me so long to get it. We work in a profession that excels in distraction, where directors can almost force an audience to look at one part of the stage as the 'illusion' is executed on the other. So next time you get sucked into a 'no smoke without fire' thought, remain curious. As the smoke that you're aware of might just be the distraction from the real fire that's been started by somebody else. After all theatre is all smoke and mirrors isn't it? Maybe some of us would be better to look in the mirror, as opposed to simply look at the smoke?

To conclude I'd like to give a heartfelt thanks to the people that really did support the college throughout this time, and indeed to my friends and colleagues that would check in with me periodically to ensure that I was OK.

In September we celebrate both the graduation of the class of 2019 and 10 years of training The MTA way - there is much to celebrate, and we will do so having been held accountable to the principles that I founded the college with back in 2009. The principles that said that the students and their health would be at the forefront of all training, and the principles that promised our students that all of their fees would be spent on premises, productions and staff, and the principles that stated that our college would be there to support them beyond their training.

Upselling Education

A Nation of Shopkeepers - or Why is Upselling Courses the Latest Trend?

Back in 1776 (a nice Musical Theatre referenced year), Adam Smith called Britain a 'Nation of Shopkeepers'. 2 and a half centuries later that phrase is still correct. We sometimes only think of America as the 'place of dreams', but here in the UK we are also surrounded by people who have started from nothing and created their own businesses turning them into global market leaders.

I'm in awe of the people that have managed to do that, and admire their single-mindedness. However I believe that education is different. I feel really strongly that people shouldn't profit from education. Now it's a tough one as all colleges are encouraged to have a large financial 'safety net' in case of emergencies, so with that recommendation comes a need to create a cushion of money that's available should something awful happen, so some profiteering is essentially built into the business plans before you start training anyone.

Nowadays to train to be an actor is hugely expensive - indeed to train to be anything is almost guaranteeing you to have a bill of at least £27k. I think that sometimes because the Student Loans have been around for so long, people lose sight of what that much money really means. Many drama courses cost even more than that. In fact you can now be charged as much as £54K for a course at a top college. To put that into perspective, you could buy a house in some parts of the country for what it would cost you to train at a top drama/dance college.

With the average cost of training to be a performer now sitting at around £40k I find it rather upsetting to see colleges effectively upselling.  The most obvious example of this is the number of colleges that you can now apply to, and whilst you don't get offered a place on their 3 year programme, you do get offered a place on their Foundation Course? Now to me this makes no sense. It's like going into a shop to buy bread and coming out with fabric conditioner. It's not what you were applying for, but somehow you've ended up buying it. These courses though are not cheap - you can expect to pay £7k-£10k for a Foundation course.

So to be clear you could end up paying in excess of £60K for your training at the end of it all (and that doesn't include your living expenses).

In addition to this several colleges are now charging extra for certain things - but things that you'd expect to be included in the price of the course. Extra charges for 1:1 singing lessons, 'show fees', where people are contributing to the cost of the shows, in other words we essentially have colleges offering a premium package, whereby if they pay extra you can take part in extra stuff.

All of the above really starts to add up - and nobody is regulating this industry!

In fairness to the colleges that run Foundation courses alongside their 3 year option, they all (as I understand it), make it really clear to the people on their course that there is no guarantee that they'll get onto their main programme at the end of the year?

So to go back to the beginning, you applied for one course, you weren't deemed ready for it, so they've offered you another one in a bid to improve your skillset, you've taken the course (because let's face it, that college was your first choice, so you're hoping to woo them over the course of the year), then at the end of the year the majority of people will be £10k poorer and still won't get into their first choice college. However that is now £10k that you've invested out of your 'training money'.

I understand that lots of people do the foundation courses as they're hoping that their skillset will improve so much they'll be more likely to receive some elusive DaDa funding. So they're essentially gambling with their money in a bid to secure funding for the next phase of their training.  Sadly for the majority of students on these courses though, this won't happen. So when they eventually DO get onto a 3 year programme (or like The MTA . . . a two year programme), they can no longer afford their training, as they spent it on the gamble.

Reading on line, students are turning down places on well respected courses because they've been offered a foundation course at their preferred college. I just don't get it though. I mean if you're from a 'money's no object' background, then do what you like, but a lot of these students are actually from backgrounds where parents are struggling to pay the fees.

I suppose the argument from the college's point of view is that if they were to call them back in order to specifically audition for their foundation courses, they would be costing the applicant more money in travel etc. But surely a every course is looking for something different?

