- Jun 19, 2004
- 4,782
- 83
- 42
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist, Schroeder Cabinets
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
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