Drama School - Finding the Right Course

- What are the alumni doing, are they working and are they sustaining careers in the industry? This is a MASSIVE question. Most schools can wheel out a successful alumni or two to entice you but the question you want to ask is "what about the bottom 50% of their year group, what are they doing now?" The truth is that the majority of students will end up pursuing careers in other fields within a few years of graduating, and will never or rarely work as actors. Are the graduates able to sustain themselves as actors? This is an important thing to know. The more transparent schools will publish these figures, read them, they are important and they may also surprise you.

I agree with this. On your site you state, 'With a graduate employment rate of 95%* and an industry retention rate of 93%* (after five years) our alumni are working proof of the successes of our philosophy and training ethos.' I'm curious as to what you mean by these two figures...

Is the figure of 95% those who get their sole or primary income from acting? Or does it also include those who do occasional acting jobs whle working in other fields to support themselves? Or does it also include those who don't earn any money from acting, but continue with it as an amateur passion?

Similarly, does 'an industry retention rate of 93%' represent those of the above who are making a sole/primary living from acting five years after graduating? Or does it also include those who get occasional acting jobs? Or even those who regard acting as a hobby?

Hi, slow reply sorry- end of term! The figures quoted on our website are accurate at the time of going to print as stated and since have actually increased which is great news.

The figures quoted represent those who are working exclusively or primarily within the arts, there are no figures pertaining to those who may regard acting as a 'hobby' no.

It is true to say, for transparency of course that no actor, or at least very, very few work permanently as actors and are of course freelancers therefore only the smallest of minorities, graduating from any school will secure the luxury of earning their sole income through constant employment as an actor. A number may naturally support their work by teaching acting and/or working in other areas of the arts as freelancers to support their income, but the figures only include professionals and don't include those who merely call themselves actors whilst working elsewhere and only continuing with an amateur passion as you say. All figures relate to professional work.

The career question is in many ways a wider conversation in regard to arts provision and funding in the UK and how we support it and those who work within it, there is a lot we could learn from overseas in the way we value the arts in the UK in my opinion. France, Germany and other models for example would be good points of reference as I'm sure you may be aware but for now we are proud of our alumni who continue to map their futures within the industry and the generations we hope to follow them and their examples.

Thank you for your reply.

Your original post drew attention to the fact that most drama school graduates don't end up as successful actors and hinted darkly at other institutions pulling the wool over the eyes of applicants. By contrast, your website cites the apparently enormously successful figures for Fourth Monkey graduates I mentioned above.

However, you now make it clear that the figure of a 'graduate employment rate of 95%' is merely those 'working primarily or exclusively in the arts' . As such, I suggest that the figures quoted on your website are misleading because they gve the impression of great success, Given that you advertise yourself as an 'Acting Training Company', potential applicants will surely interpret the figures as meaning that 95% of your graduates are working as actors. I suggest that you make this clearer, in the interests of the transparency you righteously espoused in your original post.

Thanks for your reply. 95% of our graduates are working as actors. I'm sorry that you feel we are being righteous in our original post. We are open and transparent with all of our students and applicants in relation to the industry they are entering in every sense and indeed the training we offer, our figures and graduates onward journeys. As freelancers '95% working primarily or exclusively in the arts' as actors is both transparent, open and true and again as freelancers to expect 100% full-time in any employment data is both unrealistic and not the reality of any graduate or indeed any other schools figures, we are quoting from the same frame of reference.

The point I was making in the original post was that other schools, and there is no falsehood in this either, have a significant industry fall-out rate after relatively short periods of time. We have 93% industry retention, 93% of our graduates after five years of training are still working as actors and able to happily call themselves self-employed actors and/or creatives. This is a truly astounding figure and one we are proud of. We have literally had three graduates of our two-year programme leave the industry to follow other careers in five years. This is a fact and the point I am making, having spent many years working in a variety of schools and conservatoires prior to Fourth Monkey this is something that indisputably cannot be said at some of the more established schools.