Before everybody comments stating that their foundation course was amazing, and they wouldn't be where they were without it etc, let me be clear. I'm not dismissing the training and the value of a foundation course, I'm just not so keen on the fact that you end up being offered a course that you never applied for.  Maybe I'm wrong, maybe some colleges have something like a tick box on their application form asking you if you'd like to be considered for any of their courses? If so - bravo to them.

For those places who don't make it clear which course people are really going for though - maybe some transparency?

It's an uncomfortable truth that whilst 'we' at The MTA are getting people industry-ready in 2 years, some people are now doing 4 years or more in order to train to be a performer. The costs involved are huge. Just don't spend all of your savings on the gamble.

Finally

So today it feels like the world has finally caught up with what I've been shouting about for years:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/26/university-fees-regulator-tuition-students?CMP=soc_3156
This article advocates for the 2 year accelerated model - time to point out that we've been doing this at The MTA since 2009. It also shouts out asking for transparency...again something that I've been shouting about since opening the college.
So let's reflect shall we?
I said years ago that Mental Health was a huge factor in the arts, and we in the training sector had a responsibility to face it head on.  Fast forward to July 2016 and the launch of #time4change and we're finally getting somewhere. We need dance colleges to embrace this and the 'straight' acting courses. We need the the CDD to lower themselves to join us in a united fight...BUT we're getting there.
A big shout out in this blog to Backstage, the US Casting Directory launching over here, taking on Spotlight. Unlike Spotlight who refuse to get into a conversation about #time4change, Backstage have already signed up.  So I say use them - and stop Spotlight monopolising our industry. Let's have some healthy competition at long last.

I always named Drama UK as a drain on resources, providing nothing other than a launch website for 'the club'.  I called them out when they started taking jollies to NY and China. . . under the guise of 'brand awareness'. Fast forward to 2016 - Drama UK is no more.  There is no organisation really governing drama training in the UK anymore. I'm pleased that we didn't pay the thousands of pounds they were asking for to be 'tested' by them, or indeed the £6k/year they wanted if you qualified to join 'their club'.

I've always said that the drama colleges moved to degree courses to get additional funding, creating this ludicrous situation where parents now believe that a degree is better for their child than a diploma. Whereas in reality it makes no difference.  What that move did do though was put true vocational colleges into the same arena as the traditional uni drama course. Courses that are saying that they're getting their students industry ready, but with as little as 16 hours contact time/week that's impossible.

I visited a course a while ago where 3rd year students couldn't even do their own vocal warm up - such was the inadequacies of their training. Yet when I asked them what they were going on to do after graduating, they all confidently told me that they intended to be professional performers.  In reality they did not have a clue - their course and their college had completely let them down.  £27,000 in tuition fees for what? Life experience? Wouldn't their parents have been better off giving them the cash and telling them to go travel the world? Ironically it would have made them better performers too!

I've been on websites discussing this degree issue with parents - but they just don't get it, and in fairness to the 'Joe Public' parent, I understand it.  Surely degree = quality training = career. However those of us in the industry know that this isn't the case. It's training + connections + business acumen = the possibility of a career. That piece of paper that says degree means nothing.  Yes it's useful if they end up needing a 'fall back' career - but aren't we setting our children up for failure if we're providing them with the full back before they've tried the real deal? Let's not forget that the safety net that you're giving them will cost you in excess of £27k.  Once that's in place you're looking for the same again (or more) for the actual career that they want.

The 2 year model is bloody hard work - I know, I've been on that carousel now for 8 years. It's relentless. There's no long breaks where staff can just regroup and do a nice bit of admin for a few weeks. We're continuously needing to look into the next term in order to keep the thing moving.
I read someone on twitter just this morning extolling the virtue of the long Summer break - their students can earn money they cry.  Oh let's face it - they can't earn that much, and they'd be better off ploughing through and saving a year's tuition and living costs.

I hope that the colleges are forced to become transparent, as our industry will have some serious questions to answer I believe.  The audition scam, the additional courses that don't really do anything other than provide an income, the faculty members paid to do very little....let's get it out there and see what's really going on shall we?

We've always had open book accounting. Most of my staff are freelance in order to get the best value for money for my students, and because every subject is so 'specific' - I can't just hire generic teachers to do a bit of everything.

