Is Berklee worth the money?

[Dave Muscato]

Hey folks,

I was just thinking: A semester at Berklee College of Music in Boston, including housing, is now up to $19,763 as of the Spring 2006 semester. This does not include a "Class Instruction" fee of $725 *per credit hour,* or private instruction ($1,450 per semester).

I find it hard to believe that anyone interested in a career as a working musician (that is, not as an A-list producer) can rationalize $250,000 of college debt for a four-year degree from Berklee, esteemed as it (deservedly) may be.

I can understand an undergraduate student interested in becoming a doctor taking on this kind of debt. The University of Pennsylvania (an Ivy League school, and one of the best colleges in this country) recently raised their undergraduate tuition to $23,062 per semester. If one is going into a career like surgery, in which $150,000+ incomes are expected and $1m+ incomes not rare (the mean hourly wage being $88.53 in the US), fine. But the average professional musician, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, earns $27.51/hr when s/he is working (which is not even close to 40 hours per week, mean). Even at 40 hours per week (good luck!), that means an average gross income of $57,200/yr, if s/he works 52 weeks/yr. The true mean is closer to $16,500/yr performing (not counting teaching privately, running a studio, or any of the various hodge-podge of jobs musicians often patch together to make the equivalent of one full-time career).

So, my question is, if my goal is to make my living playing in bands, traveling, performing consistently, running a small indie label and also producing, is going to Berklee a sound investment? Would it be a better idea to attend some of their summer programs or online classes, and read books published by Berklee Press, instead of pursuing a degree? It seems as though an actual degree is less than necessary to work as a musician, unless one plans to also teach at a college level.

I understand that Berklee has a pretty low graduation rate. In fact, just to get to a 50% rate, you have to go all the way up to 6 years (graduation rate after 4 years being only 40%!) Is this because students begin to realize about 2 years in that a degree isn't necessary for this field? Or is a degree helpful, and I just don't know what I'm talking about?

Is going to Berklee, or a school like Berklee, even worth it for one year? It seems to me that with quality private instruction and dedicated study, you can teach yourself to play an instrument very well. With the proliferation of the Internet and various music theory websites like teoria and even plain old Wikipedia, in addition to the truckload of quality music theory books available on Amazon, etc, is it even necessary to learn theory in a classroom? Aside from the networking aspects, what does a music school have to offer than you can't learn by doing? Or is the networking what people are really paying for?

Your thoughts are appreciated,

Dave

[BassChuck]

I would guess that the real value of Berklee is meeting people and getting your name out. In other words, a year a Berklee would be like a year long audition.

Having quality instructors is a great thing. But something to consider is that not all great performers are good teachers. Even if you have a great teacher who is also a great performer, you are the one that has to make sense of the information.

In the end, all a teacher can do is save you some time. You are responsible for reaching your own goals.

[ding_man]

My bass teacher went to Berklee for awhile and they had a saying there

If you graduate Berklee then you must not be good enough.

Think about that.

[Freddels]

Originally Posted by ding_man

My bass teacher went to Berklee for awhile and they had a saying there

If you graduate Berklee then you must not be good enough.

Think about that.

That's a bunch of BS. There are plenty of good players that have graduated and plenty that haven't.

[Freddels]

Originally Posted by Dave Muscato

Is going to Berklee, or a school like Berklee, even worth it for one year?

Dave

It depends. What do you want to do with music? If you have thoughts of getting a job with benefits in the music field (like teaching) then a degree is necessary.

If you just want to play music (and not necessarily make a living from it) then maybe.

Are you a burning player? Top player in your area? Working and getting calls for gigs? Then one year at Berklee may help you jump into the national scene. The networking there can be good. If you're not the happening player right now then I don't think one year will do much good for you and may actually be worse than not going.

Is Berklee offering any scholarship money? They offer generous scholarships to good players.

As far as graduation rates, well you have to look at the type of students that are there. Many, like yourself, are thinking of just going for a year or two. Others get burned out or just can't hang. Go on the DB side and contact Marco Panacia (he graduated and if anyone says he can't play then they're definitely full of it).

Depending on where you are at in your playing and what you want to do, some might suggest you take your $ and move to NYC, Nashville, or Austin and spend a year or two there.

[Jim Carr]

Originally Posted by Dave Muscato

...A semester at Berklee College of Music in Boston, including housing, is now up to $19,763 as of the Spring 2006 semester. This does not include a "Class Instruction" fee of $725 *per credit hour,* or private instruction ($1,450 per semester).

