Hacker News Reader

Comment by maehwasu | Hacker News Reader

As soon as you become a theater major, you lose the right to the "I just was trying to make more money and have a better life" narrative.

View on HN

So your argument is that making a dumb decision invalidates anyones ability to feel sympathy for you?

It's not a narrative. It's just common human decency. WHY THE MALICE? They made a bad decision - great: you get to feel superior.

... Are you done yet? Cause that person didn't just disappear after you got done feeling all high and mighty. As someone who has know quite a few theatre, dance and other such "dumb majors". I actually know quite a few who've become very successful working in their field. They may not be actresses or professional dancers, but they work close enough to the field that they feel their degree is useful. Many also chose to work outside that field in other decently paying jobs (technical writers, editors, etc).

Why do you feel the need to just act as if it's hopeless and throw these students out? Is your need to feel superior that significant?

Why? If you are an actor on Broadway, your minimum pay is $1,861 per week[0]. So if you're working 40 weeks per year, you'd be making, as a minimum, $74,000. This is higher than many teachers' salaries, and in line with many other professionals. Plus there's a very high (if very narrow) ceiling on those salaries.

You can make the argument "well most actors never make it as a broadway actor". While true, do most software developers make it as a Google developer? And how likely is it that someone whose talent lies in acting is also talented enough to do well at software development? Sometimes, you should play to your strengths, even if the relative bargaining power of your strengths are not as strong as someone else's strengths. That doesn't mean you're not following the best path to "have a better life".

[0] http://www.actorsequity.org/agreements/agreements.asp?code=0...

I don't think you've met many professional actors. Someone with a role on Broadway, even as a supporting actor with no dialog, is considered to have "made it". An Off-Broadway or regional theater role pays something more like $500 a week. And even if you're good enough to land these gigs there's very limited stability as shows/casts rotate.

Sure, not everyone works at Google, but the people who don't can still land jobs at a million different companies for a living salary. An actor who's not landing roles is working a survival job (waiter, barista, etc) so they can afford to spend time auditioning. And remember we're talking about somebody on the verge of homelessness -- they're going to have to compete with actors from wealthy families who paid for their rent and a degree from Juilliard.

If you're good enough to act on Broadway, you're good enough to be a salesperson.

If at 17 someone was informed among their group that they were he best theatre students in their peer group? Then even in college they are really good at theatre and are mediocre to bad at more “marketable” skills? Do they deserve poverty for not knowing at 17 that even after 4 years or more of education the standard is more like 20+ years of education? Or that making it is not acting skill but networking skill?

At 17 people will try to do what they are best at and play to their strengths. That’s really reasonable at 17.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com