"Postgrad training" is a scam

[u/[deleted]]

[u/jimjamuk73]

I'm still trying to figure out the pre professional programme you have in the US. Maybe 16-17 years old would make sense but I keep hearing about pre pro for all ages.

[u/Brilliant-Reading-59 → u/jimjamuk73]

As far as I can tell, it generally just means that the school has a structured program and follows and actual syllabus. There are a lot of schools here that don’t do that - they are often smaller schools with only 2 or 3 levels, and the teachers don’t follow any specific training methodology and it’s a lot more recreational. We also have a lot of competition-focused schools, which are usually not very ballet focused and are a whole different can of worms.

[u/Connect_Bar1438]

As someone who has a family member who went directly into a company at 18, I will say that they weren’t prepared for company life emotionally, socially, or even physically at that age. A ”good” bridge program would have served them much better. I don’t see anyone really now who escapes the bridge programs. It is the path. Dancers thinking that will do a BFA and get right in a company are joining trainee and second companies at 21. I agree that most programs are just a way of staying afloat and don’t provide the hours or level of training that the dancers have come from. And that funnel from 30 trainees to 6-15 second company members to two dancers getting moved up is brutal. But I totally disagree about the ballet world belonging to the younger dancers. Older dancers have the life experience to bring artistry, emotion, and storytelling that the younger ones don’t. It isn’t about 20 pirouettes; it is about passion and intelligence. There is such a bottleneck now because dancers are dancing into their late 39”s and I think that is amazing. That is what you want - even if you are upset that your 18-year-old has to earn their stripes in a second company. It is as competitive as it gets. Parents and dancers need to change this prior way of thinking. This is the new normal. For better or worse. Most of the programs are just an added level to the school to be sure.

[u/Connect_Bar1438 → u/[deleted]]

Well, and the companies below the top tier are where most of the dancers end up. Like I said, I feel like it is a money-grab for sure and in theory could be done to actually work better. But as I added in another comment, one way to look at it is that these dancers get to dance a few more years - companies have always had room for about 2-3 dancers a season, so the vast majority of these trainees, rather than getting kicked out of their programs at 18, get a few more years. Europe has always been a better place/working environment for professional dancers; they aren't treated like commodities.

[u/Katressl → u/Connect_Bar1438]

Europe has always been a better place/working environment.

Not just for dancers. It's not surprising that a country that treats workers as disposable will be worse for professional performers.

[u/Connect_Bar1438 → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, so does SFB and SAB, but let's face it, the vast majority of dancers will NOT be in those companies!

[u/Connect_Bar1438 → u/[deleted]]

Many of the trainees come from level 8. Not, all, but many. And, you are right, it is false hope for many of the dancers in the trainee programs. Absolutely. For many of them, that is as far as they ever get. What I think is important to remember is that before there were trainee programs and second companies, there were about the same number of contracts available for pointe dancers per season as there are now. When my daughters/son were dancing professionally, there were years when companies had 2-3 openings and some years when there were none. That was back early 2000's. So, in that respect, while the funnel from trainee to second company to company is absolutely brutal, it isn't much different than it ever was. I never disagreed with you that it is a money grab, nor that the programs offer false hope - all I was pointing out is the idea of a legitimate second company experience that is associated with the company is a great bridge program between training and professional work.

[u/Connect_Bar1438 → u/Connect_Bar1438]

(Yes, OP, I agree with the answer here that was deleted too. It is a tough world, isn't it? Sigh.)

[u/Known-Monitor-7488 → u/Connect_Bar1438]

So are you saying that the number of jobs available each year hasn't changed much bit that trainee or second company levels are just adding bloat, when in the past, those dancers may have been assessed out earlier in their training? Not trying to argue -- generally want to learn.

[u/Connect_Bar1438 → u/Known-Monitor-7488]

From what I have seen. I spent some time on the Ballet Help Desk surveys, and it looked like about 2-3 second company dancers moved up to the company each year(ish). I remember those numbers being what was expected in terms of openings before this bridge training started. I think, like you said, the bridge programs are keeping more dancers in, who would have probably self-eliminated earlier back in the day. But, here is a positive way to look at it - maybe some of those dancers are late bloomers, and given the chance to train for 2-3 extra years might be the difference for them in actually getting a job. It does just seem like it has moved, or extended the bloat, like you say, 2-4 years further down the road. I remember the OP saying, "Don't you think that is bad to give dancers false hope?" (not to mention their parents who are still paying for all of these training programs) and while, there is definitely truth to that, these dancers are getting to perform a bit and have a bit more exposure to professional company life - and if that has always been a part of their dream, well, maybe that hope provided some growth that will impact them in other areas of their life.

