I think this thread has actually lost sight entirely of what Syd was asking in the first place which was whether or not training at a drama school was more worthwhile than obtaining training on passing courses, but as she has made a dignified reply to the developments in this increasingly raucous thread several posts ago, I won't belabour the point.
Three aspects of this argument that occur to me:
1. Understanding how 'accreditation' works is important in order to understand why some courses are accredited and others are not. It has more to do with how long the course has been running, whether it runs consistently year upon year, and (I think) whether the establishment in question is prepared to pay for accreditation, as to whether a course is NCDT accredited or otherwise. It is used as a benchmark of that course's quality, although Luke's point is basically correct - the tutors on non - accredited courses are very often the same ones who teach on accredited courses elsewhere. It is the course that gets the rubberstamp, not the individual tutors. It is also worth considering that some drama schools run courses which are both accredited and non-accredited on their curriculum; this again is a reflection on the course's status, not the status of the drama school.
2. I think it goes without saying that any actor who can truly act will have learnt they can do so without training - the vast majority start with no training at all, and it is rarely kids who went to stage school etc. who make the best actors in adult life. To return to Syd's point a little, though, training of any kind is a useful honing tool - it changes a previously good, but raw, actor into a business savvy, more reliable professional. Or it should do so. I was lucky (or intelligent enough?) to wait until I had experience under my belt, and then train as a postgraduate. I have to say I thought the quality of those in my year was phenomenal, and the majority have gone on to work successfully within the industry. But then, as post-grads, they all knew they could act before they took on the task of making themselves *better* actors. The great problem with undergraduate courses remains that, like undergraduates in every field (and I should know - I've taught undergraduates at university level), many of them have no real idea about what they can bring to the industry when they start. They begin 'work' as wet behind the ears 17 or 18 year olds, and 3 years later, they still haven't learned mature disciplines or taken any lasting notice of what their tutors tried to teach them. The good, naturally, come through all this, and capitalise upon their talent - but no wonder so many drama schools products of this type are 'crap' - what experience do they have to bring to their acting? You can take the horse to water etc.
3. With all this said, what must be considered, however, is the attitude that casting directors, directors etc. will take towards matters like NCDT accredited training. It is foolish to characterise these people as 'small minded' (even if that is what they are) as they run the entirety of the industry you are attempting to work in. The actor has to recognise how their thought processes work...and it cannot be denied that, in an oversaturated market for talent, they seize on any possible weakness in order to winnow out those they do not consider worth seeing for a role. Discarding those who have a non accredited training (or, at least, a non accredited training at an institution they haven't heard of or don't rate) is one of the easiest possible methods for them. Facts should be faced: they dismiss many accredited actors who have trained at lesser CDS schools because they are not 'prestigious' enough; indeed, they dismiss the majority who have been to the best schools in the country (RADA, LAMDA, Bristol Old Vic etc.)!
I think Luke's point is perfectly fair - which is that the TEACHING on a non-accredited course is frequently every bit as good as that found on a NCDT course (often because it is taught by the same teachers in different venues!). But that the accreditation will go further towards reassuring casting directors later down the line appears to be true.
On a site like CCP, I think all this matters much less...but this is only because I rarely think you are cast in something on CCP via the consideration of where you went to drama school. On CCP, it doesn't matter. When you are dealing with big name members of the Casting Directors Guild of Great Britain, it can do.
