What do you think about...

[circusboy]

I don't have a problem with it for two reasons:

1. There are expenses associated with a performance, including technicians, utilities, janitorial, etc.

2. It sets a good precedent. An audience should be trained that they have to pay for performances, and, more important, it establishes for the students that what they're doing has worth. I remember the good feeling of knowing that total strangers were paying money to see me perform when I was a student.

[JCalkin]

As a non-tenured college teacher, I'm potentially sticking my neck out here, but...

We do NOT charge for student performances, and I don't think state-funded institutions ought to do so. We are told, again and again, that part of any state college's mission (speaking generally here) ought to be service, not only to the students and to academia, but also to the community of which the college is a part. Providing cultural events to the public free of charge is, in my opinion, an integral part of that mission.

[Michael Bush]

I think it would be something very close to a violation of the spirit of the Merrill Land Grant Acts for a university that was created by or benefited from those acts to charge in such a situation. Public service is (or was) such a huge issue for them that it would be very hard to justify charging for something that could arguably benefit a public audience.

And yet only one public university per state is a land grant university. Whether it would be appropriate for public institutions that are not land-grant schools to charge would be a question best answered locally, I think.

[chronolith]

I don't have a problem with it provided the following:

1. That the cost of the tickets are VERY reasonable.
2. That the publicly funded entity can provably demonstrate that the ticket sales drive to their bottom line and help reduce the dependence on state funds for their operational expenses. It would not be much of a dent I am sure, but it would keep good faith with the expectations of taxpayers.

[Michael Bush]

No. Never. Furthermore, it should all be open seating. It is a SCHOOL and the players are NOT PROS. In many cases they are not even remotely close to being pros. Charging admission sends them a very wrong message. Trust me. I have to deal with wildly unrealistic, pampered (spoiled) kids who expect people to pay to hear them -- less-than-fully-trained, over-rehearsed childern -- and are repeatedly called "pros" by their never-made-it-in-the-real-music-business "pro" (music educator) conductor that they are all pros and he would pay them, if only he could...

Very bad idea by some mini kings in their mini kingdoms.

And here is a moment of self-awareness that is good for all of us: the difference between a professional musician's perspective and that of an academic administrator: it never crossed my mind that the performer would get any of the admission money.

I was thinking we'd pay the janitor and the light bill and the water and sewer bill, and help defray the performer's teacher's salary and benefits and so forth. In my thinking about the issue there was no question of sending any message whatsoever, to say nothing of any money, to the student. The performance is part of his or her education. It's a wonder we're not charging the student to hold the performance. If it was a land-grant school, it would all be on the taxpayer. If not, it's on the audience. But I didn't have any idea of paying the student. That probably makes me evil in an arts community, but it is what it is.

What fun.

[bort]

I think students should get in free, maybe a comp ticket or two, but else pays something (and it's up to the school how much they ask for). This has *always* been normal to me.

And as long as it's cheaper than going to a real pro-level concert, it all sounds reasonable to me. Taxes, donations, tuition, etc. do a LOT for schools, but that contribution (voluntary or not) is not an all access pass to everything at the school.

Actually, it's pretty similar to what I'd expect for college sports events too.

[cjk]

Do people actually go to those things? I mean other than mommies and daddies and friends and family.

I suspect not.

If the ensemble is so attractive to the general public that it's standing room only, I could see charging admission. Otherwise, no.

[bort]

I do not doubt, but have never personally witnessed what Wade is talking about -- so I can't comment on it. I know that my school charged admission for non-students, and it was all very normal.

[Chadtuba]

I have to work the box office at a certain number of events per semester as part of my TA hours here. Having worked two events this past weekend I can say that the department made quite a bit of money after factoring the hourly pay for the techs, ushers, and janitorial staff. I would say that the price was reasonable, though I haven't paid for a concert at a university/college in years as I usually get in free as a major or I got comp tickets as a local area music teacher.

I will also say that we are the state's land grant university here, but this is the first year I've ever heard that term so I'm not really familiar with it or what it implies.

All that being said, I agree with most of what has been said before me. At the minimum, students should be allowed in free. Everybody else, I just don't know really. The groups aren't filling the auditorium(s) so I don't see what the point is in charging.

[swillafew]

As long as it's consistent with the athletic program, it should be good.

[Donn]

Does charging admission for college sporting events lead to the same sort of students' distorted self-images to which Wade refers? Is it OK to do it with college sporting events simply because people are more willing to pay to attend those?

My guess would be that the self-image problem could apply here, especially in the big money sports where it's only moderately delusional. But not so much to the arts student, who isn't getting gifts under the table from alumni and so forth and should have a pretty easy time distinguishing what he or she is doing from a lucrative professional track.

If there's a victim, it would be the art itself, and reciprocally the community inasmuch as it benefits from art. Part of the value of a college campus to the community is that it hosts certain classic arts irrespective of their commercial viability, and when admission prices are set where realistically no one but band parents will show up, then the community is effectively excluded. I mean, sure they can afford to pay $10 if they're big Persichetti fans or whatever, but if you know they won't, then in my view you have to decide whether the performance has any value to the community as an arts event, or it's just an opportunity for students to try out their evening suits and go through the motions. In the latter case, charge whatever you wish (so this is the opposite perspective from "they have already paid" - so what?)

