|
As many of you are aware, a major scandal broke in which celebrities and other rich individuals have bribed college coaches, 'counselors' and SAT test-takers to help their children enter 'elite' colleges such as Harvard, Dartmouth and so forth.
At issue for me here is not the immoral lengths that some parents' went to secure their child's academic school, but the whole illusion and obsession that where you go to school somehow determines one's life. It's a preposterous notion that only benefits the Ivy League and other 'elite' academies to get the best students to attend, while being harmful to students, parents, and society in general. To give you a concrete example, the richest person I know was a retired businessman when I was growing up in Richardson, Texas. With as much money as he made from selling his company, you might be mistaken in assuming he went to an Ivy League school, or perhaps one of the famous West Coast academies, or maybe JUST an elite public school like UT-Austin. Nope. Guess where he went - Texas Tech. I have nothing against Texas Tech, but let's be blunt; it's better known for its football team than its academic prowess. And yet, across the country, millions of very successful students attend 'average' universities like Texas Tech. And there's several reasons for that: 1) The U.S. is home to HUNDREDS of great colleges. With very minor exceptions, the vast majority of professions have success stories from every type of school. You can get a great education at so-called 'average' schools that still provide amazing professors and resources. 2) Who you are as a person matters a lot more than the college you attended. The reality is that while you can a great education almost anywhere, it really depends on how much YOU put into your education. If you work hard, use the school's resources, network etc...you will benefit and do well with ANY college on your resume. If you decide to party all four years, it won't matter that you attended Harvard. 3) The chicken and the egg problem - specifically, do students earn more money because they attended an elite academy or because they had personal qualities that made them more likely to succeed financially? While there have been studies showing the Ivy League graduates do earn more than non-Ivy League students, there is no way to prove that Ivy League schools actually cause that income boost. In all likelihood, these schools have a small but basically meaningless improvement in income. What matters more is the quality of student these academies attract, and the career fields these student enter versus non Ivy-League students. 4) Many local schools are in fact "elite" in certain fields, and frankly superior to Ivy League schools. For instance, if you are pursuing music as a career, you are wasting a lot of time and money attending Harvard. You can make a lot more connections and get better training at so-called "average" universities like the University of Houston, Indiana University, and Florida State University, which all have GREAT music schools. The same is true for most professions...SMU is known for its business school. UT-Dallas has amazing facilties for the sciences. The list goes on and on of 'average' institutions housing elite programs. Even better, these 'average' colleges probably won't cause you to take on loads of debt! Whereas unless you have a huge amount of financial or merit aid coming your way, attending those elite academies is extremely pricey. 5) If you define "success" solely as wealth, you are going to miss out on a lot. I feel sorry, in a way, for these parents who are cheating for their kids. If you value money so much that your child has to follow some prescribed path to success, you are going to raise a very stressed-out and anxious kid. The Rat Race is fun for no one. My advice to my voice students: Apply to 5-6 schools that you really like, and go where you won't incur a huge amount of debt. And the rest will take care of itself if you work hard (and party less) during your college years! In preparation for the Solo/Ensemble competition, I occasionally give a French song to voice students who are particularly ambitious or have taken voice lessons for a few years. It’s not that French is somehow more difficult to learn than any other foreign language…it’s just that it is so different from any other Western language.
There are historical reasons for the French language’s uniqueness. Basically, France was what we call the first modern “nation-state” in the West, which means essentially that it had a modern form of government tied to a specific culture or nationality. Because the French kings gained power over time, they were able to spread their power in cultural ways. The French monarchy established different schools that attempted to regulate culture and in particular language. And because language was given uniformity by the state, it was less affected by grassroots changes or cultural spread from other neighboring languages and countries. This evolution is very much in contrast to English. English is pretty much the opposite of French. English was VERY susceptible to foreign influences because England kept getting conquered by different nationalities who brought their own linguistic traditions. That is why English has SO MANY exceptions to the rules; our language is basically a weird mish-mash of German, French, Latin, and some other minor languages to boot. Oddly enough, while French may be initially difficult to learn for English speakers, it is actually easy once you understand the rules. French, unlike English, is VERY uniform. Once you know the rules, it really is hard to mess up French. Most of my singers find French challenging because of the unique nasal vowels and oddities of dropped consonants, but once they pick those rules up, they find it quite easy to navigate. And once you feel comfortable singing in French, there is a world of beautiful music to discover. The French music scene was quite developed and has a unique sound compared to their German and Italian counterparts. Faure, Bizet, Chausson, Duparc, Massenet, Debussy, the list goes on and on of successful French composers. Oddly enough, the French opera tradition is weak compared to songs. This again relates back to history. The French kings determined that operas were too important culturally to leave alone, so again, they established a music school that heavily influenced opera composers. This influence was, in the long-term, detrimental to the popularity of French opera abroad. French opera became stuffed with five acts, required ballet scenes, and a general slavishness to the monarchy in early operas because French composers wanted to show their loyalty to the monarchy. French songs and operettas (the ancestor of the modern musical), did far better because the monarchy simply cared less about ‘regulating’ those compositions. I hope you enjoyed your history lesson before Spring Break! Take care everyone and keep singing! |
Archives
March 2024
Categories |
RSS Feed