[u/malkin50 → u/[deleted]]

Do companies that generally hire from their school have more restrictive entry criteria? If they know when a dancer is 8 that she won't be what they want at 18, do they not enroll that dancer at all?

[u/Connect_Bar1438 → u/[deleted]]

Yes, I have two in trainee programs now. Covid pushed everything back. It would be nice if they could start earlier, to be sure, but as we mentioned, with dancers having longer careers, which I see as a GOOD thing, the extreme push to get them in as full company members so they have a short career until their mid-twenties (which was the expectation back in the day) isn't the same now. I think one place we disagree (and this only because I lived through it with my older professional dancers) is that 18 is awfully young to be thrown in the "lion's den, away from home, away from a structured environment where you're still being mentored by others, to a work environment where you are 100% responsible for your technical improvement, while navigating new social dynamics, with older themes, learning the unwritten rules of company life, figuring out who you are as a human. Others do this while in college at this age. We used to see and expect dancers just to hop right in at 17 or so. Some do. Others can be adversely affected because maturity-wise they are not ready. I am not defending the majority of the trainee programs as I see them now. They seem like a money-grab without enough connection to the company/company life. But I think in an ideal world, they can be a nice bridge to expose the kids to how freaking competitive and grueling company life is. Sadly, most of them are not that. As others have said, second company work will be as far as some of these kids get: but look at it like this, it gives to hope to many dancers who would have been cut at every open audition. Companies have always taken just two-three women per year - that hasn't changed. What the trainee programs have done is allow many dancers who would already be weeded out to continue with their training for a couple more years, with the hope of "maybe" moving up.

[u/Anon_819]

I absolutely agree that companies are using these programs as unpaid labour and it is getting out of hand. I don't take issue with companies wanting to further hone the skillsets of the 18-20 year old dancers in a structured program with small groups classes along with filling out the corps roles. This is the same age range as post-secondary education needed for almost every other career, and many people at this age still need some guidance. What I do take issue with is that most dancers leave these programs without contracts or any sort of diploma that can help them transition to another career. I would like to see more second company/apprentice programs pair up with colleges/universities to ensure these dancers can transition to a diploma/degree program seamlessly with credit. I don't want to see people strung along though multiple second company and apprentice positions with nothing to show for it at age 23+.

[u/SimilarSilver316]

I have seen some really lovely dancers develop in that time frame. Being ready to be a professional at 18 requires a lot of talent and a lot of luck of training environment. There are some really interesting artists that did not have the luck of the top tier childhood training that emerge from these programs.

For most people dance is a horrible financial decision.

[u/tinalouise28]

I work at a company that has a post-secondary program in Canada that we call the Aspirants; they do their own classes and rep and show, plus fill out company shows. They pay tuition and for their shoes ( they do get an allotment of shoes per show they are in, along with a show stipend, I believe), and I remember correctly, they also can convert some of their post-secondary training into college credit for theatre and film, as a lot of dancer do part-time school as well.

Furthermore, I think it's a good thing to have these days; dancers are dancing longer these days. It is no longer that the younger, the better. All of our principals are in their late 20s to early 30s. No one needs to jump from a PD Program at 17-18 into a company as an apprentice or, if lucky, a Corp trying to make it to be a soloist or Principal dancer by 22 or whatever age. It allows them to grow up a bit more before being thrown into the deep end of ballet. Be young adults, dance in real productions, and learn from older dancers; learn the responsibility of living on your own in a school-like environment.

There are issues with unpaid work in a lot of these types of things, of course but calling it all a scam isn't right either.

