I just learned that a person that is very close to me might have to leave the Eastman School of Music because the school considers the funding for its construction projects more important that its funding for the students...My ire was raised by the shortsightedness and stupidity of this.Musical institutions (Conservatories) have gotten to a point where they care more about the preservation of public image than they care about the music (or the talent of the students). This is an incredible irony when one considers that the word conservatory literally means a place of conservation...I suppose the big wigs at these institutions take this to mean the conservation of the schools funding for their administrative bureaucrats rather than for teacher's salaries or their student's scholarships.
I financially struggled to finish my degrees (with many a skipped lunch). Through loans the school system insures that I still have to pay for schooling after I'm done. Now, after I have finished school, I look back to see if things improve. Instead of improvement I see: significantly raised tuition (in the case of Eastman more that 5,000 dollars this year), an increase in the cost of text books (this applies not only to music, but to all fields of study), no improvement in practice facilities (where the students actually work...at Eastman they have mold, poor ventilation, dilapidated pianos and lack of availability) and an increase in spending on major (and often unnecessary and superficial building projects for glass facades). My question is...how are administrations not able to see that music schools exist to harbor talent. How are they able to justify hiring administrative assistants and assistants to the administrative assistants when they pay some of the most highly trained professionals in the field (the conservatory teachers) close to poverty level and they squeeze the last dollar from their talented students. If that is not the definition of avarice I don't know what is!
It is not my tendency to rant...however, I predict dire consequences for the old guard conservatories if this trend continues any further. Many newer music schools would be glad to have the talented students and many students would be grateful not to be burdened with debt upon graduation. I enjoyed four wonderful years at Eastman (and two at Juilliard). My teachers were extraordinary and my colleagues were exceptional. In short, I love the school and hate the institution!
Posts
2 comments:
Marion! What a pleasure to follow your entries. I'll continue to do so, if it's ok!
Well said Marion, especially since I am studying at a fairly inexpensive school with fairly cheap housing, and have taken out a grand total of $3000 loan that wasn't even used toward school. Though the big name schools are quite enticing as a graduate school choice for someone like me, I scoff at the fact that I'm playing at a higher level than leagues of people who are in debt up to their forehead. But, am I not expected to go to a big name school after I finish at my lowly public university? If I don't then I look like I didn't try hard enough, like I don't have enough talent to make it in the 'real world'. When will it become acceptable to charge $60 per ticket to attend a Brahms quintet performance at Eastman and pay $5 to see some Mongoloids play Basketball? Down with the American institution!
Post a Comment