I get that The MTA is different, as it was 'my baby', therefore it's my responsibility to do the 19 hour days that I've been doing for the past few years, in order to get us up and running.  We worked out my hourly rate the other day - £1.75/hr max.  I'm not advocating that (in fact I'm really strict with my staff to only work their allocated hours)...however I am saying that if you're being paid X amount of money to do full day's work, that's what you should do. I'm also saying that if you're a uni literally filling your courses with a bunch of naive wannabes who are there because parent's preferred them to get a degree...shame on you.  Similarly though, if you're a drama college who moved across to the degree system to get more finance, use the financial gain to give the students more contact time, not to get in more admin staff. Better still - buy in some more mental health support, as we all know that we need it.

The Silver Spoon

It's the BAFTA evening, and already the broadsheets are carrying stories of woe about how theatre/performing is becoming an exclusively middle/upper class occupation.
The fees are extortionate, they cry, how can a young person afford them, they persist.  Then once they've graduated how do they support themselves without a lucrative bank of mum and dad to support them?

Well I hate to be controversial, but I think that it's always been like this. There's no difference to when I studied 30 years ago.  More than that why aren't all the people shouting about it and commenting about it on social media giving back to STOP it being like that?

I've written about this before however to reiterate:
a) ALL students these days going into HE can expect to hit debt city unless their parents are in a position to help them out. Lawyers, doctors...you name it, the debt is real.  Of course the difference is that you'd expect them to land a well paid job really quickly and to start paying it back, but actually in this day and age that is not always the case.
b) If some actors were more savvy with their acting careers, they too could get rid of some of the debt by not waiting around for an elusive, well paid film role, or theatre role.  Use your skillset and get some money behind you.  Some of my lot are currently working all over the world, earning a blooming fortune, paying their CDL's off early, getting money behind them ready to return to the UK and have some saving's in anticipation of the struggles that they're about to face.  
c) You don't have to sit tight in London for the first two years because that's the only time that a CD is interested in you. We know that because every CD that's come into college for a Q&A has named it.  In fact - they've all said...get some performance experience behind you.
d) The difficulty and reality is, to survive in our industry you need to find your perfect 'crap job'. The job that you can tolerate doing more that your real job. Personal trainer is a popular one at the moment, freedom to book and schedule clients around auditions, whilst taking control of your own life (and earning considerably more than the minimum wage). I have one student currently training to become a book keeper as they know that they can do this remotely wherever they end up working. As you'd expect lots of teachers.  Basically you're looking for the job that pays more than the minimum wage (as that is not a livable wage in London), and one that gives you flexibility.  If it's attached to the industry all the better, as you still get to live in 'our world'.

We negate the brilliance of a lot of our actors and writers as we still beat the 'angry young men' drum of the 60's. They 'rich kids' are not winning awards, gaining roles because they're from privileged backgrounds, they're getting them because either their good, or they put bums on seats.

This whole issue is so much more complex than 'the poor can't afford to train'. This is an educational matter that needs addressing. For as long as I can remember, schools have not considered a career in the performing arts a viable, sustainable career.
When I went to my career's officer as a teenager, I was told to join the army, as they'd encourage my musicianship and I'd get to play a lot of music. Seriously. That was the only advice that I received.
I'm from solid, Welsh, working class roots. My parents didn't have a clue about theatre, let alone the endless possibilities of having a career in theatre. I played the piano therefore I must become a music teacher.  Back then, even that just felt like a pipe dream.
After leaving college and I started to make my own career path, my parent's despaired as I did bigger and bigger shows, whilst continuing to earn no money.  It was hardly a good 'sell' to reassure them that I was OK. They didn't understand a creative hunger or need.  For them it was simple. Get a job that pays you regularly and life is sweet.  They had heard all the stories of theatrical unrealiability from us never getting a mortgage to never getting car insurance.  Nobody could tell them an alternative.

I was lucky, my parent's just went along with it (although I had my dad for 20 years practically begging me to get 'a proper job'). They didn't understand it, but they could see that I was happy.
Eventually a pay cheque landed and life looked a bit 'safer'. I found the perfect 'crap' job in teaching, so had found a way to be viable.

They didn't really have the money to help me out, nor did I want them to. They worked long enough hours as it was.

Am I a better performer because of my struggles? I don't know. Am I more resiliant and realistic because of them? Yes. Do I have a hunger for work because of my upbringing? Yes. Disclaimer: This is also true of some people who are from more privileged backgrounds too. I'm talking in hyperbole because that is how the media are approaching this topic.

