What Becomes of Undergraduate Dance Majors?
A Study of the Five College Dance Department Graduates
November 6, 2002
Sarah S. Montgomery
And
Michael D. Robinson*
Department of Economics
Mount Holyoke College
South Hadley, MA 01075 USA
(413) 538-2215
(413) 538-2323 (fax)
mirobins@mtholyoke.edu
smontgom@mtholyoke.edu
*A Mount Holyoke College Faculty Grant supported this research. We are indebted to the Five
College Dance Department for their generous help. We also acknowledge with thanks comments
received at the ACEI Biennial Conference, Minneapolis, MN, May 2000 and comments from the
editors of the Journal of Cultural Economics and two anonymous referees. We would also like
to thank our research assistant Mikaila Arthur.
1
1. Introduction
After leaving college and feeling pampered and cushioned for 4
years, I had a rude awakening when entering the world of dance.
However, it was important for me to learn on my own how to
survive and I'm glad it happened this way because I'm a much
stronger person now- cause I did it on my own. I wouldn't take
back those 4 years (as part of FCDD) for anything. It was not
reality. But as soon as I look back to that time of my life-all I can
do is smile. (UMASS, 1992)
Who majors in dance in college and what do they do after graduation? Do they enter this
physically demanding and notoriously low-paid profession? If so, where do they find work?
Must they also hold non-dance jobs to survive financially? Do they seek graduate training? What
do they study? Can they sustain careers in dance?
We report here the results of a survey of the graduates of the Five College Dance
Department (FCDD). To try to answer these and other questions, we sent them a questionnaire
asking in detail about their careers. From them we learned much about the multiple jobs they
held in and out of dance, about their hours and earnings, and about their graduate training. They
told us not only about their work in 1998, our survey year, but also something of their earlier
employment in dance. Many of our questions parallel those in other surveys of performing
artists. On some topics, however, for example, graduate work, we asked for greater detail. This
study is unusual in focussing exclusively on dancers and unique in including not only those
currently working in the profession, but also those who chose not to enter or to enter but later
leave the field. Our data confirm and extend earlier findings on artists’ work lives.
The FCDD is a consortium of departments at five closely allied Western Massachusetts
schools: Amherst College, Hampshire College, Mount Holyoke College, Smith College, and the
University of Massachusetts at Amherst. By the early 1970s, dance faculty from all five schools
were meeting regularly, students cross-registered, and there was a joint annual concert. The
2
program, which is set in the context of a liberal arts education, became increasingly integrated in
the late 1970s. Since then curricular and personnel decisions have been made jointly, there has
been a five college major in dance, and students have regularly taken classes on the several
campuses. The department is one of the largest in the United States. It is highly regarded in the
dance world as well as by its graduates. Forty-six percent of our respondents agreed strongly that
“the program provided me with excellent technical training,” while another 44 percent agreed
moderately with this statement.
Learning that the FCDD maintains an address list of its graduates, we saw the
opportunity to survey them about their work lives. The department provided us with generous
and essential support. The chair not only supplied the mailing list but also wrote a letter to
accompany the questionnaire, urging its completion. We thank the FCDD and all of the alumnae
who so thoughtfully responded to our many questions.
1.1. Other Studies.
There is a substantial body of empirical literature on the working conditions of
performing and creative artists, on the determinants of their incomes, and on the nature of the
supply function in artistic labor markets. These include those of Filer (1986), Wassall and Alper
(1984, 1992a), Throsby (1992, 1994b, 1996), Montgomery and Robinson (1993, 2000,
forthcoming). The findings of these and other analyses are summarized in Wassall and Alper
(1992b), Throsby (1994a) and Towse (1995, 1996). Data come from national censuses or from
specialized surveys of working artists. Those working in dance frequently have been included in
the databases, but have not been the focus of the research in these studies.
In addition there have been several studies especially devoted to those working in dance.
Two early papers are by Santos (1976), who employed data on dancers and singers from the
1960 U.S. Census of Population, and Gray (1984), who surveyed dancers in Minneapolis and St.
Paul. There are also monographs by Netzer and Parker (1993) and by Jackson, Honey, Hillage
and Stock (1994). The first includes training, performance, and 1989 income data for
choreographers in four U.S. cities. The second is based on a 1993 survey of the training and
careers of those in British dance and drama with detailed information on the training and current
3
work of members of the dance profession. The study covers weeks worked both in and outside of
dance, but contains no income data. In addition to having information on the respondents’ work
in the preceding twelve months, it also has data on their first year in the profession.
1.2. Uniqueness of our study.
Our study contains both income and hours data for those working in all aspects of dance.
The unique nature of our data arises because we survey the alumnae of a dance program. Hence
not all the respondents to our survey are currently employed in dance. Some of our respondents
never entered dance while others did, but later dropped out. This allows us to examine which
factors are important in whether or not a dance major is employed in dance. We also have data
from all who were ever in dance about years of professional experience between their college
graduation and our survey year of 1998, which allows us to do some analysis of the career paths
of our respondents. Our information, on the other hand, is limited to college graduates, who
typically go into modern dance. Our results should therefore be applied with caution to others in
the dance world.
Our knowledge of performing arts, including the findings of earlier studies, led us to
hypothesize that our respondents would have low dance income, which would in many cases
require them also to hold non-dance jobs. In their dance and non-dance jobs, combined, we
expected them to work longer than average hours while earning less than those doing only nondance work. We also anticipated that the respondents’ dance jobs frequently would be of limited
duration. We further suspected that their economic difficulties would lead many to leave the
profession after only a few years. We were interested in earlier results that showed no effect of
years of education on art income while some effect on non-art income. We hoped to untangle the
relationship between our respondents’ post-graduate training and income by asking detailed
questions about the nature of their graduate work and about their dance and non-dance
employment.
4
1.3. Survey Design
You may want to be more specific. For example ask…
What one considers "dance job"?
When are we "dancing" and when are we not?
What constitutes a professional vs. an amateur?
I feel (I think many of my peers would agree) that the answers are
extremely subjective. (Hampshire, 1993)
We developed a survey that was sent to all the individuals on the FCDD mailing list. To
allow for comparisons of results, our questions, to a substantial degree, parallel those asked in
several earlier surveys of artists’ work lives. In particular we are indebted Wassall, Alper and
Davidson's 1982 study of New England artists. However, because we address only dance
graduates, we were able to adapt our questions specifically to the patterns of training and
employment in their field. Our respondents, moreover, are not all currently in dance. The survey
was conducted in 1999 and contains detailed information on the activities of the graduates in
1998 as well as substantial information about their careers. The survey concluded with two openended questions about the respondents' experience with the FCDD program and about their
dance careers. The quotations included here come from some of their answers. The authors are
identified by college and graduation date. These comments illustrate, flesh out, or provide
caveats to our discussion.
As a follow-up to the questionnaire we conducted telephone interviews with twelve of the
respondents about their dance histories and the reasons for their career decisions. They are
summarized in Section 14. These varied stories enrich our understanding of the economic
situation of those in dance and illustrate the many ways they have responded to the challenges of
a low-paid profession, which is their artistic passion.
Five hundred and thirty-four surveys were distributed and 193, or 36 percent, were
returned. The distribution of surveys sent by college, year of graduation, and current residence is
in Table 1 along with a summary of the responses. The distribution of the respondents
corresponds closely to that of the total sample in the admittedly limited number of ways in which
we are able to compare these groups. Respondents graduated from all five colleges (with a higher
percentage coming from the University and a lower percentage from Amherst College.) While
the FCDD officially began in 1978 the mailing list contains graduates from before that year who
5
maintain some contact with the program. However, 75 percent of the respondents graduated in
1980 and later. Not surprisingly, a majority of the sample (44 percent) still lives in New England
(35 percent in Massachusetts alone). Twenty-seven percent reside in the New York area
(including New Jersey).
In 1998 about half the respondents were employed in dance, while many more indicate
that they earlier had pursued careers in dance but had subsequently left the field. There are a
smaller number who never worked in dance. Our statistical results shed some light on the career
paths and choices these dance graduates have made both within and beyond dance. It appears
that many graduates pursue careers in dance shortly after graduation, often supporting their
dance through non-dance work. Over time the number actively involved in dance declines.
Some, who wish to stay in dance, seek formal graduate work in the field, while many others
obtain non-dance degrees and leave dance. As is true for many arts, income in dance is very low,
particularly compared to potential earnings in non-dance fields. Sections 2 through 13 present
our findings, Section 14 summarizes the follow-up interviews, and Appendix 1 contains a copy
of the survey.
2. Demographics of the Respondents
Table 2 shows the means for the demographic questions asked on the survey, breaking
these down by whether or not the respondent was employed in dance and by decade of
graduation. The FCDD graduates had a mean age of 37 and very few children (less than one on
average). Seventy-three percent were living with a partner. Those employed in dance were less
likely to have partners who were employed full-time, perhaps in part because their partners were
also working part-time in dance or some other performing art. The respondents’ interest in dance
began early. The average age at which they began training was less than 9 years and over 75
percent first took lessons at age 12 or younger. The respondents are largely white (90 percent)
and female (95 percent). The gender make-up of the group probably reflects both the fact that
two of the five colleges are exclusively for women and the dominance of women in dance. (In
the survey of artists done by the Research Center for Arts and Culture at Columbia University1 in
1989, 75 percent of the dancers were women, as were 72 percent of choreographers studied by
6
Netzer and Parker.) Fifty-four percent were currently employed in dance and 85 percent had
some dance experience prior to 1998. Those currently employed in dance had 21 years
experience on average, while those not employed in dance had six years of prior dance
experience. Of those who had prior dance experience but were not employed currently in dance,
48 percent still participate in dance on an amateur basis. In all 75 percent of the respondents were
engaged in dance either professionally or on an amateur basis in 1998.
3. Graduate Study
My life in dance drew me to study dance therapy, which I was
exposed to in workshops as an undergrad. So I wonder if dance
therapy is a dance career or not. The spirit of dance is what does
the healing in dance therapy, so I believe it to be a dance oriented
career though certainly not a professional, performing one.
(UMASS, 1983)
We asked the respondents if they had pursued graduate work after college and to describe
the nature of that work. We indentified three types of graduate work. Many respondents obtained
degrees in dance, while other pursued two types of non-dance degrees: body/movement, and
other professional. Graduate study in dance included an MFA or MA in dance, dance and
creativity, choreography, dance education, dance history, and dance-theater. Many graduates
pursued graduate studies that were body/movement-related, but were not specifically dance
degrees. This type of graduate work included health and dance, dance/movement-therapy,
massage therapy, exercise science, physical therapy, and fitness. Other professional graduate
work was any training clearly outside the field of dance including, for example, law, business,
anthropology, education, and medicine. Table 3 reports on post-collegiate educational
attainment. Over half (55 percent) of the dance graduates had pursued formal graduate studies.
There are differences, however, between those employed in dance and those only working
elsewhere. The former were somewhat less likely to have done graduate work, and their studies
were predominately in dance. Table 3 shows that 32 percent of those employed in dance pursued
graduate work in dance, compared to only 13 percent of those not employed in dance. On the
other hand, 50 percent of those not employed in dance had body/movement or other professional
7
degrees, compared to only 15 percent of those employed in dance.
In order to explore the timing of this graduate work, Table 4 breaks down educational
attainment by decade of graduation.2 Not surprisingly, fewer of the graduates of the 1990s had
done graduate study of any sort by 1998, however over 65 percent of those graduating before
1990 had pursued a graduate degree. This suggests that young dance graduates first try to dance
and later decide on graduate work. They then may choose further dance training, if they have
hopes of continuing in dance, especially as teachers at the college level. If they decide to leave
the field, they may return to school to get a non-dance degree.
4. Dance Employment
I am still finding that the demands of piecing a life together in the
field are demanding and complicated. It is still easy to drastically
underestimate the time it takes to travel, plan & prepare for the
multitude of jobs/activities that fill each day. The process of
constantly re-configuring & adjusting to new jobs, schedules &
responsibilities is exhausting. (UMASS, 1985)
In 1998, 54 percent of the respondents were employed in dance (primarily in modern
dance). Table 5 shows that 23 percent of the respondents were dancing, 34 percent, teaching, 16
percent, doing choreography, and ten percent, working as administrators. Eighty-five percent of
the respondents report having worked in dance at some time between their college graduation
and 1998 with 63 percent having experience as a dancer. Many held multifaceted jobs or had
several jobs in various aspects of dance. In 1998 23 percent report holding jobs of different
types. Forty-three percent of those who report work as choreographers in 1998 also worked as
dancers. Sixty-four percent have dance experience in more than one activity. Sixty-three percent
of those with past experience as choreographers also have worked as dancers. The respondents to
the British survey also frequently play multiple roles in the profession. For instance, 32 percent
are both dancers and teachers (Jackson, et al., 1994, p. 22).
