Theatre Design & Technology - Winter 2020 - 41

Distribution of Theatre Degree Completions Per Year
Category A:
Schools with
fewer than 8
completions

Category
B: Schools
with 8-18
completions

Category C:
Schools with
18-60
completions

Category D:
Schools with
more than
60
completions

Number of U.S. institutions offering
theatre degrees

677

203

152

Percentage of U.S. institutions
offering theatre degrees

64%

19%

14%

Percentage of theatre degree
completions

20%

35%

36%

Average number of design and
production degree completions
annually

0.2

1.6

3.8

17.7

Note: At present, design and production programs are unable to produce graduates in volume without considerable presence of theatre performers and generalists. More than 70% of all design and production degree completions are produced
by less than 20% of all theatre-granting programs. As the chart above indicates, only 33 U.S. institutions have theatre degree programs that turn out more than 60 graduates each year, and those 33 programs are likely the only ones that would
survive if institutions took a hard look at the numbers. Those programs are disproportionately responsible for design and
technical production completions, as well. In fact, the number of design and production degrees decreases dramatically in
programs with fewer than 60 theatre graduates annually.

had to be dropped or replaced because
the institutions closed and the catalogs
were unavailable. Three additional institutions dropped their theatre major and,
though still producing graduates, were
in teach-out mode by the 2016-2017
academic year. Another six institutions
dropped the design and production emphasis or tracks between fall 2010 and
fall 2016 but that was offset by 16 institutions that added one or more. In spite
of our data-rich arguments for continuation, the president's cabinet voted to discontinue our production emphasis just
a few weeks prior to the 2019 USITT
Conference in Louisville.
Although we were able to demonstrate that our numbers were not small
for the field, they were still smaller than
the institution's preferred business model
could tolerate. At the time, we ranked No.
225 for total completions, and among institutions reporting specialization areas,
we ranked No. 55 in design- and production-focused students. While solidly
in the top quartile of all programs in the
country, we still only produced an average of around two design/production students per year. And though it was fairly
straightforward to demonstrate both financial and curricular advantages provided by these few students, these numbers

were still perceived as being below acceptable minimums. The energy our faculty put in to recruiting, instructing, and
mentoring this small group of students
was recognized and applauded, but also
worked against us in the final decision.
What too many cabinet members saw
was an opportunity to put all that energy
to use in some other area that could pay
off in much bigger numbers. I knew the
appetite for small programs was diminishing but I did not realize the extent until
after I gathered, compared, analyzed, and
stewed over every significant variable I
could think of for every degree-granting
institution I could find. What I have concluded is that change is inevitable and the
timeline is urgent-not just for us but for
our discipline and profession as a whole.

All That Matters (Finding
Neverland, 2004)

We are, without a doubt, a small field, even
when we pool all the various design and
production areas together. Still, the conscientious stewards of university resources wonder why we need an upper division
course that only a quarter of our already
small group takes, such as Advanced
Stage Management or Costume Design
II. They also wonder why we need three
full-time faculty and two instructional

staff to guide the work of a half dozen majors. Or why our Advanced Design class
only has eight students in it while Nursing
340 has two sections of 75 each. In most
cases, the questions are far more obvious
than the answers.
Institutions do not enter into a sustainability review unless they believe they
are attempting to support too many programs and would be in a better position
if they made some cuts. No one enjoys
cutting programs and there is generally a
strong interest in limiting the play of emotion and/or partiality, both in the decisionmaking process and in communicating
those decisions to faculty and students.
Early reviews included a great deal of agonizing over rubrics and whether different kinds of programs required different
kinds of rubrics, but now enough institutions have gone through the process
for trends to emerge and inform future
practice. The trend is to rely on relatively
simple metrics and to apply a common
rubric to all programs. A minimum enrollment of 10 students per section is one
of the widely adopted markers of viability.
Other factors commonly include the total
number of majors, program completions
per year, application yield rate, full-timefaculty-to-major
ratio,
occupational
growth projections, and first destination
placement rate in field. Within this set of
considerations, the only factor that truly
helps the case for theatre productionfocused students is the in-field placement
rate. There are jobs for our students but,
depending on how employment opportunities are presented, this may still be interpreted as a negative.
The developing consensus for review metrics does not favor our field and
would radically change our training landscape if widely and suddenly applied. For
example, if the number of 20 students
enrolled at all levels (one of the metrics
applied at my institution) became the universally adopted standard for program viability, it would adversely impact at least
46 percent of all the students currently
pursuing a design or production focus.
It's more than significant, but if you count
the impact in terms of the number of institutions impacted, the consequences
would be nothing short of apocalyptic, as
it would call into question the viability of
91 percent of all institutions currently offering theatre as a major in some form.

WINTER 2020 | THEATRE DESIGN & TECHNOLOGY

| 41

Theatre Design & Technology - Winter 2020

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Winter 2020