I once offended around half of one of my year groups at The MTA, when I dared to name that the reason that they were being so awful, was because that they were spoilt brats, never knowing what it was to work for something.  So their general work ethic was appalling.  Whereas their classmates who were holding down up to 3 jobs in order to survive at the college were soaring - because they understood hard work.

There will always be a clique (hell Drama UK held onto that idea for as long as possible and now the CDD have stepped it up a notch). You are always more likely to be seen if you were trained at RADA than if you went to Drama Studio...there's the privilege right there. Yet in fairness RADA, and a lot of the colleges give over a large percentage of their places to the 'working class' straggler. Whether that be social conscience or clever PR who cares? It happens.

So what's the answer?
Schools (yup...including your bog standard Comprehensive) need to understand what careers are open to people in the arts.  They need to stop putting people off, instead support them to dare to dream. Harsh reality is killing more careers than your demographic.
Parents need to learn about the realities of the industry - maybe drama colleges could do more to support this?
We need to stop writing that the working class voice isn't being heard.  As I believe that as soon as that's published we muffle the voice that is attempting to break through.  Instead let's read the articles about all the great things that are being done in the UK to develop break through artists.
We need to understand that this is a societal problem, not an industry problem.
The 'working class' kids that want to do this need to talk to the colleges that they're interested in going to and find out what's on offer for them. If they're giving up at the first hurdle, they're probably not right for our industry anyway.
Finally why doesn't Equity use some of it's subs from the successful actors to 'give back'? If you're mega successful (and let's face it, we are in a career where you can literally go from stone broke to millionaire in one step)...give back. Chose a college (and please don't all chose RADA, they are really well supported)...and give yourself the tax break of giving some money to an up and coming street urchin as opposed to the Inland Revenue.

My next mission statement for The MTA is to have 50% of my places as sponsored places.  I could achieve this by just 260 people donating £10/week to the college. Donate your daily Starbucks coffee to the college and that's it...dream complete. It's not going to happen though is it, because those of you bleating about this cannot see that paying forward might need a donation, as opposed to a demonstration. I get it - it's your hard earned money, why should somebody else get it? Of course that's exactly what the parents of the privileged children that you're now being angry at thought too.

Here's the harder question. Aren't we just hacked off that some people have it easier than us? Aren't we resentful that they don't have to work to 'survive'? We dress it up as a social conscience, but in reality we're all OK...we're doing it. Or for those people fighting to get in and blaming their social standing....could it be that you're just not good enough yet?

Whatever the answer is - the debate is tedious and getting us nowhere.  Donate your 'anger' and resentment to The MTA, rather than hypothesising the situation over your Starbucks.  I have students in dire need of that money...maybe you could actually help them?

The Audition Issue

Seeing as WestEndProducer has raised the important question of audition fees one more time, and given that this was one of my blog areas the other day....here's the deal with drama college/uni auditions...as I see it.

When you go to the doctors, 9 out of 10 people don't feel 'better' unless they give you a tablet. We feel short changed when they say the word virus, and say that antibiotics won't help us out.  We would feel ripped off if on top of that they had charged us between £30-£75 for the privilege of hearing this information even though the facts were correct. 

The question is (unless I'm very much mistaken) - is the audition process a cash cow for colleges? Everybody gets cross at the question, all standing their ground that their audition process is not only fair, but very often it's a loss maker. We could probably 'chose' our students in half a day if we crammed things in, but you'd definitely feel that you hadn't been seen or heard - so we've always opted for a whole day audition process with no cuts. I can tell if you can sing by hearing 16 bars. . . but you feel like you need to sing your entire rep. . . so we compromise on one time limited song.

Now I run a teeny, tiny college.  Here are my facts:

We audition up to 15 people in a session.  We only do whole day auditions. Throughout the day they will have my senior faculty with them at all times, plus one of my dance staff for an hour and a half. Clearly we need a studio to facilitate this day.  Part of our revenue relies on the hire of our one free studio space in the day - just a quick google check and you'll see that our one day studio hire is £140/day (for our audition studio...although we do sometimes vary it, depending on the needs of the course)
So we've potentially lost that revenue for that day...and therefore have to count it as a 'cost'.  It usually costs us around £40 to have one member of my dance staff with us for a dance workshop...so we're already 'down' £180.  Whilst the staff that are in the room are my salaried staff, that does 'lose' me a day of their contract elsewhere, so budget wise I have to factor it in.  All the staff are on different salaries and on different point scales, however roughly speaking that would mean that each member of staff costs me around £120....and there are 4 of us in the room.  So our audition day costs us £570...to do the paperwork around each audition is probably around 2 hours per audition day, in addition we send all applicants written feedback which takes a further 2 hours at the end of the day. If we say that each hour of admin is £15 - we're on £60 admin charge/day.