The artists were very likely to be connected to a modern dance company. Table 6 and
Figure 1 examine the type of organizations for which they worked. Fifty-two percent of the
dancers, 37 percent of the choreographers, and 25 percent of the administrators worked in
8
modern dance. The teachers, as expected, worked for colleges, universities and dance studios and
to a lesser extent in elementary and secondary schools.
The proportion of the graduates working in dance varies by region of current residence.
In Table 7 and Figure 2 we find those living in the New York area are more likely to be
employed in dance than respondents living elsewhere. Those in New York are also more likely to
be dancers and administrators and less likely to be teachers.
5. Career Paths
[Leaving college] I moved to New York City to pursue a career in
dance and received a scholarship to the Alvin Ailey School of
American Dance . . . I stayed with Ailey for just under a year,
working part-time in a variety of jobs to support myself. I
auditioned for large and small dance companies (along with
hundreds of others), was a finalist with one or two, but didn't make
the final cut. One of my part-time jobs evolved into a full-time job,
which I took after assessing my talent (moderate) and commitment
to pursing a dance career (not as high as it should have been
especially considering the financial insecurity). I studied dance for
another year or two and moved on to other interests. (UMASS, na)
Recent graduates were much more likely to be employed in dance. Table 8 shows that 78
percent of respondents from the 1990s were employed in dance in 1998 and 41 percent were
dancers. In contrast, just over 40 percent of the graduates from before 1990 worked in dance in
1998 and only 11 percent were dancers. The graduates from the 1990s not only were more likely
to be dancers, but also more likely to be teachers, choreographers and administrators, though the
declines in the numbers in these latter occupations were much less than for dancers. These results
suggest that many dancers leave active dancing careers not to teach or to administer, but to seek
non-dance employment.
The career paths in dance of the FCDD alumnae parallel those found by Jackson, et al. In
discussing British dance they report,
…our survey respondents were most likely to start their careers as
dancers working in dance/ballet. However, many dancers started
9
their careers in other areas and being flexible in terms of
employment options would seem to be one hallmark of working in
the dance labour market. Few people continue working only as
dancers for more than ten years…in the longer term the survey
suggests that after ten years, teaching, choreography and other
dance related occupations are the areas where the majority will be
working if they remain in the profession. (1994, p. 78).
Table 9 returns to an examination of the years of dance experience. Here we have data
that allows for some longitudinal analysis of dance careers. On average the graduates had five
years dancing experience, six years teaching experience, four years of experience as a
choreographer, and two years experience as an administrator prior to 1998. The results differ
dramatically between those working in dance and those previously employed in the field who
had left it by 1998. Graduates employed in dance in 1998 had six years experience as dancers
and as choreographers, eight years as teachers, and three years as administrators. This was at
least double the experience in each activity as those who had previously left the field.
Because we believed that educational attainment might impact dance experience, Table 9
also breaks down dance experience by type of degree. The respondents who pursued formal
graduate studies in dance have substantially more experience than the others in all aspects of
dance. They have spent nine years as dancers, eight years as choreographers, and eleven years at
teachers. Those with formal graduate studies in other professional fields had the least dancing
experience: only two years of dancing. It appears that formal training in dance is clearly related
to one’s attachment to a career in dance. This combined with the Table 4 results showing that
much of the advanced study was postponed for several years after graduation suggests a division
between dance graduates in the sample. There are those who returned to school to get more
dance training and continued in the field and others who sought graduate training in non-dance
fields and changed careers.
Table 9 also reports the years of experience by decade of graduation. For those who have
worked in dance, Figure 3 compares teaching and dancing experience with the total number of
years since graduation. Recent graduates have been employed nearly continuously in dance.
They have worked 77 percent of all possible years as dancers and 69 percent, as teachers. For the
earlier cohorts, the amount of time spent dancing, while increasing in total years, falls as a
percent of the potential, while time spent teaching rises both in years and in percent of the
10
potential. This provides additional evidence that those who remain in dance increasingly turn to
teaching later in their careers.
6. Non-Dance Employment
I was not prepared to move to NY & compete with all the other
dancers as well as finding a secondary career/income to survive in
NYC. I do not know what would have prepared us better to
compete in the dance world and not get "burn out" by working
other jobs to be able to do what we loved, DANCE. (UMASS,
1992).
Those employed in dance rely heavily on non-dance jobs. While 76 percent of these
artists consider dance their principal profession, 61 percent also work at a non-dance job. As
reported in Table 10, almost half of all the graduates who work in dance (47 percent) and 73
percent of those who currently hold non-dance jobs say they require this work to support
themselves. Figure 4 breaks down the distribution of those in dance by whether they have and
need non-dance jobs. As further evidence of their need, a large number get health insurance and
retirement benefits from their non-dance jobs. Netzer and Parker report a similar percentage of
choreographers (55 percent) who work outside of dance. Non-dance employment, however, is
substantially lower among the British dancers surveyed by Jackson et al. Only 39 percent
reported working outside of dance during the preceding 12 months.
We already have observed that a much larger percentage of recent graduates are
employed in dance. This is confirmed by the results in Table 11.A and Figure 5. What is
particularly striking here, however, is the relationship between the simultaneous holding of dance
and non-dance jobs and the decade of graduation. Fifty-two percent of recent graduates were
employed in both dance and non-dance jobs. This percentage falls substantially to 24 percent for
graduates from the eighties and to 23 percent for those graduating earlier. The differences among
the decades are much less pronounced, however, when we look at the percentage of graduates
holding only dance jobs. Twenty-six percent of the graduates from 1990s hold only dance jobs,
while 17 percent of the graduates from earlier decades work exclusively in dance. This pattern is
consistent with the hypothesis that recent graduates are very committed to dance and try to
“make it” in the dance world by supporting themselves with other jobs. After some years of
11
doing this, however, many of those needing non-dance jobs appear to drop out of dance
employment. Wassall and Alper (1992b) note that older artists spend more time at their art work,
but that it is not clear whether this is because the less successful drop out of the arts labor market
or, alternatively, because older artists have more employment opportunities. Our data support the
first of these explanations.
We saw in Table 9 that education is highly related to years of experience in dance. The
comparison in Table 11.B and Figure 6 of those holding dance and non-dance jobs by type of
graduate training shows similar results. Seventy-six percent of the respondents who pursued
formal graduate work in dance are employed in dance in 1998, with 47 percent of them having
only a dance job. In contrast, only 18 percent of those with other professional graduate work are
in dance. Sixty-three percent of those with no graduate work are employed in dance, but they
typically also have a non-dance job. None of those with graduate study in body\movement work
exclusively in dance, although 45 percent continue some employment in the field.
We have already seen that those alumnae in New York are more likely to work in dance
and to be dancers. Table 11.C shows that this increase is primarily among those holding both
dance and non-dance jobs. This is consistent with the idea that recent graduates interested in
working in dance move to New York and support themselves with non-dance jobs while
attempting to start a successful career.
The survey asked the respondents with non-dance jobs to specify their occupation. Based
on their responses we were able to divide the non-dance jobs into five categories: non-dance but
arts related; fitness, movement, and health; business and professional; education; and service and
non-professional. Table12 and Figure 7 report the breakdown of non-dance jobs for those
workers not employed in dance and for those in dance who held non-dance jobs. While the
largest numbers of those not employed in dance have business and professional jobs (40
percent), another 34 percent of these graduates work either in non-dance arts or movement
related occupations. The most common non-dance work for those employed in dance is
service/non-professional jobs. The pattern varies greatly, however, depending on when the
respondents graduated. While only 14 percent of those employed in dance who graduated before
1990 held service/non-professional jobs, 44 percent of more recent alumnae with non-dance
employment report this work.
12
Table 13 and Figure 8 show the job search strategies used by the graduates to find their
dance and non-dance jobs. Perhaps most interesting is that over 30 percent of the graduates
report using Five College Dance Department connections as a source of contacts for finding
dance employment.
7. Dance and Non-Dance Income
I fluctuate back & forth about my choice to dance. Financially it is
a bust---you go into debt to perform. It is one of the fields in the
arts that is the least supported. Also, because there is little respect
for dancers we perpetuate our own status by performing and
rehearsing for no pay---putting hours into a production with little
financial rewards, both for performers and choreographers. (Mount
Holyoke, 1996)
Of great interest is the income of the artists and in particular their dance income. Previous
research has found that returns to performing and visual artists are typically quite low and below
what they could earn in the non-art world. Table 14 reports the 1998 annual income for the
FCDD graduates. Those employed in dance had mean annual gross dance earnings of $16,150.
Since we have already seen that a large number of artists combine dancing with choreography,
teaching, and other dance world activities, it is not surprising that many had small amounts of
income from several dance sources. The largest component of gross dance earnings was $7,276
from teaching. Figure 9 shows the breakdown of sources of total income for those employed in
dance. Thirty-six percent of their income comes from non-dance earnings and seven percent
from non-labor income, while only eight percent of their total income comes from dancing.
The dance earnings varied substantially between those holding only dance jobs and those
holding both dance and non-dance jobs. The former earned $27,725 while the latter earned only
$9,097. The difference in total individual income ($32,744 for those with only dance jobs,
compared to $26,638 for those with both dance and non-dance jobs) was much less because of
the $17,232 earned in those non-dance jobs. Figure 10 displays these results.
Those not working in dance had a substantially larger mean individual income of $44,321
($40,816 earned from their non-dance work). They reported a quite high total household income
of $99,130. It is interesting to note that the total household income of those employed in dance
without non-dance jobs ($101,989) was approximately the same as that for those not employed
13
in dance. Those, however, with both dance and non-dance jobs have substantially lower average
household income ($52,174).
Since we have some information on the number of hours and weeks worked both at dance
and non-dance employment we can construct a crude estimate of the average hourly earnings for
each activity.3 Table 15 reports these averages. Confirming what others and we have found for
performing artists, the hourly return to dance activities at $7.63 is substantially lower than the
$17.65 hourly return for non-dance work. For those with both dance and non-dance jobs the
hourly return for dance employment is $5.39 compared to $14.95 for non-dance employment.
This suggests that these artists are highly committed to dance and that much of their reward is
non-monetary.
The dance earnings reported in Table 14 for different dance activities are averaged over
all of those employed in dance. To obtain a clearer picture, Table 16 reports the average earnings
in each category of dance employment (dancing, choreography, teaching, and administration) for
those workers who report that activity. This table reveals two striking findings. First is it clear
that these artists are engaged in multiple dance occupations. For example, those who were
employed as dancers earned only $3,514 of their total dance related earnings of $13,920 from
dancing. Secondly, the annual earnings from being a dance administrator ($10,679) and from
being a dance teacher ($9,015) are much higher those for either dancing or choreography.
One important source of income for those employed in dance is grants. Table 14 reports
that on average those employed in dance received $415 in grants in 1998. Table 17 gives more
detail on the sources of these grants. Fifty percent of those currently employed in dance report
having received a grant. This suggests that the FCDD alumnae are relatively successful in
obtaining them. Our respondents combined reported receiving a grand total of $43,219 in grants
in 1998. Grants from private sources were somewhat more common than government grants.
Interestingly there is a fairly high correlation between grants from these two sources. Over 50
percent of the respondents who reported receiving any grant, received both a private and a
government grant.
It is commonly thought that art income is not distributed evenly. There may be a few very
successful artists with high earnings and a large number of “starving” artists having little
earnings. To see if this applies to FCDD graduates Figure 11 shows the distribution of dance
incomes. The incomes do appear to be highly skewed. Nearly half (49 percent) of all the
14
graduates employed in dance earn less than $10,000 a year from dance activities and 87 percent
earn less than $30,000. On the other hand nearly eight percent of the graduates earn over $50,000
a year from dance. It is interesting to note that of those respondents earning over $35,000 a year
40 percent are teachers at colleges and 50 percent are administrators at dance studios or dance
companies.
Table 18 reports non-dance earnings by non-dance occupation both for those who only
work in non-dance jobs and for those who also hold dance jobs. The results are not surprising.