I find it hard to believe that anyone interested in a career as a working musician (that is, not as an A-list producer) can rationalize $250,000 of college debt for a four-year degree from Berklee, esteemed as it (deservedly) may be.

Wealth or scholarships, perhaps? In any case, I agree.

Originally Posted by Dave Muscato

I can understand an undergraduate student interested in becoming a doctor taking on this kind of debt...If one is going into a career like surgery, in which $150,000+ incomes are expected and $1m+ incomes not rare (the mean hourly wage being $88.53 in the US), fine. But the average professional musician, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, earns $27.51/hr when s/he is working, which is not even [usually] close to 40 hours per week...

Even worse for non-tenure track University Instructors with Doctorates, I might add! That's one of the reasons I am teaching elementary school music, which I love!

Originally Posted by Dave Muscato

So, my question is, if my goal is to make my living playing in bands, traveling, performing consistently, running a small indie label and also producing, is going to Berklee a sound investment? Would it be a better idea to attend some of their summer programs or online classes, and read books published by Berklee Press, instead of pursuing a degree? It seems as though an actual degree is less than necessary to work as a musician, unless one plans to also teach at a college level.
Dave

Consider music theory courses at a local university, conservatory extension division (I did this), or community college. Part-time study can be slower, but you can devote more time to your classes and get more out of them while gigging. Finding one or two really great teachers who make serious demands on you makes a huge difference. Most of my full-time students DIDN'T do a lot of their work, and it really hurt them in terms of what they learned. Also, as a part-time student, you can still network within your school (for gigs and advice), and even use more than one school.

Warning: music departments are often picky about letting non-majors or part-time students into the often crowded full-blown harmony, counterpoint, arranging, composition, music technology, and recording courses, so you may have to gain admission as a music major to take what you need. There are also ALWAYS lists of required courses one must take to gain access to the higher level courses. This is not bad, per se, but it can make things slow and frustrating. Non-degree, non-major, and part-time students usually get lower priority when registering for high demand courses like recording, music tech, arranging, or counterpoint. Finding alternative routes is a good idea. In the 1980's, I used extension division classes at Mannes School of Music in New York to bring my ear-traning skills up to snuff. They were great! Being in a big city helps, but the cost of living can make time scarce. I had a consulting business going that allowed me to make a good living while studying. It wasn't easy, but I managed to live in New York and pay for my education at the same time.

I probably don't need to bring this up, but the electric bass gets very little respect as an instrument in most music departments, although I believe San Francisco State has an electric bass major (at least they did in 2000-2001 when I taught there). You will be expected to read, audition with something, and master basic keyboard skills. THOSE are good things, but a prospective student needs to be sure they are prepared not only for an admission audition, but also for the reading skill level you will need to keep up. Those nerdy kids who were in Jr. High and High School band and orchestra, or who took classical piano from age 5 will kick your backside unless you are ready. A good private teacher who has been through a music degree should be able to help. Keep switching teachers until you find one that will really make you work hard.

Originally Posted by Dave Muscato

Is going to Berklee, or a school like Berklee, even worth it for one year? Or is the networking what people are really paying for?
Dave

Berklee is great (as are lots of other schools), but I think one of the things that makes it great is the challenging atmosphere and high pressure on students to achieve their best. The student body and the faculty are all, in effect, "The Competition." The costs are obviously also part of the pressure-cooker, for better or worse.

I've taught music theory (harmony, ear training, analysis, composition, etc.) at Stanford, Columbia, San Francisco State, and the University of Kentucky. My wife now teaches voice at the University of North Texas.
IMHO, for an education that includes a music performance major and real academic work, consider state universities, like University of North Texas, University of Kentucky, San Francisco State, Indiana University, Queens College CUNY, (Missouri?), etc.

That kind of degree can allow you to become an educated musician who can also pursue a lot of other things, if you decide to. There are lot's of programs that range in selectivity, quality, and costs. I'll bet you can find one that suits you, and will allow you to get an quality education without that kind of crushing debt.

However, IMHO, being totally trained as a musician doesn't require a degree program, especially if you aren't pursuing a classical or jazz career. Getting the ear training and harmony background IS essential, though. I feel that self-study lacks the rigor and especially the individual attention a good instructor gives to a student's problems. This is particularly true for ear-training, IMHO. However, try it ALL.

Performance study and written/aural theory are obviously important parts of what makes one a good musician, but you are right about networking. Finding colleagues and opportunities to establish yourself is even more competitive outside of school, because you are up against those who are already "in the door."