So we have 15 people paying £45 - giving us a total of £675/audition day.
So it's room hire £140 (or more accurately, loss of earnings for that room)
Staff costs at £520
Admin costs at £60
Total cost to us - £720
So as I've always maintained...we run all of our audition days at a loss.

In reality we lose a bit more than that though, as our classes all have to be covered by our freelance teachers - so as a business we have an additional £330(minimum) to 'cover' too. However it's imperative to me that the audition panel consists of the very people who are going to have to get you industry ready in 2 years, I don't buy into the 'guest' system of auditioning. I need my staff to see if they can solve your bad habits.

In other words. . . I can justify the cost of my audition day without any difficulty.  It's for you to do the sums everywhere else...or even better for every college to break it down to show complete transparency over costs.

This does not make your audition day any cheaper BUT we're on our 9th year of auditioning now, and at the end of every session we have asked every applicant to anonymously fill out a questionnaire to ensure that they feel like they've had value for money from their day with us.  100% of applicants have not only felt like they've received the value of their audition fee, but every year around 30% say that they feel like we're under selling our day! 100% of them would recommend our audition day to their friends.

We cap our audition numbers, as we are simply looking for the 22 people to fill our course, and we fill as we go along. Our applicants find out that evening if they've been accepted or not.

However we're equally unhappy about 'the system'. We advise people to apply early to us due to the fact that we fill as we go along. . . and yet every year a percentage of students will come to an early audition, we'll offer them a place and of course, they want to go and see everywhere else before committing to us.  So to us they've wasted one of our valuable audition spaces, but also it's really disappointing when we invest so much into people on our audition days when they then turn around and say that they can't decide yet (even though we make it blatantly obvious everywhere that you will only have a 2 week period to decide on accepting that place or not. . .AND explain the reasons for that), so they end up turning down the place.  This is very different, I'll add, to the people that are clear that it's just the wrong course for them (which of course they wouldn't have found out unless they had done our audition day. . . so I'd say for them and us, that was still a day well spent). FYI there is only a short 2 week deciding time as we need to know how many places we have to offer by the next audition day, and as the applications keep coming in, as we would stop our audition process early. We also deliberately put a large deposit request in, as we don't like the game of 'holding security places'. We only want you to pay a deposit if you're coming to train with us...if  you're sure that we're the right place for you.

Interestingly as we're one of the few drama colleges that give feedback, I have a surprisingly large number of people that thank us for the feedback and inform us that they used it, and it facilitated them getting into another college! Again if we were seriously being considered as a training option but it wasn't right for them(or us)...that's bloody brilliant...and they definitely did receive value for money. however disappointing it might be for 'us'.

As nearly every applicant says on their feedback form, they like the fact that we get to know our applicants as people, with names, not commodities with numbers.  However that means (as our testimonials will vouch for us actually) that we clearly invest from day one. . . probably a bit too much if I'm honest.

I get that applying to loads of colleges is the advice that we all give...just applying to 10 would cost you around £450 these days(& I know that you have to add travel and accommodation on top of that...which is why we decide in a day, and refuse to do any recalls, which would cost you more money again)...and that's a big investment, for very little return. So I guess my advice would be chose your 10 carefully. . .  Find out exactly what you're getting for that money. It's only if you start deciding to give your money elsewhere will the colleges who are suspected of running cash cow auditions will change.

Should we audition around the country to lower your audition costs? I don't think that we can. We're a unique course, with a unique atmosphere. That atmosphere will instantly click with you, or instantly repel you I guess. . .but you'll only find that out by submerging yourself in our culture/habitat for the day.

And the bit about the doctor? Well sometimes you're just not right for a course, it doesn't matter what you do, you're not the right 'fit' for the college of your dreams. If they're honest with you and tell you that you will always feel ripped off. . . even if you come away empty handed because they want to actually save you money.

