Free Tuition: Juilliard’s Next Move?

By JEFFREY HOLBROOK

I think I am safe in claiming that none of us are in the performing arts for the money. Sure, there is the occasional violin soloist, prima ballerina, or actor who brings in a large income, but most of us perform because we love the arts and feel it makes our world a better place. Those of us at Juilliard have obviously proven successful so far in our budding careers and see good prospects for the future, but there is a stark reality waiting for us as soon as President Polisi hands us our diplomas. We will leave with an unmatched arts education, great experiences, and tens of thousands of dollars in debt. True, we are not the only students in the country to have shouldered heavy loans for college. Medical and law students leave school with much debt as well, but few of them are willing to train for practically their whole lives and spend four, six, or more years in an expensive school, only to end up applying for jobs that may pay $20,000 a year. Nor would they be competing against 100 other applicants for that single, low-paying position. This fiscal situation is endemic to the arts community.

Jeffrey Holbrook

Several wealthy donors have acknowledged this problem and worked to lighten the financial burden of performing arts students. In recent months, several large donations have been made to music schools to help subsidize students' tuition. Indiana University's large music program was given $41 million, and the Yale School of Music received an anonymous donation of $100 million for the relatively few music students in the graduate school. This raises the question: In a field that requires so much training without the promise of financial security, should all arts schools be tuition-free?

My initial instinct is to answer with an immediate and enthusiastic "yes!" This, of course, is a reflection of my personal financial woes. How can I be expected to incur $50,000 of debt without being sure there is a decently-paying position out there for me? Debt has driven many of my talented colleagues in the arts to abandon their craft altogether. Without the burden of huge school loans, the financial battle ahead of us would seem much more manageable. Subsidized tuition would enable talented students at Juilliard and other arts schools to continue their studies until they are able to find that performing job or win that major competition. The atmosphere at school would also be much more creative. Students would not have to rely on work-study jobs or outside gigs to help pay for school, so they could spend more time on artistic projects. In short, without having to worry about money, students would be able to focus all their energy on their art.

Love of the arts is a noble thing ... but it won't pay off thousands of dollars in student loans.

Although subsidized tuition seems like a wonderful idea on the surface, the arts community needs to have a better financial system in place. Just as in other fields, repaying student loans would not present such a problem if there were good jobs available for students upon graduation. Therefore, donors should really concentrate on giving more money to the organizations that will help us gain employment after we finish school. In the long term, our futures as artists depend on the welfare of the symphony orchestras, dance companies, and theaters around the country where we hope to find work.

Don't get me wrong—Juilliard and other arts schools are dependent on donors to keep the institutions running, but hoping for large donations to make the school tuition-free should not be a priority. For the sake of our futures, the money is better spent in other ways. With the declining state of arts organizations in the U.S., what good is a free arts education if the jobs are disappearing? The best way to help Juilliard and other arts schools is to shape a world that needs our talents and is willing to financially support our professions.

Jeffrey Holbrook is a fourth-year trumpet student.