To find it sad that privately educated actors dominate telly/film?

[chulast]

6% of the population go to private school yet the majority of successful British screen actors have been privately educated.

I just find it quite bleak really and makes it feel like it's nigh on impossible to make it in that industry without a leg up and connections.

I think self tapes have made the audition process a lot fairer and cheaper now - that will help broaden access. Hope so anyway!!

What a silly comment.
OP it's really sad. It's getting worse too apparently as the film and TV industry is shrinking.

I think I was more surprised that 'so many' went to very expensive schools like Eton, Winchester etc.
Also it is only recently that being an orchestral musician required a music degree. Perhaps I exaggerate, but only a little.

But a lot of it is luck too. I happen to really like Sam Thompson. He comes across as really down to earth and genuine. His warm personality is probably one reason why he's got a radio show. If you get yourself out there & someone offers you a job you think you can do you're going to take it aren't you?

I think there is a market in US tv for posh Brits with great cheekbones tho - they do seem to want a certain type of actor in certain roles

It's not just that private school kids have the money to survive the lean years. They are just more confident. They are in small classes and encouraged to express themselves. In state school you're in a huge class and encouraged to sit on the mat and shut the fuck up.

Is it Idris Elba who managed to get into performing arts through a grant from the Prince's Trust?

I hadn't actually given any thought to the background of actors/sports professionals etc., but I can see that it would be easier to survive the lean periods in a chosen field if you have other income streams.

Yes and it applies to many carriers including law (the bar) and academia where the entry level positions are poorly paid/insecure/require outlays ( think headshots for actors, materials for artists, wig and gown for barrister) - it’s very difficult to do these things if you don’t have some family wealth to rely on and the risk of failure is more pronounced. It’s very sad.

Just for accuracy, only 6% (till recently 7%) of school age children are attending private school at the moment. It is not the percentage of the population that has been to private school. That figure is around 12% (though estimates of that figure vary depending on how you count it - i.e. do you include primary or sixth form, how long did the pupil have to attend for - I have seen between 10 and 28%). Many children only go to private school for part of their education, which means that there are children currently at private school who will move to state and vice versa. The numbers receiving private education at some point in their schooling are higher than 6%.

The Sutton Trust misuses the 6% figure (though it was then 7%) early on in its 2019 report about elitism in certain occupations, and this has been repeated by the BBC and numerous other outlets. They do later use the figure correctly in the report.

This is it in a nutshell. It is a very difficult industry to break into if you haven't got the luxury of financial support and somewhere to live. The same goes for other careers in the entertainment industry. Opportunities for newcomers are few and far between and even if you are a talented actor / musician/ whatever, if you have to work in a day job full time, you will miss oppprtunities. This is why nepotism is rife and it is the same people who get all the work.

This, particularly "many other professions" this applies to. The routes in require a level of wealth in order to gain the experience on almost no money; it's not just acting. There are many parts of the working world that are unfair.

I agree. This actually has far wider implications than just acting. I reckon one contributory factor is that the population of the uk is so big. That even 6% gives a large enough pool of people to choose from.

Look at politics, law, journalism. Professions with huge over-representation from private schools. Throw in the scandal of student loans. The working and middle classes have become the worker bees, with little opportunities to shape the country.

I agree with you OP.

It is the same with fashion, the arts, museums...

Basically any creative industry. The people who seem to make it are the ones with contacts and enough wealth to do unpaid internships and take on careers that can be precarious.

I think things got worse with tuition fees. I managed to do a fine art degree only because I started it before the tuition fees came in place & I had a part-time job to pay the bills.

The problem with creative careers only being open to the wealthy is that it narrows the talent pool and does not support individual, original voices.

To be fair though, whilst I completely agree that the nature of the career means having a safety net means you can carry on in the early days, access training etc, I'd not want to go down the route of saying they don't deserve success. The two that spring to mind are Cumberbatch and Redmayne, both excellent actors and Redmayne has an Oscar. They are v good actors and wouldn't be working with the directors they do if that weren't the case. That's not to say I don't agree with the basic premise of the OP but it's true in so many fields, including sport, that money is needed in so many cases so access the kit, training, event fees and logistics etc.

Because it can be applied to the wider world - wealth buys you the opportunity to take risks or spend time developing your craft. If you have family money behind you and can therefore afford to spend periods of time with no income without that pressure to take any job you can, they ultimately you have a much wider array of opportunities available to you and also a greater chance of success.

Obviously there’s exceptions to that rule (Brooklyn Beckham/JK Rowling) but it’s broadly true across society. I’m glad the US thing of unpaid internships isn’t a huge deal here as that massively amplifies the problem.

I really don’t care. If they’re good enough, they’re good enough. Doesn’t matter to me how they were educated.

Most will have gone to stage school, surely?

I work at a performing arts institution, and we're continually assessing the entry/audition criteria. We're very concerned about diversity, but a big problem for us is that the state education system's arts instruction does not prepare students to study the subject at university: basically, students have to have private lessons and/or attend an arts school to get to the required level. We can broaden our idea of the sorts of skills that are needed for entry only so far: eventually, we wouldn't be able to get students to the required level in the time we have available.

The institution is elitist in the sense that it accepts only the best, but it already offers free courses to help prospective students prepare for the entrance exams, and there are other initiatives in place to help students access performing arts schools. But beyond the obvious problem of financial affordability for families, it's a bigger question of valuing the arts enough, both as a society to invest in them (say, by raising the standards in schools, or not dismantling school-connected lesson programmes), and as families, to take advantage of the programmes that do exist, or to seek out opportunities. Not surprisingly, many families don't prioritise this...I think that addressing poverty as a society would have a far more sustainable effect than diversity initiatives of institutions, and I think it's not really fair to blame post-secondary institutions for a much bigger problem that starts far earlier in children's lives.

Another, related aspect is that the required skills or even the field itself has to be on prospective students' radar, in the sense that they need to be aware that it's even possible to study the subject in question. There's apparently a world shortage of orchestral bassoonists (unlike e.g. violinists, where there are hundreds competing for every orchestral chair), but how do you find out what a bassoon is, as a musically interested child whose parents don't know what a bassoon is, either?

Yes - this is what lots bands did. Lived at home or with mates, didn’t go to college or university. They’d either be on the dole or did low paid jobs for a few months at a time. Most big bands and artists from that era were gigging from an early age but living on very little money

When I was a young woman, many people trying to break into the creative industries could get benefits, which were enough to survive on. Not saying whether that’s right or wrong, but it certainly gave opportunities for people without family money behind them.

wikipaedia

I suspect it’s not just about wealth to cushion the journey but also about access to facilities and drama education itself. All these notable private schools have full size, fully rigged, theatres and dedicated teaching staff. The interest and passion can be nurtured

what about the playwrights?

Ewan Mcgregor went to private school.

i have noticed that most of them went to university
never paid much attention to the private/state education of actors

Same with every industry.
To difference extents, of course.