School of the Year

I still can't quite believe that I'm writing this - but a huge thanks to all at The Stage, for once again voting The MTA its School of the Year.  We first won this award back in 2012. Back then our citation stated that we were one to watch as we were 'a new force for training' in the UK.  Fast forward to now and our citation acknowledges our growing influence within the training sector.  Clearly the deciding factor this year though was the #time4change campaign. We're still plugging away at it and currently have 118 great organisations/companies/agencies/colleges committed to better mental health practice. However with only 2 full time members of staff (one of those being me), we need to put our head's down for a bit and focus on the class of 2017, ensuring that they're ready to leave, and of course start thinking about the 2017 newbies too.  In other words. . . lots to do and we need to prioritise 'us' for a few months. That said, if you are interested drop us a line as 'we need you!'

If The MTA has any influence at all within this sector. . . and I am rather dubious as to whether we do or not, I'd like us to think about how we could all work together a bit more.  Drama UK is dead and gone (I won't be a hypocrite and hope that it RIP's . . . instead I celebrate the financial saving that each of its old members will now make), so how do we regulate our industry?

Personally I think that it needs a huge shake up.  So if we could influence anything it would be the following:

1) Foundation courses need to run something like Feb - Feb not September - August. I strongly suspect why they all currently run the same as regular academic year, but don't they need their students ready to audition by December at the earliest? If they started earlier in the normal academic year their students would be biting at the bit to get out there by December (which seems to be one of the earlier audition dates you could be given by a major drama college?).  I don't know about the other colleges but I really feel for the students who are on these courses who have to ask you for a later audition date as they're not quite ready yet. At The MTA that could mean that they miss out on a place.
UPDATE: Some foundation courses need to really look at the advice that they're giving their students about application dates.  We've had one course that advised people to apply early....for nearly all of them to give the same stock response of why they then couldn't accept their places.  Valid reasons...but a later application would have meant that people who were ready to commit to our course got the chance to audition earlier.  Check whether your foundation course really is open to you auditioning everywhere...and seeing a value in every course.  There's a few out there purely training you for one course? What is that about? It also makes a mockery of all the brilliant foundation courses working hard for their students.

2) Transparency....transparency....transparency.  From websites to statistics, I feel like things need to be clearer for parents making their way through this maze seemingly called 'the audition season'.  We should all be compelled to put up our latest stats, and not just promote a course on historical facts, or contemporary soundbites.  I think that we should all have to clearly state our prices. . . none of this headline figure with 'plus VAT' added in a smaller font next door to it.  What is your price? What additional extras will your students have to pay for if any? How many places are you offering? What class sizes does that equate to? What percentage of your students are working/are still in the industry after X amount of years? Where does the money go? Be prepared to explain it to parents. At The MTA we do open book accounting, which makes life so easy, as everybody knows everything, and if they don't, they can just nip into my office and see for themselves. I appreciate in a larger college that might not work, but students can still learn ball park figures for tuition/rooms/production.  What's the breakdown of the contact hours/week per term. Exactly how many weeks of tuition does a student have? Transparent facts e.g. if you're saying that 100% of your students have gained agent representation but that's because you have an in house agency that can facilitate that fact. . . state it!

3) This comes under No 2) really but what is the pastoral provision? Have they signed up for #time4change or are they actively affiliated with another campaign that actively promotes well being, and indeed do they acknowledge that Mental Health is an issue in our industry . . . and if so how are they attempting to help?

I think that Nos 2) and 3) are the 'least' that should be shared. . . however I'd also want to know who was going to be teaching me, the structure of the course, policy on casting (to ensure that the primary objective in their shows was promoting ALL their students. . . not just the one that they consider to be the best).

4) Let's sort out the mess that must impact on all of us at this time of year around students often paying hundreds of pounds for auditions, but then all of us needing to know within a ridiculous time frame - complete with a hefty deposit.  I say this as we are as culpable in this as the next college maybe even more so - however realistically, the business side of any college can't exist on uncertainties and maybes. We all need to know how many places we have to offer, how many people we're still looking for. We stop auditioning people once we're full, but then could get potentially stung badly if all of our 'chosen year' pulled out at the last minute because to them a 'better place' had been offered(by that I mean a place at their preferred college, etc) , or a funded place had suddenly appeared, as we refuse to have a substantial reserve list.  We have a financial penalty to try and discourage this (as do many others I know). . . but it happens, and the impact on the college could be huge.
I have no idea how to answer the above. . . but I think that we need to ask the questions, to see if we can stop students forking out for a load of auditions that they're not going to need. I think from our point of view too we need a better system. I know that every year we get frustrated during the earlier auditions as we get all excited about the potential to train someone, only to be told that they want to explore all their other options. Now this of course makes complete sense and is completely right and proper from the students' point of view, they don't want to take the financial hit on all the other auditions that they've already paid for but now have to forfeit - but then they did just waste the £45 audition fee that they'd spent on us, plus, very often, travel and accomodation on top. Plus as we cap our auditions, they had also prevented somebody taking their place. . . somebody who might have had The MTA down as one of their preferred choices? In other words whichever way you look at it the students are being financially penalised and that shouldn't happen.