This is neither a back-handed insult nor a statement delivered with any malice, the point is larger in that we are training our actors to work and sustainably do so within this industry. This is the success of our programme and much like Lecoq and other schools with a similar European philosophy our retention figures are generally higher than traditional 'conservatoire' or university routes.

This is something we feel we are entitled to celebrate, and this philosophy which is in many ways fresh to the UK is yielding successes that are sustainable for those working in the arts. We are doing things differently, and understandably, as it is working we want to let people know about it and genuinely be part of the bigger conversation in relation to the needs and challenges in the arts and actor training in the contemporary world we find ourselves.

We are not questioning other schools or journeys, in fact on many levels we celebrate them, all we are saying is that there is another way, and it's working.

Again, thank you for your reply and should you wish to learn more I am more than happy to entertain a further conversation outside of this forum space and face to face demonstrate our work and ethos to anyone who is interested.

Regards.

My issue with you is the way you present your figures and the impression you try to create. You have posted several times on TSR pointing out Fourth Monkey's graduate employment and industry retention rate. For example:

https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?p=68478498
https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4308098&p=68850002&page=2&highlight=#post68850002
https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4308098&p=69141800&page=3&highlight=#post69141800

The thrust of these posts - which are thinly veiled adverts - is that Fourth Monkey has an advantage over other drama schools because a) it has a very high success rate in terms of actors being employed, and b) its graduates remain in the industry rather than drop out. Any aspiring actors would have to be impressed by such apparent success. However, figures are only quantitative data - what is missing is the qualitative data, i.e. the types of 'employment' enjoyed by FM graduates.

In the last three years I have seen many performances by graduating actors - mainly Lamda and Rada, and one by Fourth Monkey's Two-Year Rep course. One key question facing any drama school applicant is what they might go on to do after they graduate. Let's take the 2015 cohort as an example because it has given the actors most time to prove themselves in the industry. Since they graduated, I have noticed those listed below as having had success in what I would call significant productions. Obviously the latter is subjective, but I count only theatrical performances at recognised venues (such as the National, Royal Court or major regional venues) or high-profile TV programmes or films (but not one-off appearances in Casualty, Holby City etc).


Lamda
Ian Davies (BBC - Ordinary Lies)
Josef Davies (Royal Court/Wyndham - Hangmen. National Theatre of Scotland - The 306)
Rosalind Eleazar (BBC - Howard's End, Rellik. ITV - Harlots)
Ellie Morris (BBC - Peter Pan Goes Wrong. Trafalgar Studios London - Rotterdam, Mischief Movie Night)
Joseph Quinn (BBC - Dickensian, Howards End. National Theatre - Mosquitoes. Royal Court/Manchester Royal Exchange - Wish List)
Natalie Simpson (Young Vic - Measure For Measure. RSC - Cymbeline, Hamlet, King Lear. Southwark Playhouse - The Cardinal. The Globe - Boudica)
Adeline Waby (Apollo Theatre - Peter Pan Goes Wrong)
Callum Woodhouse (ITV - The Durrells, Cold Feet)


Rada
Jaygann Ayeh (National Theatre - The Flick)
Joe Idris-Roberts (National Theatre - Pinocchio)
Dino Kelly (BBC - Peaky Blinders)
Tamara Lawrence (BBC - Undercover, King Charles III. Royal National - Ma Rainey's Black Bottom. Royal Court - Unreachable. National Theatre - Twelfth Night. Chichester Festival - King Lear)
Stefanie Martini (ITV - Prime Suspect 1973. NBC - Emerald City. Film - Crooked House)
Sally Messham (Lyric Hammersmith/Royal Lyceum Edinburgh - Tipping The Velvet. ITV - Midwinter Of The Spirit)
Kathryn Wilder (Kenneth Branagh Theatre Company - Harlequinade, Winter's Tale, Romeo and Juliet)

However, having searched Fourth Monkey's class of 2015 I cannot find anyone who has worked at such a level - please correct me if I have missed someone. Your graduates might have undertaken acting work but not anywhere near the top, and this is a very pertinent fact to be considered by anyone applying to drama school.