Yet, I think it is ultimately much more important to PERFORM a great deal (and in many styles), find serious professional music partners, be a responsible business person, and practice, practice, practice, than it is to have formal training or a degree. As the great painter Thomas Cole once said, "An Artist is a person AND a business."

[Snarf]

I go to Berklee right now, just finished my second year. My outlook on it changes from time to time, but here's what I think.

If you're not a really good player already, don't bother. I made that mistake, it's only in the last year that I've felt I could hang with just about anyone in the school. My first year, I didn't play with too many people, partly because I didn't play double bass until the end of my first semester, and partly because I simply wasn't that good. And because of that, people had already seen my face and made a judgement based on my first few weeks there. It's tough to overcome that. So if you want to start there, make sure you can rip those bebop lines and hit every tritone sub. And play upright.

If you want to play and tour with bands, don't go to Berklee. You can move to NY or LA and find that, if you can hang. You'll be saving a lot of money. BUT, if you want to do film scoring, or synthesis, or education, or music therapy, or composition, or music business, then yeah, Berklee will have a lot to offer in terms of classes. If you want to do producing and engineering, I would say don't go to Berklee. The technology is such that you can figure all that stuff out on your own, on your own time. If you do the MP&E major at Berklee, you will get no sleep, no practice, and you'll never play with anyone. That's why I dropped that major.

Oh yeah, don't do a performance major. It's a waste of money that can be better spent getting a simple music degree at a state college and a really killin' private teacher. The theory classes probably won't be as intense, especially on the jazz side, but you'll save craploads of money and there won't be a huge educational gap.

Really, the absolute best thing Berklee has to offer is connections. I've made a few, not as many as I should though, and that's mainly because my first year I was a total hermit, and this year I've been coming out of my shell. Hopefully in the next couple of years I'll be a fully functioning social human being. Berklee is not for the shy or timid. It'll f*** you up if you are.

Honestly though, you don't even have to pay for Berklee to make connections at Berklee. Move up to Boston, and hang around with your bass in the ensemble room basement looking for jams that sound killin. Knock on the door and sit in for a couple tunes, you'll get some phone numbers.

[DocBop]

I attending and worked (not teaching) at big name music school and attending another so I've seen a lot. The schools have changed a lot over the years all of them, and I don't think they are what they once were. The simplest way to describe what I mean is... There are main schools now all competing in for students, costs of running the school with all the new digital this and that is expensive so the school now cater to the the students to draw them in. In the past the audition for these schools was serious and many students were rejected and had to get their skills up to try again. Today the auditions are basically a placement test to see what level classes to put you in, they don't reject anyone who can pay tuition. Also the classes have been, I hate to use the term dumbed down, but its the only way I know to put it. From talking to friends who still teach they say students complained they didn't like the fundamentals and core education because they just want to shred and don't see how real music classes help them shred. So as before students money speaks louder than making well rounded musicians. I would say the universities don't cave to students much like the private schools do.

Then still the most important thing no matter what school is the student themselves. Many look at music school like summer camp and getting away from the parents and have fun. Many are just their to say they are in school so they don't have to look for a job yet. Some the government is paying so why not hang out in the music scene. Those student are going to come out the same level they went in, then blame the school.

The real value of music school is the environment. To have and instrument in your hand and playing and practicing daily. Hanging out listening and talking music 24/7. To have great teachers available to talk and jam with. The school is as good as the student and the students desire to learn. If the student wants to learn and get good they can. For me the best education wasn't in the classroom though that was good, but in the open counseling, performance classes, and jam sessions.

Now that schools are getting so expensive, I knew Berklee was expensive, but didn't realize it was that expensive. I would agree in what some really serious musicians are doing. For less money they can move to New York or other big music town. Take private lessons with a big name player, and spend their days practicing and nights jamming or gigging.

I would say if I was a kid coming out of high school and wanting a career in music in 2007 I would go the university route. Get a well rounded music education and degree. While in school try to gig as much as possible focus on double and electric bass and piano. After graduation then head to a big music city and start working any and every gig I could.

[alexit]

I might catch some hell for this but I know a couple of music school dropouts who both said the reason they quit wasn't the pressure, (you get that in lots of college programs) it was the creative suppression. That they had to spend so much time devoted to other [old] people's music that they didn't like much to start out with, and so much time spent on arcane and largely irrelevant theory topics. This left very little time and energy to make their own music. No enjoyment involved.

[HaVIC5]

I was just thinking: A semester at Berklee College of Music in Boston, including housing, is now up to $19,763 as of the Spring 2006 semester. This does not include a "Class Instruction" fee of $725 *per credit hour,* or private instruction ($1,450 per semester).