Business and professional jobs pay the highest salaries for those not employed in dance and the
second highest for those holding both dance and non-dance jobs. The lowest paying jobs are
those in service/non-professional. Typically those employed in dance have lower salaries in their
non-dance jobs than those employed only in non-dance jobs. This may be in part due to the
nature of the jobs they hold, but also may be because their work is part-time, or because they
hold jobs with more flexible hours.
8. Factors Related to Dance and Non-Dance Income.
Economists generally believe that one important factor in determining earnings is human
capital. The more human capital (education, experience, training) one has received the higher we
would expect earnings to be, holding other factors constant.4 In order to examine this issue we
compared dance income against these variables. One fairly general measure of human capital is
age. In the case of dance the impact of age on earnings is less than straightforward. Increasing
age probably means greater knowledge and experience on the one hand, but perhaps less
physical ability on the other. Figure 12 shows the relationship between dance and non-dance
income and age. Dance income appears to rise slowly with age, reaching a peak between the ages
of 40 and 49, then declines for those over 50. Non-dance income rises more rapidly with age.
The smallest gap between dance and non-dance income is for those under 30. These individuals
are most likely seriously pursuing dance careers and only working non-dance jobs to support
their dance work. The large increase in dance income for those 30 to 39 relative to those under
30 would seem to suggest that some of the respondents have begun to be more seriously engaged
in non-dance careers.
15
Experience is also an important measure of human capital. Figure 13 shows the
relationship between dance experience and dance and non-dance income. Clearly those with the
greatest experience have the highest earnings. Respondents with 16 years of combined
experience in dance, choreography, administration, and teaching earned well over $20,000 a year
in 1998, while those with one to five years of experience earned less than $10,000 a year. Since
dance experience increases human capital for dance employment and not for non-dance
employment we see the opposite relationship between non-dance income and dance experience.
Non-dance income tends to decline with dance experience. This trend continues so that those
with 11 or more years experience in dance have higher dance than non-dance. This probably
does not mean that dancing lowers one’s non-dance income, but rather that the more time a
person spends in dance, the less time they devote to non-dance employment and the less nondance experience they acquire.
We have noticed the importance of graduate education in the career paths of our
respondents. In order to explore the relationship between graduate work and income Figure 14
shows average dance and non-dance income by type of graduate work. Clearly the different
types of graduate work impact dance and non-dance income quite differently. Those with
body\movement or other professional degrees have much lower dance income than those with
dance degrees or than those with no graduate work. Holders of other professional degrees have
non-dance income close to $50,000 a year. Those with dance degrees have higher dance than
non-dance income.
There are of course some non-human capital factors that may affect income. In dance for
example the kind of organization for which one is employed could impact dance income. Figure
15 shows dance income by type of dance organization. Those respondents employed by colleges
and ballet companies have the highest average dance income.
9. Dance Costs
Dance income is only a part of the story. Employment in dance has a number of
associated costs including, coaches, training, travel, marketing, and costumes. We asked a
number of questions on the survey about the dance costs incurred by those in dance. Table 19
16
reports these costs in total and by field of dance employment. Figure 16 shows the results for all
those employed in dance. Our respondents reported average annual expenses amounting to
$4,276, making average net dance earnings $11,797. The largest cost category for our
respondents was organized study, training, classes, and coaches. Those working as dancers spent
on average $1,320 in this area. We calculate that only 72 percent of those employed in dance had
positive net earnings from their dance activities.
10. Time Spent at Dance
What is challenging in a survey such as this is to typify what is
usually not typical. It is rare in the dance world to have a job that
has set hours and lasts a full year. More often than not, randomness
is the pervading "pattern." For instance, dance concerts, especially
in the modern world, are few and far between, and depending on
resources available, rehearsals may be held over a long period
(several months) or just a few hour-intensive weeks. And then
there are weeks where no employment is available in the dance
realm. In the university world, roles constantly shift from
choreographer to producer to administrator to teacher, etc.
Depending upon the upcoming event. It is a full-time job to be
sure, but hard to quantify. To get a more accurate idea, you really
need to go week by week, noting the inherent changes, so that you
have a true 52-week mapping. You might find "typical" at that
point, in a microcosm way. (Mount Holyoke, 1987)
At least a part of the explanation for low dance earnings may be the sporadic nature of
dance employment. Table 20 reports annual weeks worked for the four dance occupations. This
employment, while substantial, does not appear to be full-time year round work and thus
conforms to our expectation that much of the respondents’ dance employment is short-term.
Throsby (1994a) pointed out that artists suffer an income disadvantage both because of low
hourly art income and less than full-time art work. Our results confirm that pattern.
Graduates who hold both dance and non-dance jobs typically work longer weeks than
those who work only in dance or exclusively in non-dance jobs. Those employed only in dance;
however, work substantially more than the 40-hour week reported by those with only non-dance
jobs. Table 20 shows the hours per week spent at various activities for each of the three groups
17
of respondents. Graduates with only dance jobs spend more time at their dance work than those
who combine this with other jobs, but primarily because they spend more time teaching and
working as administrators.
Table 21 reports hours for all graduates with dance employment, while Table 22 shows
weekly hours for those who list themselves in various types of dance work. Administrators have
the longest weeks at 72 hours, with 25 of these devoted to administration. It is particularly clear
from this table, however, that most of the artists play multiple roles making it hard to distinguish
among dancers, choreographers, teachers and administrators. The FCDD graduates like the
visual and performing artists whose work lives have been reported on elsewhere work unusually
long hours, especially if they are employed both in dance and non-dance work.
11. Location of Residence
Given the special role of New York City in the dance world and the commitment of
recent graduates to seek work in dance, we would expect a higher proportion of younger
respondents to live there. Table 23, which shows region of residence by decade of graduation,
confirms this hypothesis. Recent graduates were more likely to live in the New York area than
graduates of the 1980s and to a lesser extent, than graduates of the 1970s.
Our survey asks a series of questions about the reasons the graduates had chosen the
location of their current residence. Table 24 shows the distribution of reasons, for those
employed in dance and for those without dance jobs. It also shows the distribution of reasons by
region for those employed in dance. The most important reason given is “employment
opportunities in dance” with 62 percent of those in dance indicating this as one of the factors
affecting their choice of location. This is not surprising given the apparent commitment to dance
of the graduates. That New York has a special place among these artists is confirmed by the fact
that 76 percent of all the graduates employed in dance and living in New York give this as a
reason for choosing their location. “Having a network of peers” also appears to be an important
reason for choosing one’s location, as is “financial and other support for dance.” The most
important non-dance related reason for choosing location is “affordable living space” for those
employed in dance and “non-dance related employment” for those not employed in dance.
18
To determine the overall importance of dance on location choice we combined all the
dance-related reasons (employment opportunities in dance, support of dance, FCDD contacts, a
network of peers, and affordable working space) into a single variable. Eighty-one percent of
those employed in dance (and ninety-one percent of those living in New York) list at least one of
the dance related reasons for choosing their residence. It is interesting to note that 19 percent of
those not employed in dance give dance related reasons for choosing their current residence. This
might indicate either that they still have some interest in pursuing a career in dance, or that when
they originally decided where to live they were interested in working in dance.
12. Five College Dance Department
The Dance Department has given me an excellent knowledge of
technique. I feel that this knowledge has greatly helped me in my
teaching field. Since I teach adults ballroom dance, it's important
that I carry myself as a dancer for them to put their faith in my
abilities. There is one aspect that the FCDD did not focus on. In
order to keep my job, I must sell lessons. In some ways I must be
more of a salesperson than a dancer. (UMASS, 1997)
The Dance Program at U. Mass provided me with an excellent
Dance Background, but it trained me specifically to be a dancer
that would go to big city and dance. There was no training on how
to go about making a living teaching dance or the administrative
side of dance. We didn’t know the range of opportunities out there
or how to obtain them. (UMASS, 1980)
Seeing the possibilities available in the dance world is the main
effect of the 5-college program. I also learned about alternative
careers related to dance, like dance therapy, massage therapy,
sports medicine, & patterning work, which helps give a means to
support myself (& many dancers) struggling to do their creative
work in this atmosphere of less & less available funds. (UMASS,
1992)
In addition to the survey questions we also asked a number of questions about the
alumnae’s experience with the FCDD. Table 25 reports these results. There is strong
19
endorsement of the quality of the technical training received. Whether looking at the answers of
all respondents, of those employed in dance in 1998, or of those ever in dance, we find
approximately 90 percent agreeing strongly or moderately on the excellence of their training.
There is much less agreement, however, on whether the FCDD provided "ongoing support for . .
. work" or "an important network of colleagues." In each case, roughly a third of the respondents
have no opinion, while the others are divided between agreement and disagreement. Those
currently employed in dance not only were less likely to have no opinion, but more likely to find
the FCDD a source of support (36 percent) and of a network of colleagues (46 percent).
13. Conclusions
It is an understatement to say I am happy the issues of money and
dance are being considered in this study. . . It cannot be overstated
how influential the issue of money is to working dancers and
choreographers. Particularly with respect to a profession that
requires such enormous discipline, self-reliance and commitment.
To say that the dancing itself is the reward and we shouldn't worry
about monetary compensation is an insult to those of us who
consider it just as great a commitment as any high level, high
paying profession. However, it does raise far more complex issues
about the value of art, a professional's time and the nature of
capitalism in general.
So often artists are restricted by factors such as shoestring budgets;
by mercurial physical resources such as space, dancers, and
venues; by day jobs that create time and energy constraints that
make a life in dance nearly impossible. I often marvel at the idea
that any art gets made and produced at all. As a freelance
choreographer, I am grateful for the number of artists’ service
organizations available. They can often provide assistance and
guidance to navigate those obstacles. I would be happy if this study
is able to identify some potential balances many working artists
have found and share them. The arts are enormously low paying. I
feel it will put all artists at an enormous advantage if we, in the
field, actively address this issue more openly to gain empowerment
and find better solutions to the problem. (Smith, 1994)
The survey results make it abundantly clear that the FCDD graduates are regularly
confronted by the great physical demands and the low monetary rewards of an art to which most
20
are highly committed. Based on the experiences of the respondents it is possible to tell a story
that describes a prototypical graduate. After graduation she sets out to try her luck in dance. She
most likely goes to New York City and looks for opportunities in modern dance. The work she
does is usually multi-faceted, either because she holds several jobs, or because a single position
combines dancing with choreography, teaching and/or administration. She works long hours at
dance, but to support herself must also do non-dance work. This is likely to be in the service
sector. After several years she often decides that she must choose either to continue in dance or
to seek full-time work elsewhere. In either case, she will likely pursue a graduate degree. If her
choice is to stay in dance, it most likely will be in that field. She may, however, choose do body
work or movement studies and to combine a job in one of these areas with part-time work in
dance. If she stays in dance, however, she will often stop holding other jobs. Within dance, she
will do less dancing and more teaching. If she chooses to leave dance (or never entered it), she is
most likely to obtain a graduate degree in another professional field. Her earnings will depend
heavily on the choices she makes. In dance, her income will rise with graduate education,
experience, and the nature of her dance work. Over her career, however, she will typically
sacrifice substantial potential income if she chooses dance.
The above, however, is just a generic tale based on averages, it misses the richness and
diversity of the lives of our respondents. Considering the actual careers of some of those in our
sample can provide a way to expand this story. The interviews that follow capture some of the
great variety of ways FCCD alumnae have responded both personally and professionally to the
challenges of dance.
21
14. Interviews
In the spring of 2000, twelve of the respondents generously agreed to be interviewed by
telephone. The following summarizes what they said about their professional histories, their
current employment, and what they saw in their futures. Except where noted the information is
current as of the date of the conversations.
MELISSA BRIGGS
Smith College, 1995
Melissa Briggs says she became a dancer by default. Alternatively it might be said that
she took a detour into theatre, before returning to dance. Melissa went to Smith College planning
to major in theatre. She had studied ballet from age five and ice skating starting when she was
eleven. But by the time she was sixteen she had become so involved with theatre that she stopped
both dancing and skating. At Smith while also working in theatre, she started dancing again. She
combined plays in the fall with dance concerts in the spring. She majored in sociology, with a
minor in theatre.
A summer apprenticeship at the Williamstown Theatre Festival, however, left her unsure
that she wanted a career in theater. She turned increasingly to dance and choreographed a piece
that went to the American College Dance Festival (ACDFA) and then to its gala. She graduated
from Smith in 1995. At the last minute she applied to the graduate program in dance at NYU’s
Tisch School of the Arts. She viewed her acceptance as a message about what she needed to do.