Thank you again for your reply.

You have, in many ways proven my point. Thank you. The movement of goalposts as to what you perceive to be 'credible work' at a few select venues is exactly what is wrong with this industry. It could in other realms be referred to as elitism or exclusivity. A number of schools are challenging the status quo in offering actor training for the modern industry, we are one of them. There is no obligation for everyone to get it and many wont like it. That is fine. But the results do speak for themselves.

You have notably gone to great pains to collate information on a graduating year group from two of the most respected and established schools within the industry, I do not, neither have I ever, devalued their long recognised work, it would be ignorant to do so. Moreover I have a number of associations with both of the schools you reference and respect their training wholly. All we are is simply another way and these schools are bold enough to acknowledge our approach as we do theirs.

All this said however, in your homework you have endorsed my observations by only being able to celebrate six and seven names from the years graduate cohort who you have bestowed your acknowledgement of success upon. Where are the other 23/24? They may well be working hard too on similar boards, but the inference is that they are probably not. No doubt some of them having already changed careers. This is the norm and not a criticism. But it is a fact that this is the way it works out for a number of drama school graduates.

In terms of our graduate students the retention and employment figures are accurate and correct and not subjected to elitist expectation of given venues, roles or understudy roles as you have cited. There is equal value in work outside of the National or BBC...as you say your expectation is subjective by definition.

In addition, these wonderful schools are the establishment and the establishment by definition, is of course established. We are a fledgling school delivering employable alumni into the industry with great success and not only that, they are also going on to create their own companies and work much like the celebrated schools of Europe and the Far East. This is a new model of actor training for the UK, you don't have to 'get it', that's fine. But when the figures do speak for themselves I'd appreciate our alumni receiving the same level of respect for their achievements as those treading the boards at the venues you celebrate in your correspondence.

And yes ours too are working at the National, (Eleanor Cotton-Soares) & at The Globe (Mollie Lambert) for example but as a collective their work and their interests lie generally in less commercial routes and more of the subsidised and valuable work delivered often far from the gaze of the theatrical elite.

The additional irony in this being that some of their smaller profile or farther flung work not to mention commercials, UK touring work, tv and film will be or has been paying them equally or more than those you have cited from your research. I am not devaluing their work or talent in the slightest yet the fact that you have indirectly done so to our talented alumni by discrediting their achievements is something I find disappointing.

Like I say theatre should be for everyone, it takes place in venues both traditional and non-traditional, local and international, with and without profile all over the world. To value one sort of work over the other because it conforms to the standardised expectation is a shame, but a sign of the bigotry and elitism this industry has so much work to overcome if it truly is going to be a playground and a mirror for all to view. That is our objective and for our alumni who have sadly not crossed your path in a profile production please spare a moment of thought before disregarding them. Perhaps the work they do elsewhere is equally valuable and in some cases perhaps, maybe even changing the world for those who experience their work.

I say the above not with any combativeness but to address the points you articulately raise.

We feel passionately about our training, our ethos and indeed those who come through our doors and pass out the other side as rounded professionals ready to explore the world and spread their creative wings.

They leave us with a voice and the license and empowerment to use it. They are actors, but these are also in some cases the creatives of tomorrow too and one's whom, given a chance can be as much a part of the new establishment as we shape what we hope to be a more inclusive and representative industry moving forward into the 21st Century.

Like we say our training is not a revolution, merely something of an evolution of the work that has gone before. A majority appreciate and celebrate it, both within the training fraternity and those in the stalls and galleries of venues all over the world.

We make no apology if we shout about our successes and our philosophy but I do apologise if our voice has been too loud for you in the reading.

With regards.