Actually, it does include class instruction and private instruction. Those are the costs of additional credits per semester beyond the amount allotted by tuition (16). Going beyond 16 credits a semester is ridiculously time consuming, so nobody does it anyway. (I go to Berklee) The cost of tuition is actually 11,725, plus room/board which is 6,000. Still extremely high (I wouldn't be able to pay for it if it weren't for scholarships and testing out of a bunch of credits), but not as outrageous as you put it.

[stingray69]

I agree with your statement - there is a wealth of information on the internet that wasn't available even 5 years ago. Personally, I'd start there, but then I'm cheap - lol. There are also many great books, videos, etc - you know, of course. If you feel you've reached a plateau with the internet route, then re-evaluate your needs at that time. A local college music department may take you further than all the above - who knows, but one thing's for sure - playing bass is a very hands-on experience and I'm not sure that anyone necessarily needs Berkley to do it either - you just need the honest determination & eagerness to learn. Traditional scales, music theory, etc., is the same no matter what source it comes from (internet, books, etc.). Yes, I understand you have access to many talented national & international players, but so does youtube (lol). Anyway, what do I know? I wish you the best in any case.

Peace.

[brianh]

My vote is that no, it's not worth it to spend $250,000 on a music degree. I know lots of guys at/from Berklee....some are killin and some are horrible. I don't think there's an audition...One of my good friends went there, didn't practice and now is cleaning toilets at an office job when he's not selling guitars at Guitar Center...music degree in hand. On the other hand, I just played a concert Friday with some 18-20 year old monsters who were on tour from Berklee.....But, I have a feeling most of the monsters who went there (Gwizdala, Panascia, etc...) were already monsters and probably got big scholarships.

I also don't think you NEED to spend that kind of money on school. Find a good school in your state with a good program. There's also plenty of state schools around the country (Indiana, Michigan State, Queens College, etc....) that have a lot, if not mroe to offer than private ones. You don't need to go to a fancy private school to learn skills for the music business and leaving school with little or no debt is an incredible blessing as a musician trying to start out.

[Dave Muscato]

Originally Posted by HaVIC5

Actually, it does include class instruction and private instruction. Those are the costs of additional credits per semester beyond the amount allotted by tuition (16). Going beyond 16 credits a semester is ridiculously time consuming, so nobody does it anyway. (I go to Berklee) The cost of tuition is actually 11,725, plus room/board which is 6,000. Still extremely high (I wouldn't be able to pay for it if it weren't for scholarships and testing out of a bunch of credits), but not as outrageous as you put it.

I got the numbers in my original post from Berklee.edu:

http://www.berklee.edu/pdf/tuition/tuition.pdf

I'm glad to know that it's actually less than I figured - thanks. The PDF file in the link above didn't really explain how the "Class Instruction" or "Private Instruction" costs fit in.

- Dave

[brianrost]

Originally Posted by alexit

That they had to spend so much time devoted to other [old] people's music that they didn't like much to start out with, and so much time spent on arcane and largely irrelevant theory topics. This left very little time and energy to make their own music. No enjoyment involved.

Ah, the folly of youth

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by alexit

I might catch some hell for this but I know a couple of music school dropouts who both said the reason they quit wasn't the pressure, (you get that in lots of college programs) it was the creative suppression. That they had to spend so much time devoted to other [old] people's music that they didn't like much to start out with, and so much time spent on arcane and largely irrelevant theory topics. This left very little time and energy to make their own music. No enjoyment involved.

I'm sure that's what somebody would say, if they couldn't "hack it" i.e. keep up !!

[Jim Carr]

Originally Posted by alexit

I might catch some hell for this but I know a couple of music school dropouts who both said the reason they quit wasn't the pressure, (you get that in lots of college programs) it was the creative suppression. That they had to spend so much time devoted to other [old] people's music that they didn't like much to start out with, and so much time spent on arcane and largely irrelevant theory topics. This left very little time and energy to make their own music. No enjoyment involved.

I can understand that kind of youthful frustration, but it is so short-sighted. The truth is that most bassists and for that matter most musicians don't make their lives entirely about performing their own compositions. The very very few who do so learned by covering other material or backing other artists at least for a while. It's called Dues. All IME.

[DocBop]

Originally Posted by Jim Carr

I can understand that kind of youthful frustration, but it is so short-sighted. The truth is that most bassists and for that matter most musicians don't make their lives entirely about perfroming their own compositions. The very very few who do so learned by covering other material or backing other artists at least for a while. It's called Dues. All IME.

+100