At NYU dance students were advised to stay as professionally close to dance as possible.
Since receiving her MFA in 1997 Melissa has followed this rule by teaching dance in various
New York City schools. She currently is a free-lance teacher piecing together work at several
private schools. Her students are mainly preschool children, though she has one job in a dance
education program connected with The Joyce Theater. She also teaches a theatre and a visual arts
class. She has supplemented her income by ushering and academic tutoring, but never has turned
to catering or waiting on tables. She thinks the potential income from the latter is high, but too
22
volatile. Even though she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa at Smith, she has found some
employment agencies not thinking her smart, because of her dance degree.
Melissa supports herself teaching dance 18 to 20 hours a week. She also works many
hours dancing, writing grants and applications and, especially, doing choreography. Mostly this
is unpaid. As a free-lance choreographer, she develops work, which is performed perhaps three
or four times in a six-month period. The venues hold auditions and if her work is selected she
receives a small fee. This helps her pay something to her dancers, but usually about 75 percent of
what they receive is from her own pocket. In addition, she usually has to pay for rehearsal space
and, at times, for music. She has joined with classmates from Tisch in a choreography group that
presents at private boarding schools throughout the east. Their expenses are covered and each
choreographer receives about $200 out of which the dancers get small fees.
Melissa enjoys showing high school students what is new in modern dance, which she
sees as increasingly interdisciplinary. Their reactions sometimes seem off the wall, but they are
fresh. In contrast she may have heard before the responses and analyses of dancers and their
friends who often dominate New York modern dance audiences.
The group of young choreographers with whom she works is trying to gain some control
over where and whether they perform. They are challenging a system in which Melissa finds just
four or five men and women deciding who gets seen at the small venues. She is discouraged by
the lack of funding in the United States for new modern dance companies. She says there are
almost no middle-sized companies. Moreover, new companies are not being started, as they were
when Mark Morris, for example, could think and dream big.
Melissa finds herself in her late twenties asking “big questions,” like whether she will
stay in New York City, with which she has a love/hate relationship. Why would she leave? The
pace is too much. Moreover, she very much wants to have children and thinks New York is not
the place to raise them. Where would she go? She has thought of teaching at a university or
possibly at a boarding school.
23
REBECCA CHISMAN
Smith College 1994
Rebecca Chisman considers herself lucky to have been dancing regularly in New York
City and on tour for the past five years. Some other dancers she knows can find work only
sporadically. In spring 2000 she danced in Zvi Gotheiner's The Amber Room, on which they had
worked for at least six months. It was performed on Manhattan's Lower East Side in the city's
oldest synagogue building and was her first experience dancing outside of a traditional theatre.
Zvi Gotheiner and Dancers provides work on a project-by-project basis, while the other company
with which she dances has a somewhat more regular schedule. She describes herself as a modern
dancer with some ballet sensibilities who is very movement oriented.
Rebecca returned to New York after graduating from Smith College in 1994. She took
ballet classes to stay in shape and attended modern dance workshops. She auditioned and met
choreographers through dance workshops. She made her living for two years waiting on table,
which she hated. There were plenty of temp jobs available, but many lacked flexible hours. She
still cannot support herself as a dancer but she has found work she likes. For three and a half
years she has been teaching Pilates; and she is studying for Pilates certification. She is happiest,
however, when on tour because then she is dancing full time. Among other places, she has
danced in Europe and twice been to Brazil.
A graduate of the High School of the Performing Arts in New York City, Rebecca says
she lacked a normal teenage life, but instead was totally involved in dance. She took classes not
only in school but also on weekends. By the end of high school she wanted to move out of New
York, to have strong academic training, and to be less consumed by dance. She chose Smith in
part because she had found being at an all girls summer arts camp empowering. She majored in
American Studies, but by her junior year knew she wanted a career in dance. She credits Five
College Dance faculty members Jim Coleman and Therese Freedman for showing her that it is
possible to be both a dancer and a "normal person."
In New York City she has found not only regular dancing opportunities but also a sense
of community among modern dancers. For her they are wonderful to work with and among the
most resourceful of people. The dancing is hard work but "takes you out of the ordinary." Will
she stay in New York? Her partner of five years is a musician who may want to relocate. She's
24
taught a little through work with dance companies, likes it and, therefore, has considered getting
an MFA to have the credentials to join a dance faculty.
She isn't sure what she will be doing in another five years, but knows she doesn't want to
get too far away from the body.
25
MARYLLOYD CLAYTOR
Mount Holyoke College, 1974
Marylloyd Claytor is persevering and never has given up dancing and choreography. She
currently has ambitious plans for a series of concerts that will combine modern dance classics
with her own work. She also, however, has never been able to support herself through dance. For
almost twenty years she has been a full-time public school music teacher.
She began studying dance at Mount Holyoke College. It attracted her because it allowed
her to communicate by presenting her own work. After graduating in 1974, she went to New
York City, where she was admitted to the New York University dance program and received a
scholarship from the Martha Graham School of Contemporary Dance. She attended NYU briefly
and simultaneously started intensive study at Martha Graham, taking 16 classes a week. She
began doing her own concerts but earned little from them. She found it difficult to find any nondance job that would combine with her many hours of classes.
She had some savings and her family helped out from their social security income. After
several years, however, she was in a desperate financial situation. Her professional prospect was
a place in the Martha Graham Company, but she had to leave New York. She gratefully accepted
her mother’s invitation to return to home to Pittsburgh.
Marylloyd did not plan to dance any more, but a friend asked her to teach at the YWCA.
She exchanged as many as five different classes for rehearsal space. She did lecturedemonstrations and concerts with her own company in Pittsburgh and in New York City.
Sometimes the concerts broke even. Debts had piled up, however, when in the early 1980's she
found a job in the Pittsburgh schools. She was hired as a substitute teacher of music on the basis
of her studies at Mount Holyoke, where she originally had intended to major in music and
theatre. She later was certified by Duquesne University on the basis of her undergraduate work
and some education courses she took there. She taught evening dance classes and maintained the
Marylloyd Claytor Dance Company, which constantly ran a deficit.
Although the company continues, she no longer keeps together a standing group of
dancers. Moreover, all of her work in recent years has been for community access television. She
dances both alone and with a pick-up company. She has learned to film her choreography using
equipment provided by the cable television station and has had a few grants from the state arts
26
council. She may pursue grants more aggressively now that she finds the cable station more
supportive. She has collected much of her choreography on video. This has encouraged her by
making her realize how much she has done. Her body of work probably could fill a whole
season.
She finds that there is increasing interest in employing video and film to preserve dance
and the Dance Notation Bureau is more sympathetic to new videos being made of classic dances.
Marylloyd is now completing a Master's of Liberal Arts degree at Chatham College in
Pittsburgh. Her final projects include a study of the history of women's costumes in theatre and
dance, the creation of a costume for an original dance, and the reconstruction of a costume for
Charles Weidman's Braham's Waltzes. She has received permission from the Dance Notation
Bureau to perform these dances over the course of several concerts. They will be both live and
on video and will initiate a project she has been planning for over twenty years of presenting
classical modern dances together with own choreography.
Marylloyd says she has no regrets about the life she has chosen. She is, however, deeply
disturbed by how little support dance receives in the United States. She also believes strongly
that those studying dance should be much better educated on how to survive economically in the
dance world. Dancers spend so much of their time on the business of the arts that a course on it
should be part of the curriculum.
27
RICK GUIMOND
University of Massachusetts, 1975
Rick Guimond feels lucky and privileged to be still dancing professionally in his middle
forties. All the other dancers in the Eleanor Coleman Dance Ensemble, of which he is a member,
are almost half his age. Coleman's is a long-standing New York City company that he likes and
respects. It provides him with year-round income because the dancers are paid for rehearsals as
well as being well compensated when they have bookings. The latter, however, are fewer than
some might like in part because Eleanor Coleman is not interested in spending large amounts of
time on the business side of dance. She choreographs two or three new works a year, which she
rehearses in her own loft in SoHo. Rick doesn't choreograph for this company, but finds that
Coleman seeks and welcomes contributions from her dancers.
He has, however, had his own dance company for which he made 25 to 30 pieces that
have been shown in New York, with some getting attention from the New York Times. A few
years ago he temporarily gave up the company to work full-time as a legal assistant. He needed
the income to cover some debts and to put his "husband" through college. The latter will
graduate soon and then Rick will resume his company and do legal work on no more than a parttime basis. He will insist that his partner, who is going into nursing, provide health insurance. To
have his own company continues to be his major goal.
Although early in his career he worked full-time as a dancer, Rick subsequently has done
a variety of non-dance work. Learning typing and computer skills on the job, he was with a
public relations firm before becoming a legal assistant about ten years ago. For a few years he
was a co-owner of a restaurant which he hoped would finance his dance company, but it was not
a financial success. He thinks it is even harder economically for young dancers coming to New
York than it was earlier. When he was younger he could work three to four hours a day and
survive in a bare-bones fashion. Now expenses are too high. Some of the dancers in the Coleman
company who are only in their twenties need full-time non-dance jobs.
His older sister unwittingly got Rick into dance. While he was in high school she took
ballroom dancing at Arthur Murray. He had such fun dancing with her, that he chose dance to
meet a physical education requirement at the University of Massachusetts. Because he was one
of the rare men in the classes, choreographers readily snapped him up. During his sophomore
28
year he applied to transfer to the Massachusetts College of Art to study visual arts. A member of
the dance faculty at the University, however, proposed that instead he stay there and become a
dance major. He did and devoted himself almost exclusively to dance for the next two years.
By the time he graduated in 1975 he was hooked. He went home for a couple of days,
repacked his bags, and headed for Manhattan. He felt well prepared to work in New York City
and danced there with twenty to thirty different companies over four to five years. He also tried
out for the Merce Cunningham School where he won scholarships and stayed for several years.
He found Cunningham's "one of the cleanest techniques" and excellent training for someone who
wanted to stay away from balletic influences. These years he saw as his graduate schooling. He
did no non-dance work and lived at a basic level. He was an achiever by the standards of the
dance world joke that once you can collect unemployment insurance, you've made it.
Rick is an ebullient man who knows dance as a dedicated life and whose commitment to
it has not wavered. Although he never has had enough time or money to make the best dance he
could, his greatest satisfaction has come when he has choreographed pieces that "show signs that
I can get it right." He also has loved being a teacher to the dancers in his company. He plans to
keep on dancing and making dances for a long time to come.
He apparently has assumed and accepted that dance will never provide him with a
generous income and he has been willing at times to put his professional goals partially on hold.
As Rick thinks of young dancers he understands why so many quit for economic reasons when
they are 25 to 30. But simultaneously he hopes that some may learn from his story of ways to
make a long-term career.
29
JEFFREY JANISHESKI
Amherst College, 1992
Jeff Janisheski majored in theater and dance at Amherst College. He completed his work
there in December 1991 and immediately afterward went to Japan to study Butoh with one of its
masters. His first dance training had come only a couple of years earlier in a modern dance class.
At Amherst he learned of Butoh, an experimental dance form based on image work, from a
performance by a visiting company and by watching numerous videos. He then trained in New
York with another Butoh company.
He studied in Japan for two and a half years. Back in the United States he lived for four
years in the Connecticut Valley. Supporting himself with non-dance day jobs, he started a dance
center, taught and performed. After these four years, he returned to Japan for seven months.
In August 1998, Jeff moved to the New York City area. Although he still performs and
does choreography, he increasingly sees himself as a theater director [and he started graduate
school for theatre directing at Columbia University in the fall of 2002]. Recently, with partial
funding from a Japanese-American foundation, he collaborated as choreographer and performer
with Japanese artists in mounting a production in Brooklyn. It was a relative financial success
with each of the principal performers receiving $1300. Jeff’s regular income, however, comes
from a full-time job in the publications department of a financial firm. He uses self-taught
computer skills in a job that suits him, because the pay is good and his nights are free.
Jeff continues to explore both the possibilities of his art and the ways to make it
financially possible. On the economic side, he is working with a for-profit organization he helped
start that is especially geared to international events. Artistically, he plans more film and theater
work. Some of his projects may not be movement based but, nonetheless, will grow naturally out
of his work in Japanese Noh and Butoh, the especially theatrical dance forms that he knows best.
30
SHARONJEAN LEEDS
Smith College, 1967
Sharonjean Leeds teaches technique classes in dance at the University of San Francisco.