5) Transparency over audition fees - and exactly what does your audition day/PM/10 mins look like? Justify your price? Even with over 100 students in the room at any one time?

6) Better education in schools for parents and potential students.  Does your safety net degree at X college really warrant you paying out twice for your child's training? Were those extra 3 years really worth it? Maybe they were - let's find out!  I feel so sorry for people that come to us having recently finished a degree course, and discovering that they actually know nothing about the industry at all. . . yet were sold a course that pertained to prepare them for it? Rename those courses 'life skills within the performing arts' or something, but don't sell them as the pathway to fame and fortune, which is a practice that definitely happens out there. So let's get the facts out to parents and let them make informed choices.

6) Some colleges already do this I know...but let's make it common practise - if they're holding a large reserve list, let the potential students know exactly where they are on that list. If you're 'caller No 200 on hold' then surely the chances are that you're not going to get in that year. Again. . . transparency.

7) Please make this be the year that someone explains to me why the majority of colleges charge overseas students so much more money.  We charge them exactly the same, as it costs me the same to train an oversea's student as it does a UK based one.

So there's my starting point, no doubt I'll think of other things throughout the year.  However all of the above aside. . . thank you. We're so thrilled - this is what happened after the award ceremony when I took the award back to the students: https://www.periscope.tv/w/1LyGBwqMeAbJN Enjoy the dullness of my walking around the college looking for them!

Whatever happened to class?

Now as we all know, I am not one to rant and rave <ahem>  I patiently sit on the fence, pulling out the splinters waiting (and hoping) for the world to change around me.

Oh OK...I'm a ranter.  I admit it.  I get infuriated by things and either bore my other half with my latest bugbear or I come here to blog..and go on (and on)....(and on)...about it.  So this time I thought that I'd save my other half (as she hears the same moan year after year)...and bring it officially out into the open.

Yesterday The MTA started it's audition 'season'. We joined the multitude of colleges, filtering through the same group of people, looking to find the ones that 'fitted us'.  We have always done it a bit differently

• We do the whole thing in a day, audition and decision by midnight
• We automatically give every applicant written feedback. Feedback which has the subjective opinion of my entire senior faculty on it (so not just a general 'be better'. . . but good, constructive things that we've noticed, with the disclaimer that it's just our opinion)
• We audition in really small groups - usually a max of around 15 these days, so that we can really get a sense of who the people are that we're auditioning.  
• My entire senior faculty are there, so that we can decide collectively if we believe that we can get that person industry-ready within our unique 2 year structure.

I believe that I can confidently say, given that 100% of my students have graduated having secured independent agent representation, that our audition process works.  Generally speaking we choose the right people.  Of 144 students that have passed through our doors, only 5 people have ever just left the course. Of those 5, only 1 of them has no contact with us....the other 4 have stayed in touch to one degree or another, we know what they're up to, and are still around to gently support them, should they ever need us.

In other words, the evidence would suggest that our audition process is effective. 

My fear is taking the wrong applicant. This year we are asking applicants to pay £32k for the course. That is a huge amount of money for them, or their parents to find, so I want to do my best to ensure that our training means that they can at the very least, earn that money back within a reasonable timeframe.  With an increasing number of our graduates being in the fortunate position of paying back their loans early after graduating due to sensible job decisions (as opposed to sitting around waiting for ALW to knock on their door and instantly offer them a well paid West End lead), it does feel that we've got this bit right.  That said, I'll quickly add, that we're ALWAYS looking at ways to improve things. So there ain't no laurels that we're sitting on down at the college. I'll also put the disclaimer that we still do open book accounting so every staff member/student/parent is welcome to check exactly where that money is going (& our students often do. . . until they get bored of looking at the numbers)

We write to the applicants offering them their audition date, usually on the same day as they apply. We also put in capital letters in the subject PLEASE RESPOND TO THIS EMAIL, as over the years it's shocked me that people just didn't respond, so it was hard for us to be sure how many people were going to turn up.

