Post by tszuj on Feb 8, 2011 14:30:31 GMT -4
I don't think education is ever pointless. I'm not saying there aren't celebs who talk up their education purely for PR ('sup Ashley Judd!) but is a US degree really something that people can just coast through so they can bolster their vanity? I can't imagine a pHd is, though I wouldn't be surprised if celebs are excused teaching and all the other tiresome parts of postgrad life. A lot of celebs start acting so young, and that life is so full-on, it's not surprising that when they get older they crave a chance to learn or just to experience college life.
Of course my perspectives are probably coloured by not being American, so the whole idea of education being commercialised I find very hard to wrap my head around. I mean all the stuff you read about American unis and "legacies" like Bush, or sports players, I can't really understand that. Not that all British unis (i.e. Oxbridge) are exactly white as snow when it comes to treating applicants equally, but they are strict about their academic entry requirements.
I've noticed that it's far more common for British actors to have degrees, though. (I sound like Jeremy Clarkson in disguise or something -- I don't usually flag wave for the UK.) I think that's partly because of the nature of the British educational system (in terms of practicalities and culture), partly geography, and partly because the entertainment industry is so different. In the US so much emphasis is put on youth, that aspiring actors and especially actresses feel (probably rightly) that their careers will suffer if they wait until they're 21 to start, and that going to university won't help their careers. Whereas in Britain there's way to much snobbery in the opposite direction, the whole idea of actors having to 'pay their dues' first. If you look at Cambridge, for example, tons of actors and comedians started their careers there, and their student drama club is quite famous and well respected within the industry. Doing three years there would stand you in better stead than moving to London at 18 and going straight onto the audition circuit.
Of course my perspectives are probably coloured by not being American, so the whole idea of education being commercialised I find very hard to wrap my head around. I mean all the stuff you read about American unis and "legacies" like Bush, or sports players, I can't really understand that. Not that all British unis (i.e. Oxbridge) are exactly white as snow when it comes to treating applicants equally, but they are strict about their academic entry requirements.
I've noticed that it's far more common for British actors to have degrees, though. (I sound like Jeremy Clarkson in disguise or something -- I don't usually flag wave for the UK.) I think that's partly because of the nature of the British educational system (in terms of practicalities and culture), partly geography, and partly because the entertainment industry is so different. In the US so much emphasis is put on youth, that aspiring actors and especially actresses feel (probably rightly) that their careers will suffer if they wait until they're 21 to start, and that going to university won't help their careers. Whereas in Britain there's way to much snobbery in the opposite direction, the whole idea of actors having to 'pay their dues' first. If you look at Cambridge, for example, tons of actors and comedians started their careers there, and their student drama club is quite famous and well respected within the industry. Doing three years there would stand you in better stead than moving to London at 18 and going straight onto the audition circuit.