She has worked there for many years, choosing to teach part-time so she could also dance and do
choreography. She did not perform, however, from 1984 to 1995. She thought of herself as
retired from the stage. Then she joined a group of other women, who had danced together 20
years earlier, in a company formed by Linda Rawlings: “New Shoes, Old Souls.”
The company, all of whose members were over 40, enjoyed success and professional
attention. In 1999, Sharonjean was in a piece directed by Mark Morris and a quartet
choreographed by Michael Smuin. She loved performing again and found it “great to show you
are still a dancer.” She celebrated the way the company challenged the conventional wisdom that
dancers are “over the hill” in their thirties.
There were benefits of being older. She couldn’t take classes every day and there were
moves she couldn’t execute, but her choreography was much more refined and its subjects
different. She did a piece she had begun to imagine after her father’s triple by-pass surgery about
the transference of roles from parent to child.
Sharonjean has always wanted to be, and defined herself as, a dancer. She first took ballet
lessons when she was three and a half. In the early 1980’s when she stopped dancing because of
injuries and the disbanding of a company, she did not know who she was.
She began her professional career the year after her 1967 graduation from Smith College
as a dancer in an opera house in a small German town. The place was not much to her liking.
Back in the United States and unsure what to do next, she several times visited Rosalind deMille,
her mentor at Smith who became her “surrogate mother.” On one visit Rosalind became ill and
persuaded Sharonjean to teach her classes. That convinced Sharonjean to go to graduate school.
She chose UCLA, which had a strong MA program that focused on modern dance and more on
training teachers than, performers. She met her husband, who was then in dental school in
Chicago. They married and moved to San Francisco. He has been very supportive of her career
and during the few years she had her own company, was its photographer.
The future of “New Shoes, Old Souls” is uncertain and her mother’s stroke and death in
May 2000 and her father’s death in November 1999 have occupied much of Sharonjean’s time.
31
She is, however, taking ballet classes three times a week and teaching both ballet and modern.
As she looks forward, she expects that she can continue teaching ballet longer than she can,
modern, since the latter requires more demonstration and repetition and is harder on the body.
For now, she certainly seems ready to perform again when the opportunity arises.
32
JENNIE DIGGS MAKIHARA
Amherst College, 1981
Although she is taking a class with Liz Lerman, Jennie Diggs Makihara has almost given
up dance and is in her third year of studying acupuncture. She works part-time as a massage
therapist and also teaches Qi Gong or "energy cultivation," a Chinese movement practice.
Because she knew of the low pay in dance, she tried not to head in that direction, but found she
couldn’t stay away. She earned an MFA in dance and explored all sorts of ways to make a living
in the field. Beginning in 1994, however, wanting to earn more so that she and her musician
husband could consider having children, she first studied massage therapy and then acupuncture.
Jennie chose Amherst College because of its dance program and that of the Five College
Dance Department. She had studied ballet in Georgia since the age of eight and continually
struggled with whether she would dance professionally. At Amherst she was a theatre major with
an emphasis on dance. After graduating in 1981 she went to New York where she worked as an
actress and supported herself waiting on tables and teaching preschool. Then for several years
she lived with her parents, continued to wait tables, and spent increasing time dancing. She
began to define to herself as a dancer and enrolled at Temple University for an MFA in dance,
which she completed in 1986.
She worked with a Philadelphia dance company for a year, taught, and did odd jobs.
Eventually by combining three or four different jobs in various locations and driving many miles
between them, she was able to support herself teaching dance. Her work ranged from classes for
children to those for opera singers at the Curtis Institute. She also did her own choreography for
which she received grants. She won a Fulbright award to study dance in Hanover, Germany for a
year. She went, hoping to find greater financial support there, but was disappointed to learn that
creative modern dance was not being funded.
Although Jennie decided after trying massage therapy that it was not the profession for
her, she liked the healing part of the work. She turned to acupuncture with which she had been
treated and which promised a good living. She finds it wonderful and fascinating, involving a
deeper commitment to people than massage. She has discovered that healing work can be very
creative and intuitive and that her years as a dancer and what she learned about her own body
have enriched her ability to do that work. At her acupuncture school there is talk of "embodied
33
learning." That, Jennie says, is for her "a piece of cake," because much that she has experienced
as a dancer is about energy. She feels she is now in the right place.
As for dance, she hopes she can continue it as exercise, though is seems very odd for her
to think of it that way.
34
MARTHA MASON
Mount Holyoke College, 1988
Martha Mason directs her own dance company, Snappy Dance Theater, which she started
in Boston in 1997. In the first year, the audiences averaged 100 a night. They grew to 200 and
then to 400. For two years she had to subsidize the company, but now it is self-supporting and
she is able to pay dancers $10 per rehearsal. She has received a $10,000 commission and is now
applying for corporate grants. She is concerned that Massachusetts ranks low in paying for the
arts and says, with some regret, that because arts funding in Boston is so meager, "no one is
going out on a limb and doing wacky things."
In addition to working as dancer, choreographer and company administrator, Martha
teaches Pilates. She rents her own studio, where she works with small groups on the mat and
with individuals on equipment. She began training in Pilates in New York City in 1991, when
she tore a ligament in her knee and had to give up dancing for a year. She quickly became very
involved in its certification program. Supporting herself as a waitress and an administrative
assistant, she spent two and a half years becoming certified to teach Pilates. It is much more
fitness-oriented than dance and emphasizes reeducating movement patterns, muscle function and
alignment. It is particularly good for dancers because of the cross training it entails. She finds it
both helps them avoid injuries and provides a low-impact way to recover from those that occur.
Martha plans to continue with both parts of her career. If she could travel abroad with her
company a couple of times a year, she would temporarily take time away from Pilates. But
because of the effects she has seen it have on people's lives, she will never stop teaching it.
Martha grew up in rural New York State. She started studying ballet when she was seven,
was a disciplined performer at 13, and by the time she went to college was committed to being a
dancer. Hannah Wiley, who was then in the dance department, particularly attracted her to
Mount Holyoke College. She spent her junior year in Paris, fell in love with France and lived
there for a year after graduating in 1988. She then went to New York City where she danced
professionally, taught and was a choreographer. She also worked abroad and takes special
satisfaction from the choreography she did for Heiner Mueller's play, The Battle, which was
produced as movement theatre work and performed in a Russian steel town in the Urals in 1993.
35
She felt New York burnout and wanted to start teaching Pilates, so in 1993 she moved to
Boston where her boyfriend was a graduate student at Harvard. She had come to realize that she
wanted to direct her own dance company, but first she had to devote time to building up a Pilates
practice and paying for its expensive equipment. In the beginning she taught eight hours a day
but eventually could take more time for dance.
As she looks forward, Martha is committed to staying in Boston as long as she can keep
her company going. Both she and her now husband would love to spend half of each year in
France. He has a Ph.D. in economics and worked as a consultant on electricity deregulation, but
recently started an Internet business on wine. Martha would consider having a baby. She finds
many dancers in Boston are new mothers and have chosen numerous ways to make that possible.
Martha thinks she might put the baby in her dances.
36
AMY RICHARDS
Mount Holyoke College, 1979
Amy Richards is currently producing industrial shows. Through the mid-1990’s,
however, she was a stage manager for a number of professional dance companies. Her ambition
from the time she was in high school had been to be a lighting designer. At Mount Holyoke
College, she studied the technical side of theater but was drawn to working with dancers,
because she thought she could be most creative there.
After graduating in 1979 she went to New York City. In 1981 she got the chance to be
the stage manager for the American Ballet Theater’s junior company and toured internationally
with them. She held other jobs, for example, she stage-managed two Broadway shows but most
enjoyed working with dance companies. She traveled on and off for a number of years with
Karole Armitage, did three tours with the Kirov Ballet, and served as interpreter for the
American Ballet Theater at the Paris Opera. She found it great fun to see the world and
especially to be for a few weeks part of the cultural life of a foreign city. She would recommend
to anyone that they tour for a while. There are time limits, however, for those who want
eventually to have a settled family life.
By the late 1980’s, Amy had given up her ambition to be a lighting designer. She found it
a highly competitive profession in which few could make a living. She also discovered that a
lighting designer often has little contact with the total production, sometimes being present for
only a day or so during the tech period. However, as a stage manager with small dance
companies she did lighting design. Moreover, she found creative satisfaction in calling the
shows, as her “performance” directly affected the audience’s perception of the work.
She worked with Baryshnikov’s White Oak Dance Project from 1991 to 1995, touring
five continents. She worked little in dance after that, except for a brief stint with the Martha
Graham Company at the Brooklyn Academy of Music. One of her reasons for leaving White Oak
was a piece that was repeated so often that it had the dancers and everyone else bored.
She then went to Hollywood to work on the animated film, Iron Giant. She found
animation much like a high-pressure factory assembly line. Also, unlike in the theater, there was
a divide between the artists and those doing production. The industrial shows she does now pay
well but are not very interesting. Amy says she has always been torn between art and Mammon,
37
and now Mammon has taken over. But as she talks of dance jobs she would consider if they were
offered, it sounds as if art may have another day.
38
GRETEL SCHATZ
University of Massachusetts, 1997
Gretel Schatz is the director of the dance program at the Northfield-Mount Hermon
School, a large Massachusetts boarding school. She teaches dance technique to both academic
and non-academic classes and runs the school's dance company. About 120 to 175 of the school's
1100 students are involved. As a newer faculty member she is required to live in a dormitory.
She took the job because she had long wanted to teach, but outside of a studio setting. She also
wished for greater stability of life and income than many dancers enjoy. Although it provides
little income, she also does some freelance performing --perhaps two or three times a year. There
are a loosely organized handful of people with whom she works.
She always has defined herself as a performing artist. Her mother runs a dance studio
where she started lessons when she was three. By age seven her dance training became more
serious; at 14 she was focussing increasingly on modern dance. After receiving her high school
diploma from Greenfield Community College, she took some time off from school. When she
returned she transferred to the University of Massachusetts. Wanting to do something different
than her mother, she did not dance for two years. She missed dance, however, and so auditioned
for the Five College Dance Department. Attending the University of Massachusetts was a good
financial option for her, but she would not have stayed there if it had not been for the richness of
that program. She graduated in 1997.
Gretel's husband is currently in school preparing for a change in his career. He developed
asthma and had to give up woodworking. He hopes there may be a job for him at NorthfieldMount Hermon. She will take off some time from work in the fall because they are expecting a
baby. What will she be doing five years or more from now? She is not sure. She likes the
students and the variety of her teaching tasks, but is less enthusiastic about the administrative
side of the job. For now, however, she seems to have found a way to be a dancer in a setting that
suits her and her family.
39
JOANNA MENDL SHAW
Mount Holyoke College, 1969
JoAnna Mendl Shaw is a prominent choreographer and widely sought teacher of modern
dance. She has danced professionally since 1969 and for 17 years had a well-known company in
Seattle. Over the last decade she has extended her reach even further doing choreography with
ice skaters and equestrians and serving as a coach for the Swiss Gymnastics Federation.
From childhood, JoAnna wanted to be a dancer. She began her studies when she was six.
By the time she was at Mount Holyoke College, she commuted weekly to lessons in New York
City. At Mount Holyoke she majored in philosophy and studied dance with Helen Priest Rogers.
Helen encouraged JoAnna, finding her summer opportunities and urging her to take herself
seriously as a dancer. She also found support from philosophy professor Richard Robin and
learned much about thinking, writing and the value of education. After graduating in 1969, she
went to New York City where she auditioned whenever possible. After five months she got a
break and joined a dance company. She then landed a 24-week job in a Broadway show.
She went to the University of Utah for an MFA and there danced in Bill Evan’s company.
In 1974 she moved to Seattle, where five years later she formed a dance company. It performed
the work of many choreographers and became quite well known in the northwest. In 1991,
discouraged by the limited funding she found for modern dance, she decided to return to New
York City. She was determined to find ways to be both professionally successful and well
compensated. She turned to athletics, which were generously financed.
Her first work combining dancers and horses was performed at Mount Holyoke in 1998.
She has subsequently further developed the marriage of dressage and dance, and she has worked
with the New Jersey mounted police. She, additionally, has choreographed pieces that combine
in-line skaters with dancers and collaborated with skater-choreographers to create theatrical
dance works for ice. She also coaches the Swiss Gymnastics Team, where she employs the tools
of Laban movement analysis, in which she is certified.
