How many of you acquired a BFA in acting...?

Question

...and thought it was a good decision? (Question made by a dedicated artist)

Answer 1

I'd agree with what shkspr said - my BFA degree did not excuse me from any of the general coursework required for a BA. I had additional theatre coursework, and the expectation levels were higher than the BA students, but it wasn't a magic pass out of taking biology or history or anything.

Getting the degree was a good decision for me because it was a good mix of professional training and liberal arts education. I went on to do a graduate degree, because one thing I did learn was how much I still needed to do to become one of those actors who actually works.

My program prided itself on turning out graduates who know how to get the jobs, and there was quite a bit of focus placed on auditioning, agents, the business of show business, etc during the last two years of the program. I found these classes, interestingly enough, to be of much less value than script analysis, Shakespeare, scene study, etc.

A BFA was worth it for me, but I wasn't looking for conservatory training, and my program wasn't offering it, so it was a good fit. I think choosing a training program is such a personal thing anyway, there's no one school that's best for all people. The best you can do is find a place where you like the teachers, are interested in the curriculum, is in a place you don't mind living, and will give you the experiences you're looking for.

Answer 2

Well, I taught in a reputable BFA program for several years. I'm not nearly as agitated about the degree as the previous respondent. For one thing, BFA programs do NOT isolate the student as much as all that; they can't! Since they're operating within the context of a liberal arts college or university, the student is still responsible for ALL of the university's core requirements ("general education"). The BFA allows for somewhat MORE intensified focus on the theatrical curriculum than the BA program, but it's nothing like an MFA program, where students basically live/eat/breathe theatre 24/7, and have no outside (academic) demands tugging on them.

On one point, however, we're absolutely in agreement. In my experience, the real problem with BFA training is that it leads students to conclude that their preparation for the profession is COMPLETE, which is a great disservice to them. For the very reason I stated above (the fact that BFA students are obligated to spend much of their time focusing on general university requirements), the best of my BFA students were graduating at a point where further training at the graduate level would have done them a world of good. But, with a few notable exceptions, they didn't see it that way. Off they went to the Big Cities. I wish them well, of course, and I've continued to help them whenever and however possible (casting them in shows I direct, writing letters of rec., putting them in touch with useful industry contacts), but...

In my opinion, the BEST that an undergraduate theatre program can do -- whether BA or BFA -- is to get a student enough exposure to theatrical process and technique so that they REALIZE how much further they need to go; this is why good graduate-level training is desireable. The BA students were generally receptive to that model; for the BFA kids, the message more often fell on deaf ears.

Answer 3

The BFA is the most worthless dgree available, especially with the absolute glut of MFA programs around the country. A BA is much more useful, and attrractive. It is vitally important in the field of theatre to be aware of the world outside of the theatre, a good liberal arts education will do that, an enclosed, BFA program only isolates teh your actor and I have seen that it often artificially inflates egos more than anything else. It is important to have confidence but an ego based on nothing (which is what you will have after 4 years) will not help you get work.