I learnt in the first year that no shows, and in particular 'non informed' no shows was part of the 'gig'. People who had paid their audition fee, just don't show up.  We regularly have about 3 or 4 every session. I wrote a blog about how this was particularly annoying for us, as we cap the number of people that we audition, therefore you have literally 'taken' somebody else's chance of a MTA audition if you do this. Give us lots of notice and we can usually fill the space.  So the initial email has a link to that blog and asks the auditionees to read it (as much for them to understand that things like a no show have a massive impact at The MTA). 

So the stats improved, the no shows or late cancellations still happened, but not with as much frequency. We send applicants an email the week before to remind them that we're expecting them - but again we seldom get a response, and we rarely get told by reply that they're no longer coming. Nope. They wait a few days, then throw it into an email, with a pointless 'I'm sorry if this is inconvenient' line. It's not inconvenient to us - we get to go home quicker. It is however inconvenient to the people that are sat on waiting lists attempting to audition for us.

In the past two years there's been an increase in applicants wanting a later audition date because they're on a foundation course, and want to be 'as ready as they can be' prior to auditioning. Now on one hand I completely get that - what I don't get though is why are the colleges running their foundation courses to the same school year as the drama colleges? Shouldn't a foundation course run something like April - April? By that point people will have a good idea of whether they've been accepted into their 'dream' college or not, and it would mean that come Dec when the audition season appears to generally start, they are 6 months further ahead in their studies than they are right now? Food for thought there maybe? I mean it also means that you could go around the colleges en masse watching their final shows, getting a feel for places. . . months before deciding where your audition fee is going to be spent.

Anyway none of this is my real rant. . . here it comes.

I remember waiting and waiting for the letter to arrive from my 1st choice college, and that fear of dread every morning wondering if it was going to be pushed through the letterbox...as what if they had rejected me?? What was to become of my life? So when I opened the college I promised myself that I would ensure that all applicants found out that day. I wasn't going to do recalls, I would make the one day count as much as possible, and regardless of how long it took me (and in the early days when we all used to hand write our notes, only to have me typing them up every night) I wanted people to find out straight away. So that everybody knew where they stood.

So that's what we've done since opening in 2009.  Since 2009 I've been staggered by how few applicants take the time to acknowledge the feedback. We're not after a thank you for it (after all it might really annoy you, especially if the news isn't what you wanted). . . but just a simple 'got it' email would be great. However it's mostly . . . nothing.  Every so often on the day I rant about this and literally beg them to let me know whether they've received it or not, and on those days I can expect about a 70% return. Generally speaking though, it's only about 20% - 30% bother to acknowledge that email.  So all those drama college applicants banging on about 'why don't they get feedback when they're spending all that money'....think on. You have an obligation in that arrangement too.

They only have a fortnight to decide whether they're going to take their place, so if that email hasn't arrived, and we don't know their decision, they will lose their place. .  . because demand is such, that we don't 'need you'. We'll be seeing another group of people quite soon, and in that group will be people as good, if not better than you - so we'll simply offer them the opportunity to train with us instead. 

Is it cultural? Is it a generational thing that we don't bother being polite anymore? Do manners matter online? Are parents and colleges reminding these students to communicate? I know that some colleges are because they keep telling me. . . but do you need to nag them more?

We have a rule at our place that all emails and texts have to be acknowledged within a certain timeframe, and if they're not the student is issued a verbal warning.  Simply because I HATE rudeness.  It takes me considerably longer to sort out the feedback than it takes the applicant to write 'thanks and press send. 

I run a college practically single handedly (aided by a PA) and I'm always working on shows at the same time, yet I manage to acknowledge every single email that comes into one of my accounts. I work a minimum of a 19 hour day most days. . . yet still I manage to say thanks or no thanks to emails that are sent to me.  Honestly -  I do not believe that an 18 yr old college student is as busy as I am. I don't believe that my students are as busy as I am (my annoying mantra to them at moments of desperation over this subject).  I'm not moaning about my working life - I'm just stating facts, and contextualising why I believe that I'm able to sit in my ivory tower and say to students both future and present.....ANSWER YOUR EMAILS BECAUSE IT'S JUST RUDE WHEN YOU DON'T