JoAnna has taught and served on the faculty at a wide range of academic dance programs
including those at the Cornish College of the Arts in Seattle, the Juilliard School, Dickinson
College, Montclair State University, Princeton University and Mount Holyoke College. [In 2002
she was teaching at Fordham/The Ailey School in NYC.] She is a free-lance choreographer who
40
specializes in site-specific works and large collaborative projects with athletes. She has taught
internationally in Hungary, Japan, Korea, Canada, Scotland and Wales.
With fellow dancer Ellis Wood, JoAnna in 1998 began a broad study of gender issues in
dance. It grew from their belief that despite the numerical dominance of women in dance, they
suffer from discrimination; instead of working on the level playing field that many believe exists.
“The Gender Project” aimed to determine the extent of the disparity and its causes, and to
develop strategies for change. JoAnna and Ellis found that male choreographers are more likely
to get grants, gain commissions and to have their works presented in major venues. Men are
taken more seriously and often have higher incomes. The fault lies partly with dance presenters,
producers and educators, but some of the responsibility belongs to women dancers and
choreographers, whom JoAnna sees as adaptable but not aggressive. She and Ellis aim to inform
and empower them, and to hold those in power accountable for any discriminatory actions.
Despite her very active and engaged career, JoAnna has in recent years found her
priorities radically changed by becoming a mother at age 46. Her son Isaac was adopted at birth.
Becoming a mother shifted her priorities, although her career still engages her life fully.
When she thinks of what faces young dancers, JoAnna is very pessimistic about their
chances. There are fewer major companies where a dancer can earn a living wage and far more
dancers. But even among her generation many have left dance. She feels lucky to be able to
continue and to be doing cutting-edge work that reflects the insights and wisdom that have come
with age.
41
LAURIE TUCHMAN
Hampshire College, 1978
Laurie Tuchman manages a high-end fitness club in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. It is one of
about fifty clubs under the same management. She does coordination and development work for
others in the group and teaches fitness instructors at the national level. The clientele for the
fitness center, which gears its program toward education, is broad but mainly upper middle class.
It does not include many dancers partly because of its fees and partly because of the paucity of
serious dance in Florida, except in Miami. She views her fitness work as separate from dancing
and from the dance teaching she did until about six months ago, when she developed a cervical
spine injury. She taught dance to young children for years, but found her goals in conflict with
those of many of their parents, whose emphasis was on the children performing in shows.
This tension was, indeed, part of Laurie's dance life when she was very young. . She
began studying dance at age five in Portland, Maine with a "wonderful, bohemian" modern
dance teacher. Later, however, she switched to ballet to be with friends who were at a school
whose program was geared to the annual performance of the Nutcracker. She stayed with ballet
for years, but was not at the top level, nor was her heart ever fully in it. In the eleventh grade she
had thyroid surgery and put on weight. She stopped dancing until she went to Hampshire College
where, finding others who were heavy but doing modern dance, she returned to it. Her major was
in choreography and performance, with a concentration on dance therapy. During a six months
internship at Mount Sinai Hospital, however, she concluded that this work was not respected.
She returned to dance.
Though she says her dancing was not of top quality, by now she fully identified as a
modern dancer. In New York City she took many classes including those at the 92nd Street Y.
With a male friend from Hampshire she formed a small company, which rehearsed regularly and
performed in rented spaces. Like so many other groups, it made no money. She supported herself
for six years as a professional chef. She would work from 4 p.m. to 1 or 2 a.m. and then rehearse
in the mornings. She had studied Laban Movement Analysis at Hampshire and during these
years in New York she earned a certificate at the Laban Institute. Although she did not realize it
at the time, she now views this as having been a turning point in her career. Her work in Laban,
which describes and records movement, led to Pilates, which she now teaches.
42
After graduating from college in January 1978, Laurie began living in New York City
with a man she had met at Hampshire, who was in his second year in medical school. Seven
years later they married and moved to Boston. She almost immediately became pregnant and
taught exercise classes from her home. Their next move was to New York's Westchester County,
where she reconnected and performed with dancer friends. Through her young son she got into
teaching dynamic play and premovement to children in Scarsdale. For seven years she did this
two to three hours a week. She also began teaching aerobics at the Y.
As long as she lived in Scarsdale, where her second child was born, she continued to
dance. But when her family moved to South Florida ten years ago she found no opportunities in
modern dance. The fitness craze had hit, however, and she turned there, bringing dance to all her
work. She says that in the fitness world she is viewed as a dancer, but that what she does would
not be considered strictly dance by modern dancers. She teaches two classes of Pilates a week
and is doing intensive training in "Balance Body," a closely related system of exercises. She is a
choreographer for non-dancers and gets enormous rewards from seeing the joy that movement
can bring to students from three-year-olds to seniors.
Until six months ago she never had had an injury, though the cervical spine rupture she
then suffered probably came from an accumulation of dance related stress. She cannot dance
now and is not sure about the future. She is counting on being able to continue as an equestrian,
because that is the closest activity she has found to dance and yet involves little impact. Dance is
part of her fiber and she takes the optimistic view that it is much more than just performing.
Indeed, Laurie sees her professional career as a fine textbook for undergraduates on the many
roads that can be taken.
43
References
Filer, Randall K. (1986) “The ‘Starving Artist’ - Myth or Reality? Earnings of Artists in the
United States”. Journal of Political Economy 94: 56-75.
_____________. (1988) Labor Market Earnings of American Artists in 1980. National
Endowment for the Arts, Washington.
_____________. (1990) "Arts and Academe: The Effect of Education on Earnings of Artists,"
. Journal of Cultural Economics 14: 15-38.
Gray, Charles M. (1984) “NonPecuniary Rewards in the Performing Arts Labor Market: A
Case Study of Dancers and Choreographers." in William S. Hendon, Nancy K. Grant and
Douglas V. Shaw (eds.), The Economics of Cultural Industries. Association for Cultural
Economics, Akron.
Jackson, C., S. Honey, J. Hillage, and J. Stock. (1994) Careers and Training in Dance and
Drama. A Report of Research for the Arts Council of England. Institute of Manpower
Studies, Brighton.
Kay, Ann O. and Stephyn G. W. Butcher. (1996) “Employment and Earnings of Performing
Artists, 1970 to 1990”, in National Endowment for the Arts, Artists in the Workforce:
Employment and Earnings, 1970 to 1990. Seven Locks Press, Santa Anna California.
Montgomery, Sarah S. and Michael D. Robinson. (1993) "Visual Artists in New York: What’s
Special About Person and Place?" Journal of Cultural Economics 17: 17-39.
_______________________________________. (2000) “The Time Allocation and Earnings of
Artists”. Industrial Relations 39: 525-534.
_______________________________________. (forthcoming) “What Becomes of
Undergraduate Dance Majors?”. Journal of Cultural Economics.
National Endowment for the Arts. (1999) Artist Employment in 1998. Washington, D.C.
Netzer, Dick and Ellen Parker. (1993) Dancemakers. National Endowment for the Arts,
Washington, D.C.
Research Center for Arts and Culture. (1990) Information on Artists Report Series. Columbia
University, New York.
Santos, F. P. (1976) “Risk, Uncertainty and the Performing Artist”, in Mark Blaug (ed.),
The Economics of the Arts. Martin Robertson, London.
44
Throsby, C. David. (1992) "Artists as Workers", in Ruth Towse and Abdul Khakee (eds.),
Cultural Economics. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg.
______________. (1994a) "The Production and Consumption of the Arts: A View of Cultural
Economics". Journal of Economic Literature 32: 1-29.
______________. (1994b) "A Work-Preference Model of Artistic Behavior", in Alan Peacock
and Ilde Rizzo (eds.), Cultural Economics and Cultural Policies. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordercht.
_______________. (1996) "Disaggregated Earnings Functions for Artists", in V. A. Ginsburgh
and P. M. Menger (eds.), Economics of the Arts - Selected Essays. Elsevier Science B. V.,
Amsterdam.
Towse, Ruth. (1992) Economic and Social Characteristics of Artists in Wales. Welsh Arts
Council, Cardiff.
___________ (1995) The Economics of Artists’ Labour Markets. Arts Council of England,
London.
___________. (1996) "Market Value and Artists' Earnings", in Arjo Klamer (ed.), The Value of
Culture: On the Relationship between Economics and Arts. Amsterdam University Press,
Amsterdam.
Wassall, Gregory H. and Neil O. Alper. (1984) “The Determinants of Artists’ Earnings”, in
William S. Hendon, Douglas V. Shaw, and Nancy K. Grant (eds.), The Economics of
Cultural Industries. Association for Cultural Economics, Akron.
____________. (1992a) “The Earnings of American Artists: 1960-1980”, Paper presented at the
Seventh International Conference on Cultural Economics, Fort Worth, Texas.
_____________. (1992b) "Towards a Unified Theory of the Determinants of the Earnings of
Artists." in Ruth Towse and Abdul Khakee (eds.), Cultural Economics. Springer-Verlag,
Heidelberg.
Wassall, Gregory H., Neil O. Alper, and Rebecca Davidson. (1983) Art Work. New England
Foundation for the Arts, Cambridge, MA.
45
Endnotes
For a more detailed description of this survey see Information on Artists Report Series.
Research Center for Arts and Culture (1990).
1
2
Because of the small number of respondents who graduated before 1970 we report data on
decade of graduation only for the rest of the sample.
To estimate the mean hourly returns for dance we sum the number of weeks worked in each
type of dance activity limiting the total number of weeks to 52. We then multiply by the number
of hours worked in a typical week. The means were weighted by the number of hours worked in
each activity to eliminate the effects of a few observations with extremely low numbers of hours.
3
4
For a more detailed statistical analysis of these issues see Montgomery and Robinson
(forthcoming).
46
Table 1
Summary of Sample and Respondents
Total
College
Amherst
Hampshire
Mount Holyoke
Smith
Smith (MFA Program)
UMASS
Graduation Year
1990-1998
1980-1989
1970-1979
Prior to 1970
Region of current residence
New England
New York, New Jersey
Other
Total Sample
534
Responses Received
193
6.0%
19.0%
10.2%
15.4%
6.1%
43.4%
4.7%
17.6%
16.1%
18.1%
5.2%
38.3%
31.4%
37.9%
25.5%
5.2%
35.8%
39.4%
18.7%
6.2%
46.7%
29.3%
24.0%
43.5%
26.9%
29.5%
Table 2
Characteristics of Respondents
All
Employed
In Dance
54.4%
100.0%
22.8%
34.2%
15.5%
9.8%
22.8%
85.0%
14.2
Age
37.0
Female
94.8%
White
90.4%
Black
3.7%
Hispanic
3.3%
Number of Children
0.8
Living with spouse or partner
72.8%
Spouse Employed Full-time
85.1%
Age Began Dance Training
8.7
Pursued formal Graduate Studies
55.4%
Field of Degree
Dance
23.3%
Body/Movement
10.4%
Other Professional
20.7%
*Recent graduates graduated in 1990 or later.
Variable
Dance Employment
Employed in Dance in 1998
In 1998 Employed as:
Dancer
Teacher
Choreographer
Administrator
In more than one category
Employed in Dance Prior to 1998
Total Dance Experience
Not Employed
In Dance
Recent*
Graduates
Earlier
Graduates
0.0%
78.3%
41.1%
41.9%
61.9%
28.6%
18.1%
41.9%
96.2%
20.9
71.6%
6.2
40.6%
39.1%
20.2%
15.9%
34.8%
85.5%
6.7
12.9%
31.5%
12.9%
6.4%
16.1%
84.7%
18.3
34.6
95.2%
89.4%
4.8%
3.0%
0.6
71.2%
80.8%
8.9
47.6%
38.4
94.3%
91.7%
2.4%
3.6%
1.1
74.7%
90.5%
8.5
62.5%
28.2
95.7%
91.2%
4.4%
7.5%
0.2
55.1%
81.0%
8.6
31.8
41.2
94.4%
90.1%
3.3%
0.9%
1.2
82.8%
89.2%
8.8
66.9
32.4%
8.6%
6.7%
12.5%
12.5%
37.5%
15.9%
5.8%
10.1%
27.4%
12.9%
26.6%
47
Table 3
Graduate Education (%)
Pursued formal Graduate Studies
Field of Degree
Dance
Body/Movement
Other Professional
Type of Degree
MFA
MA
MBA
PhD
Other
Total
54.9
Dance Emp
48.6
Non-Dance Emp
62.5
23.3
10.4
20.7
32.4
8.6
6.7
12.5
12.5
37.5
15.0
14.5
2.1
3.6
24.4
20.0
13.3
0.0
3.8
16.2
9.1
15.9
4.5
3.4
34.1
Table 4
Decade of Graduation by Graduate Education (%)
Graduation Decade
1990-1998
1980-1989
1970-1979
None
68.1
32.9
38.9
Dance
15.9
23.7
27.8
Body/Movement
5.8
15.8
11.1
Other Prof.