I actually have gone to concert band shows at the local university, on my own and knowing no one in the band. Some great stuff there, that of course doesn't exist off campus. I think it was free, at least the first one, which is the one that counts - what impecunious student is going to put down real money to see classic wind ensemble? Later it may have been a couple bucks, but really the point is not so much free vs. not free, as whether the price realistically excludes a general audience.

[bort]

I wonder if some part of it is also to do exactly what you're talking about -- filter the crowd? FREE events are open invitations to the entire general public. And though it's not likely that a college wind ensemble is going to have a lot of troublemakers, it's not out of the question depending on where the school is located. We had enough creeps from the general public walking through campus at any time. Do I need them following me into a concert to hear me play my tuba?

Are people there because they want to be there? Or are they there only because it's somewhere warm/with AC, somewhere to have a nap, somewhere air conditioned, somewhere with a public restroom...worse??

It's not unheard of for formerly FREE events to have a nominal admission fee now -- even $5/person is enough to separate the people who want to be there from the people who might show up "other" reasons.

And FWIW, when I'm talking about "sports," I'm not only talking about basketball and football. I think all of the sports at my school charged admission, if only a few bucks.

[Bob Kolada]

But then who will come see all the future phenoms butcher music (THE big issue for college trained musicians)?

PM for personal details of such events

[bort]

Just the opposite... hands down, the worst performance I have ever seen was a trombone solo w/band from the principal trombone player in the local major symphony. I don't know if he was sight reading, sick, drunk, or what...but it was terrible!!

[PMeuph]

I wonder if some part of it is also to do exactly what you're talking about -- filter the crowd? FREE events are open invitations to the entire general public. And though it's not likely that a college wind ensemble is going to have a lot of troublemakers, it's not out of the question depending on where the school is located. We had enough creeps from the general public walking through campus at any time. Do I need them following me into a concert to hear me play my tuba?

I remember going to see a Conservatory orchestra, for free, several years back. One thing that struck me was that between the third and fourth movements of Ravel's Le Tombeau de Couperin, the conductor took a reasonably long break (say 30 seconds or so)... and these two ladies behind kept bickering things along the line of: "Why is he waiting"; "we don't have all day"; "what's wrong with the orchestra", etc...

Once the orchestra started charging admission (2-3 years after this event) I rarely heard any of this useless chatter.

One more thing, at the time that the concerts were free ( 4 concerts a years) the orchestra received 8000$ through donation boxes at the concerts that would be used for scholarships. Once they started charging admission fees (15$) the orchestra received 8000$ through donation boxes at the concerts that would be used for scholarships.

Now some math:

Hall Rental: 2500$
Attendance: 1000
Conductor's Fee: 10,000$ (Annual salary for conducting divided by 4)

In the First scenario, the school is down 12,500$ but gets 8000$ in scholarships for students
In the Second scenario, the school is up 2,500$ and gets 8000$ in scholarships for students

Not saying that these figures are really accurate, but it gives an idea of how the math can work for these. ( These are close approximations of how it worked back home)

[PMeuph]

The best thing I have ever experienced is a University that charged admission for its concert series with professional musicians. Some were from the local symphony, some from major symphonies, some from major schools (One of the piano profs at Eastman came regularly).

The series was FREE to students. The admission cost was 10-15$ for all others.

This was great as it allowed students to here professional musicians for free, and it allowed locals to have access to a great series.

Also, the best part, there was a reception and a wine and cheese after every event. This allowed the students to meet the performers and discuss with them.

[Bob Kolada]

Just the opposite... hands down, the worst performance I have ever seen was a trombone solo w/band from the principal trombone player in the local major symphony. I don't know if he was sight reading, sick, drunk, or what...but it was terrible!!

I refer not to extreme examples (come on! ) but to average ones.

[Donn]

Do you think the Band Director Mill Department of Flyover State University should charge $10 for people to hear a band concert?

I hate hypothetical questions. Come on, make us care! What's your personal anecdotal story on this, that makes it an issue for you?

[joh_tuba]

If they can charge a small sum and still have a decent audience more power to them!

With the continual defunding of public education at all levels schools need to grab funds wherever possible.

In the news this morning, Colorado University only receives 5% of it's annual budget from the state.

Just looked up the Missouri University system: http://mubudget.missouri.edu/tuitioninformation.php

37% of annual budget is funded by the state, 56% by tuition from students.

As the Missouri system has become defunded by the state there has been progressively more of a business ethic applied to how things are run. All colleges are being asked to justify their existence in financial terms. Faculty are expected to 'produce' enough hours to justify their role and a larger and larger emphasis is being placed on documenting that something was taught rather than spending time teaching... I'm wandering off topic but my concern is that this is much like the 'no child left behind act' which has effectively reduced curriculums and expectations... less and less interest in developing critical thinking skills and expanding knowledge, more interest in doing just enough to 'check the box', and a more vocational approach to education.

If we as taxpayers are no longer interested in funding the development of a highly educated populace then we've abdicated any right to complain when our children's generation is no longer equipped to compete in a global economy.

Short answer: complaining about paying $5 to see a college concert is short-sighted.

[Michael Bush]

Wow. 37% is, relatively speaking, a *lot*. Far from "defunded." I'm surprised any state university in the country gets that much funding from taxpayers.

That's why I refer to the moral/ethical claim of the land grant acts. The taxpayers, through legislatures, in many states no longer provide enough funding to justify the level of influence they have on purely financial grounds. For most institutions, these decisions need to be made locally on the assumption that even "public" institutions are usually tuition driven, philanthropy supported schools. The state is a major donor whose gift is appreciated but not taken for granted.