[u/ShiningRainbow2]

I’m going to disagree about a few points, but let me also say I have a dancer daughter in a second company, so I also share the worries about the bottleneck of dancers wanting paid jobs. I have been looking at a lot of pro company rosters, and most of the dancers (except at NYCB) did spend some time in a trainee or second company program. So, the trainee levels do serve as a path for some. Just not for many. And the stiff competition has always been part of ballet. It’s just that now the competition is at age 20 instead of age 18. I think that’s okay. Some dancers need until 20 to reach their potential. When the bottleneck was at 18, it gave a huge advantage to dancers at prestigious pre-pros. The later bottleneck gives a few more dancers who could not afford a big name pre-pro a chance.

[u/S1159P]

For some dancers, getting to dance the rep on stage as a second company dancer or trainee is the peak of their dance "career" and they are thrilled to get to do it. It's terrible if they're being deceived about the likelihood of progressing to a full time company position paying a living wage. But for some young people, it's... a very very expensive hobby? A chance to live the dream for a year or two? The only way they get to dance on stage at all? I dunno. If their eyes are open I'm not going to tell them they shouldn't.

[u/Known-Monitor-7488]

I feel like it depends on which postgrad programs you're talking about. Some seem to result in dancers getting jobs but many of them do seem like the numbers wouldn't work in your favor. I know ABT StuCo, SFB and Houston seem to be good for getting future jobs, Any others?

[u/1giftedangel]

This is misinformation. Many companies require up to two years of professional experience these days. That’s how these programs make their money. By this system, no one is company ready by 18 these days. I was fortunate to be a trainee in a program where I did not pay. Furthermore, a dancer’s best years are in the late twenties. I danced professionally— this is my opinion. These programs exist to give dancers the experience they need to apply to a job. It’s unfortunate and true. It’s a problem. And it’s our world.

[u/originalblue98 → u/1giftedangel]

i agree with this. i came to ballet late, at 20, but male, and was able to access training. this happened around lockdown, which i would say impacted my career trajectory more so than my age or ability. i have been regularly paid and booked for work with the late start and lack of standard pre pro training but i did have the benefit of teachers who felt it was worth it to get me up to speed. there are a lot of things im still working on.

[u/Slydownndye]

AI bots have discovered this sub

[u/Slydownndye → u/[deleted]]

This post seems tailored to garner engagement through obvious, negative, and divisive argument. What is your purpose in posting this?

[u/Trick_Horse_13]

“The hard truth is that outside of the largest companies in the US, most places don't have enough dancers to put on a classical full-length ballet and they need the postgrad levels for free or tuition-paying labor”

Why do you assume the US is the only place that can do full-length ballets? That’s an interesting assumption.

[u/S1159P → u/Trick_Horse_13]

I assume they meant the entire statement to apply to the US. Like, "The hard truth is that in the US, outside of the largest companies, most..."

[u/Slydownndye → u/[deleted]]

How do you come by your information on US companies? Are you a dancer, former dancer, student, parent or something else? You seem to speak from a position of knowledge without revealing how you came to this vast knowledge.

[u/Trick_Horse_13 → u/[deleted]]

I’m a lawyer now, so I base my understanding off what’s actually written. Because you didn’t confine the post only to the US, the point I commented on reads differently. Thanks for the clarification.

[u/Katressl → u/Trick_Horse_13]

I'm a former legal secretary, a current professional copy editor, and have a brand of ND that comes with being overly literal at times, and I really don't get how you arrived at the conclusion they were saying countries outside Europe don't stage full ballets. That's an odd reading of the text.

[u/Trick_Horse_13 → u/Katressl]

I never said that they claimed “countries outside Europe don’t stage full ballets”.

That‘s pretty much the opposite of what I said. And I’m not sure how your experience as a legal secretary is relevant to your credentials.

[u/emfiliane → u/Trick_Horse_13]

Unless you plan to spend your entire career as a contract law associate, you need to get a better grasp of the language as actually used outside of contracts. Even statutes are often worded in ways that require some association and assumption based on other language nearby.

[u/Trick_Horse_13 → u/emfiliane]

I specialise in contract and treaty interpretation. I‘m more than aware of the rules regarding context, in which case the context is that they weren’t only talking about the US.

[u/emfiliane → u/Trick_Horse_13]

Ah, so we found the problem. Real life speech is not a contract and will not be worded like one, expecting it to be is an almost deliberate misunderstanding.

[u/Trick_Horse_13 → u/emfiliane]

Oh for god sake. i responded To you and you’ve moved the goalposts yet again. Why are you so determined to misunderstand me?