10.1
27.6
22.2
Table 5
Employment History (%)
Employed in Dance in 1998
Employed
as a Dancer
as a Teacher
as a Choreographer
as an Administrator
in more than one category
In 1998
54.4
22.8
34.2
15.5
9.8
22.8
Prior to 1998
85.0
62.5
51.0
65.1
33.9
63.6
Table 6
Type of Organization by Dance Job (%)
Total
Dancer
Choreo
Teacher
Ballet Company
8.8
6.8
3.3
3.0
Theatrical Company
5.9
2.2
6.7
0.0
Modern Dance Company
43.1
52.3
36.7
6.1
Ethnic
3.9
4.5
0.0
1.5
School K-12
16.7
4.5
16.7
15.2
College or University
34.3
2.2
0.0
40.9
Dance Studio
35.3
2.2
6.7
40.9
Other
57.8
31.8
40.0
16.7
Note: The total column does not sum to 100 because of multiple job holding.
Note: Respondents may work in multiple types of companies.
Admin
5.0
0.0
25.0
5.0
15.0
0.0
20.0
15.0
48
Figure 1-Where FCCD Alumnae Work
Ballet Company
Theatrical Company
Other
Modern Dance Company
Ethnic Dance
School K-12
Dance Studio
College or University
Table 7
Type of Dance Employment by Region (%)
Region
New England
New York
Other
Employed in Dance
52.4
63.5
49.1
Dancer
16.7
34.6
21.1
Choreo
15.5
15.4
15.8
Teacher
36.9
25.0
38.6
Admin
9.5
13.5
7.0
49
Figure 2 - Type of Dance Employment by Region
45
40
35
Percent
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
New England
New York
Dancer
Choreo
Teacher
Other
Admin
Table 8
Decade of Graduation by Employment Status (%)
Graduation Decade
1990-1998
1980-1989
1970-1979
Employed
in Dance
78.3
40.8
38.9
Dancer
40.6
10.5
13.8
Choreo
20.3
11.8
11.1
Teacher
39.1
30.3
30.6
Admin
15.9
7.9
2.8
50
Table 9
Total Years of Dance Experience Prior to 1998
Type of Dance Employment
Dancer
4.6
6.4
Choreographer
3.6
5.9
Teacher
5.5
7.8
Administrator
1.8
2.8
3.2
1.4
3.9
0.9
By Type of Degree
None
Dance Degree
Body/Movement
Other Professional
3.8
8.6
3.8
1.9
2.8
8.2
0.6
1.8
3.8
10.5
4.8
3.7
1.7
3.7
0.3
0.7
By Decade of Graduation
1990s
1980s
1970s
2.4
4.5
7.1
1.7
3.1
7.2
2.1
4.8
10.5
0.9
1.9
3.0
Full Sample
In Dance in 1998
Not in Dance in 1998
(with prior dance experience)
Figure 3 - Years Teaching and in Dance by Decade of Graduation
25
20
Years
15
10
5
0
1990's
1980's
1970's
Decade of Graduation
Years Since Graduation
Years Teaching
Years Dancing
51
Table 10
Aspects of Non-Dance Employment of Artists Employed in Dance (%)
Principal profession is dance
Have a non-dance job
75.5
61.0
For those employed in dance with a non-dance job
Need a non-dance job for support
Receive health insurance from non-dance job
Receive retirement benefits from non-dance job
73.1
41.0
28.8
For all those employed in dance
Need a non-dance job for support
Receive health insurance from non-dance job
Receive retirement benefits from non-dance job
46.7
26.7
18.1
Figure 4 - Non-Dance Jobs among those Employed in Dance
Have a Non-Dance
Job (Not
Necessary for
Support)
14%
No Non-Dance Job
39%
Have a Non-Dance
Job (Necessary for
support)
47%
52
Table 11
A. Dance/Non-Dance Employment by Decade of Graduation (%)
Decade of
Graduation
1990-1998
1980-1989
1970-1979
Not Employed
in Dance
21.7
59.2
60.0
Employed in Dance
No Non-Dance Job
26.1
17.1
17.1
Employed in Dance
Have a Non-Dance Job
52.2
23.7
22.9
B. Dance/Non-Dance Employment by Type of Graduate Work (%)
Graduate Work
None
Dance
Body/Movement
Other Professional
Not Employed
in Dance
36.8
24.4
55.0
82.5
Employed in Dance
No Non-Dance Job
19.5
46.7
0.0
7.5
Employed in Dance
Have a Non-Dance Job
43.7
28.9
45.0
10.0
C. Dance/Non-Dance Employment by Region of Residence (%)
Region
New England
New York
Other
Not Employed
in Dance
47.6
36.5
50.0
Employed in Dance
No Non-Dance Job
20.2
21.1
23.2
Employed in Dance
Have a Non-Dance Job
32.1
42.3
26.8
Figure 5 - Type of Dance Employment By Decade of Graduation
70
60
Percent
50
40
30
20
10
0
1990-1998
Not Employed in Dance
1980-1989
Have Dance and Non-Dance Job
1970-1979
Only Employed in Dance
53
Figure 6 - Dance Employment by Type of Graduate Work
80
70
60
Percent
50
40
30
20
10
0
None
Dance
Body/Movement
Other Professional
Type of Graduate Work
Employed only in Dance
Employed in dance and have a non-dance job
Table 12
Field of Non-Dance Employment (%)
Field
Non-dance Arts Related
Movement, Fitness, Health
Business and Professional
Education
Service-Non-Professional
Other
Not
Employed in
Dance
13.6
20.5
39.8
9.1
6.8
3.0
Employed in
Dance
12.5
18.8
25.0
10.9
31.3
1.5
Employed in
Employed in
Dance
Dance
Graduated before Graduated in the
1990
1990s
7.1
16.7
25.0
13.9
28.6
22.2
21.4
2.8
14.3
44.4
3.6
0.0
54
Figure 7a
Non-Dance Jobs Held by those Employed in Dance Graduating before 1990
Movement, Fitness,
Health
25%
Non-dance Arts Related
7%
Business and
Professional
29%
Other
4%
Service-NonProfessional
14%
Education
21%
Figure 7b
Non-Dance Jobs Held by those Employed in Dance Graduating in the 1990s
Movement, Fitness,
Health
14%
Non-dance Arts Related
17%
Other
0%
Business and
Professional
22%
Service-NonProfessional
44%
Education
3%
55
Table 13
Job Search For Dance Employment (%)
Want Ads
FCDD connections
Friends and Relatives
Business Associates
Private Employment Agency
Booking Agent
Student Placement Office
Public Employment Office
39.5
31.2
45.9
42.2
2.8
8.3
6.4
2.8
Job Search For Non-Dance Employment (%)
Emp.
In Dance
51.4
54.1
44.6
7.6
2.7
4.1
All
52.5
54.6
53.2
13.5
2.1
4.7
Want Ads
Friends and Relatives
Business Associates
Private Employment Agency
Student Placement Office
Public Employment Office
Not Emp
In Dance
53.7
55.2
62.7
16.4
1.5
4.5
Figure 8 - Job Search Activities in Dance
Public Employment Office
Student Placement Office
Booking Agent
Private Employment Agency
Business Associates
Friends and Relatives
FCDD connections
Want Ads
0
5
10
15
20
25
Percent
30
35
40
45
50
56
Table 14
Income and Earnings
For those Employed in Dance
Total Dance Related Earnings
Total Individual Income
Total Household Income
Non-labor Income
Non-Dance Earnings
Those with
Only-Dance Jobs
$27,725
$32,744
$101,989
$4,130
$0
All
$16,150
$29,021
$71,689
$1,872
$10,245
Those with
Non-Dance Jobs
$9,097
$26,638
$52,174
$462
$17,232
Earnings as Dancer
$2,182
$2,383
$2,057
Earnings as Choreographer
$2,387
$3,798
$1,506
Earnings as Dance Teacher
$7,276
$13,256
$3,539
Earnings as Dance Administrator
$3,688
$8,417
$733
Earnings from other Dance work
$482
$198
$655
Grants
$415
$110
$607
Note: Because of some non-responses the components of total individual income do not up precisely to total
individual income.
For those Not Employed in Dance
Total Individual Income
Total Household Income
Non-labor Income
Non-Dance Earnings
Mean
$44,321
$99,130
$1,597
$40,816
Table 15
Hourly Earnings in Dance and Non-Dance
Total Sample
Employed in Dance
(No Non-Dance Job)
(With a Non-Dance Job)
Not Employed in Dance
Hourly Dance Earnings
$7.63
Hourly Non-Dance Earnings
$17.65
$10.05
$5.39
-
$14.95
$18.72
57
Figure 9 - Sources of Earnings of those in Dance
Grants
1%
Earnings from other
Dance work
2%
Earnings as Dance
Administrator
13%
Non-labor Income
7%
Non-Dance Earnings
36%
Earnings as Dance
Teacher
25%
Earnings as
Choreographer
8%
Earnings as Dancer
8%
Figure 10 - Dance and Non-Dance Earnings
$45,000.00
$40,000.00
$35,000.00
$30,000.00
$
$25,000.00
$20,000.00
$15,000.00
$10,000.00
$5,000.00
$0.00
No Dance Job
Both Dance and Non-Dance
Job
Non-Dance Earnings
Dance Earnings
No Non-Dance Job
58
Table 16
Dance Income by Type of Dance Employment
Job Type
Dancers
Dancing Income
Total Dance Related
Income
$3,514
$13,920
Choreographers
Choreographing Income
Total Dance Related
$3,515
$11,927
Teachers
Teaching Income
Total Dance Related
$9,015
$15,082
Administrator
Administration Income
Total Dance Related
$10,679
$20,985
Table 17
Percent Ever Receiving a Grant (%)
Source
Private Foundation
Government Program
Other Source
Any of the above
Currently Emp.in Dance
38.8
28.9
17.4
49.5
Once Employed in Dance
30.2
22.3
11.9
36.6
59
Figure 11 - Distribution of Dance Income
$60,001 and over
$55,001-$60,000
$50,001-$55,000
$45,001-$50,000
$40,001-$45,000
$35,001-$40,001
$30,001-$35,000
$25,001-$30,000
$20,001-$25,000
$15,001-$20,000
$10,001-$15,000
$5,001-10,000
$1-$5,000
$0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Percent
Table 18
Non-Dance Income by Type of Non-Dance Employment ($)
All Graduates with Non-Dance Jobs
Non-Dance Occupation
Non-Dance Arts Related
Movement, Fitness, Health
Business and Professional
Education
Service Non-Professional
Not employed in Dance
Annual Income
$35,500
$31,707
$66,072
$29,700
$10,333
Employed in Dance
Annual Income
$6,489
$18,605
$21,790
$48,471
$6,177
60
Figure 12 - Dance and Non-Dance Income by Age
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
$
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Less then 30
30-39
40-49
50+
Age
Dance Income
Non-Dance Income
Figure 13 - Dance and Non-Dance Income by Dance Experience
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
$
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
No Dance
Experience
1 to 5
6 to 10
11 to 15
Years of Dance Experience
Dance Income
Non-Dance Income
16 and over
61
Figure 14 - Dance and Non-Dance Income by Postgraduate Education
50,000
40,000
$
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
None
Other Professional
Body/Movement
Dance
Type of Degree
Dance Income
Non-Dance Income
Figure 15 - Average Dance Income by Type of Dance Organization
$25,000.00
$20,000.00
$15,000.00
$10,000.00
$5,000.00
$0.00
Ballet
Theatre
Modern
Ethnic
Type of Organization
K12
College
Studio
62
Table 19
Dance Costs
Type of Cost
All
Dancer
Choreo
Teacher
Admin
Organized Study, Training, Classes, Coaches
$893
$1,320
$697
$640 $1,340
Travel
$650
$670
$746
$463
$825
Publicity Marketing
$334
$192
$664
$333
$337
Rental of Performance and Practice Space
$359
$394
$638
$346
$253
Agents fees
$204
$167
$481
$38
$368
Royalties
$34
$3
$114
$5
$0
Clothing and costumes, make up
$490
$548
$399
$446
$730
Other
$663
$372
$763
$563
$176
Total
$4,276
$3,902
$5,309
$2,988 $7,553
Total Dance Income
$16,150
$13,920
$11,927
$15,082 $20,985
Dance Profits
$11,797
$9,927
$6,617
$12,008 $13,431
Note: Components of total costs may not sum to total costs since some respondents reported only total costs.
Figure 16 - Dance Costs
Organized Study,
Training, Classes,
Coaches
24%
Other
18%
Clothing and
costumes, make
up
14%
Royalties
1%
Agents fees
6%
Rental of
Performance and
Practice Space
10%
Travel
18%
Publicity
Marketing
9%
63
Table 20
Weeks of Employment in 1998
For Those Employed in Dance
Weeks Worked as
Weeks
Dancer
31.4
Choreographer
24.5
Dance Teacher
32.0
Dance Administrator
32.1
Non-Dance Job
38.7
Note: For those reporting work in that field. For the non-dance jobs the sample is those employed in dance that have
a non-dance job.
Table 21
Hours per Week of Dance and Non-Dance Activity in 1998
Activity
Dancing and rehearsing
Self-imposed practice and taking classes
Teaching and coaching dance
Working as a choreographer
Working as a dance administrator
Doing other dance work
Total dance related
Doing non-dance work
Total hours working
Looking for work
Dance Job
Only
13.4
3.8
11.5
5.1
14.0
3.8
51.6
1.1
52.7
0.1
Dance Job
& Non-Dance Job
13.6
4.7
6.6
4.6
4.6
2.6
36.7
24.1
60.8
1.2
Non-Dance
Job Only
0.8
1.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
2.7
37.8
40.5
0.3
Table 22
Hours per Week of Dance and Non-Dance Activity in 1998
For Graduates Employed in Dance
By Type of Dance Work
Activity
Dancing and rehearsing
Self-imposed practice and taking classes
Teaching and coaching dance
Working as a choreographer
Working as a dance administrator
Doing other dance work
Total dance related
Dancer
19.7
5.7
7.3
4.1
5.9
2.0
44.7
Choreo.
16.9
4.9
7.4
7.9
7.3
2.5
46.9
Teacher
10.5
4.1
10.1
4.5
6.6
3.1
38.9
Admin.
11.3
4.4
11.0
5.4
24.6
1.8
58.5
Doing non-dance work
16.6
14.2
13.5
13.8
Total hours working
Looking for work
61.3
0.6
61.1
1.2
52.4
0.5
72.3
1.8
64
Table 23
Region of Residence in 1998 (%)
Graduation Decade
1990-1998
1980-1989
1970-1979
New England
43.5
44.7
41.7
New York Area
33.3
17.1
30.6
Other
18.8
38.2
27.8
Table 24
Reasons for Choosing Current Location of Residence (%)
Reason for Current Location
Dance Related Reasons
Employment opportunities in dance
Financial and other support for dance
Five College Dance contacts
Network of Peers
Affordable workspace
All Dance Related Reasons
Emp. in Dance
Non-Dance Related Reasons
Non-dance related employment
Educational opportunities
Employment of partner
Affordable living space
Not emp in dance
61.9
27.6
13.3
28.6
13.3
80.8
10.3
2.3
5.7
10.3
6.9
19.2
25.7
24.8
31.4
38.1
39.1
26.4
36.7
24.1
For those employed in Dance (%)
Reason for Current Location
Dance Related Reasons
Employment opportunities in dance
Financial and other support for dance
Five College Dance contacts
Network of Peers
Affordable workspace
All Dance Related Reasons
Non-Dance Related Reasons
Non-dance related employment
Educational opportunities
Employment of partner
Affordable living space
New England
New York
Other
45.5
15.9
11.4
20.5
45.5
61.4
75.8
36.4
18.2
45.5
27.3
90.9
71.4
35.7
10.7
21.4
39.3
82.1
27.3
18.2
45.5
45.5
30.3
39.4
18.2
27.3
17.9
17.9
25.0
39.3
65
Table 25
Assessment of FCDD
The Department Has Provided me with Excellent Technical Training (%)
All
Agree
Strongly
46.3
Agree
Mod.
43.6
No
Opinon
2.1
Disagree
Mod.
6.9
Disagree
Strongly
1.1
Curr. Emp. In Dance
Ever Emp. In Dance
41.7
47.8
47.6
41.6
1.9
1.9
7.8
8.1
1.0
0.6
The Department Has Provided me with ongoing support for my work (%)
All
Agree
Strongly
10.3
Agree
Mod.
15.7
No
Opinon
38.9
Disagree
Mod.
17.3
Disagree
Strongly
17.8
Curr. Emp. In Dance
Ever Emp. In Dance
14.4
12.0
21.6
16.4
27.9
34.0
18.3
19.5
18.3
18.2
The Department Has Provided me with an important network of colleagues (%)
All
Agree
Strongly
14.4
Agree
Mod.
18.7
No
Opinon
35.8
Disagree
Mod.
18.2
Disagree
Strongly
12.8
Curr. Emp. In Dance
Ever Emp. In Dance
22.1
15.6
24.0
19.4
27.9
32.5
15.4
19.4
10.6
13.1
66
Appendix 1: Survey
To:
FIVE COLLEGE DANCE ALUMAE/I
From:
SALLY MONTGOMERY
Economics, Mount Holyoke College
phone: 413-538-2145
email: smontgom@mtholyoke.edu
and
MICHAEL ROBINSON,
Economics, Mount Holyoke College
phone: 413-538-2215
email: mirobins@mtholyoke.edu
We are grateful to the Five College Dance Department for providing us with the addresses of its
graduates so that we can survey you about your work lives. We want to learn about the variety of
ways you have pursued professional careers, how you allocate your time among your dance and
other work, and the sources of your income. We also are curious about the formal and informal
networks you use for information and professional support and about your career paths since
graduating from college. We want to hear not only from those currently working in dance but also
from those who have chosen other work.
Although several economists, including ourselves, have done earlier studies on artists’
professional lives, this is, we believe, the first study devoted exclusively to dancers. Through the
questionnaire and some follow-up telephone interviews, we should gain a substantially fuller
understanding of the economics of your profession. We also hope that what we learn will be
valuable for the Five College Dance Department as it moves into its third decade. Please be
assured that your answers are completely anonymous. Return of the enclosed postcard with your
respondent number on it ensures that you will not receive a questionnaire in a follow-up mailing.
That respondent number is not recorded on your questionnaire.
What you have to tell us is important. We urge you to fill out the questionnaire as completely as
possible and return it to us promptly in the enclosed envelope. Please do not hesitate to call or
email either of us, if you have questions.
A SURVEY OF DANCERS’ WORK LIVES
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
1.
At what age did you begin your dance training?
2.
Which of the Five Colleges did you attend?
3.
What was your major?
4.
When did you graduate?
5.
Did you pursue any formal graduate studies?
If yes, in what field(s)
6.
Which, if any, graduate degrees have you earned?
MFA
MA
(specify field)
MBA
PhD
(specify field)
Other
(specify degree & field)
Yes
No
67
OCCUPATION AND EMPLOYMENT
7.
In 1998 were you employed in the field of dance?
8.
Yes
No
If yes, please refer to the lists on the back page of this questionnaire and indicate
below what kind of organization and job type best describes your dance work. If you had more
than one dance job, please list each separately and rank them in terms of the income you received
in 1998, with “1” the highest
Type of Organization
9.
Job Type
Are you a member of any union or professional organization?
Rank by Income
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
13.
Do you believe that what you studied in college and/or graduate school Yes
helped you obtain this non-dance position?
No
14.
Do you look on your dance job as your principal profession?
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
If yes, specify
10.
Did you work in any non-dance job(s) in 1998?
If yes, describe
11.
Was your non-dance job necessary to support you economically
in your dance work?
12.
Did your non-dance job provide you with
Health insurance?
Retirement benefits
If no, what is your principal profession?
15.
16.
Have you ever received a grant for your dance work
From a private individual or foundation?
From a government program?
From another source? (specify)
Prior to 1998, but after you graduated from college, did you ever work as a
Dancer?
Yes
No
If yes, for how many years?
Choreographer?
Yes
No
If yes, for how many years?
Dance teacher?
Yes
No
If yes, for how many years?
Dance administrator? Yes
No
If yes, for how many years?
68
17.
If you no longer work professional in the field of dance, do you still
participate in it on an amateur basis?
Yes
No
If yes, specify
18. Indicate below the number of weeks you worked at each of your jobs during 1998. Include
both
full-time and part-time work. The number of weeks may total more than 52, if you held
more than
one job at a time.
Weeks worked as:
Dancer
Choreographer
Dance teacher
Dance administrator
Other dance job
Non-dance job(s)
19.
How many hours did you spend in the following activities during a typical week in 1998?
(Note: there are 168 hours in a week and most people eat and sleep during some of them.)
Hours spent:
Dancing
Participating in organized rehearsals
Self-imposed practice and taking classes
Teaching and coaching dance
Working as a choreographer
Working as dance administrator
Doing other dance work
Doing non-dance work
Looking for work
20.
How do you look for employment in the dance field? (check all that apply)
Non-applicable
Want ads
Fellow graduates & teachers from FCDD
Other friends and relatives
Business associates
Private employment agency
Booking agent
Student placement office
Public employment office
Other (specify)
21. How do you look for employment in non-dance fields? (check all that apply)
Non-applicable
Want ads
Friends or relatives
Business associates
Private employment agency
69
Student placement office
Public employment office
Other (specify)
INCOME AND EXPENSES
(In answering these questions, please remember that your responses are anonymous.)
22.
What was the total income (before taxes) in 1998 of all members of your household
including yourself? Include wages, salaries, interest, dividends, rent, social security
benefits, welfare benefits, and grants.
$
23.
How much of your total household income was earned by you?
24.
What percent (or dollar amount) of your own income was derived from:
Work as a dancer?
Work as a choreographer?
Work as a dance teacher?
Work as a dance administrator?
Other dance work? (specify)
Grants?
Non-labor income(interest, dividends, rent)?
Other (specify)
$
Total
(Please note that the numbers above should total 100% or else they should
total the dollar amount given in answer to question 23.)
25.
In the table below, estimate your annual costs during 1998 of working in dance.
Please list only those costs for which you were not reimbursed by an employer.
Type of cost incurred:
Organized study, training, classes, coaches
Travel
Publicity/Marketing
Rental of performance and practice space
Agent’s fees
Royalties
Clothing and costumes, make-up
Other (specify)
Total Costs
$ Amount
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
70
DEMOGRAPHICS
26.
What is your age?
27.
What is your sex?
28.
What is your race?
Native American
African American
Asian
White
Other (specify)
29.
Are you of Spanish/Hispanic origin or descent?
Yes
No
29.
Are you currently living with a spouse or other person with
whom you share income and living expenses?
Yes
No
31.
If yes, is he/she
Working full-time (at least 35 hours a week)?
Working part-time (between 1 and 35 hours a week)?
Not working?
32.
How many children are there currently in your household
Of pre-school age (kindergarten or less)?
Of school age?
33.
In what state is your current residence?
34.
What were your reasons for choosing your current residence?
(rank all that apply with 1 the most important)
Employment opportunities in dance
Financial and other support for dance
Non-dance related employment
Educational opportunities
Employment of partner
Affordable workspace
Affordable living space
Five College Dance contacts
Network of peers
Other (specify)
71
ASSESSMENT OF FIVE COLLEGE DANCE PROGRAM
35. Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements
about the
program of the Five College Dance Department.
Agree
strongly
Agree
moderately
No
opinion
Disagree
moderately
Disagree
strongly
a. The program provided me
with excellent technical
training.
b. The program has provided
me with ongoing support in
my work.
c. The program has provided
me with an important
network of colleagues.
36.
Please comment at whatever length you choose on:
(1) any effects that the program of the Five College Dance Department has had on your
career, and
(2) your overall evaluation of the program.
37. If there are any important aspects of your work life in dance that you feel are not discussed
above,
please comment on them in the space below.
Thank you for your time and thought in completing this questionnaire. Please return it in the
envelope provided and also separately return the postcard. On the postcard indicate if you would
be willing to be contacted by telephone and asked some further questions.
List of organizations and job types for Question 8
ORGANIZATION TYPE
Ballet Company
Theatrical Company
School, K-12
Publication
College or University
Dance Studio
Dance Competition
Other (specify)
Modern Dance Company
Ethnic/Folk/Jazz Dance Company
JOB TYPE
Dancer
Teacher
Coach
Critic
Administrator
Inter-media Artist
Choreographer
Performance Artist
Other (specify)