Fleet23

I have a friend who got accepted last year with no interview. He found out in late March I think, so suspects he was waitlisted while they interviewed most. 

Yes! I hope they don't do that in January, though. Any email from the admissions office makes my stomach do somersaults.

I went to visit TC and Vandy, and was far more impressed with the advisor I met with at TC. Didn't get a change to visit HGSE, but with the scholarship offers and the strong impression made by my visit, I just made the best decision I could. Looking back, I think I'd choose HGSE if I had it to do over again. Even if it was slightly more expensive, it seems to be less of a diploma mill than TC.

Keep your heads up! I got in a couple of years ago, and I had neither a title on my SoP, nor higher than a 4.5 AWA.

I don't really understand the conflict here.  Why could you not do both?
 
My process is as follows: Complete paper, present paper at a conference, get feedback, make revisions according to said feedback, submit paper for publication.  Moreover, you can add another step in there: after completing revisions, workshop the paper at another conference and then submit to journals.  Presenting and publishing are not mutually exclusive; they can (and, I believe, should) reinforce one another.

@moyru, if it makes you feel any better, one of my LOR was about two weeks late, and I still got in.

If you plan on a terminal degree anyway, can't you apply straight to PhD programs? You have a much higher chance of getting funding for a PhD vs an MA.

My strong advice would be to seek full-time employment in higher ed (in your case, in admissions) prior to graduate school.  It will give you time to decompress from undergrad, obtain practical experience and get a better sense of what you want your career to look like.  It will also make your grad school experience much richer, since master's degrees in HE/SA take a very practical, applied approach.
 
You may also find that admissions isn't a good fit or that your future isn't in higher ed.  Far better to figure that out BEFORE investing in a graduate program.
 
Your undergrad major is irrelevant.

A simple "Hi, how's it going?" is as good a way as any to break the ice. Ask "Do you mind if I sit with you?" in classes and meetings instead of just sitting by yourself (they almost certainly won't). You don't have to launch into a soliloquy in front of them, just show you're interested in them and desire their company. 

I am a new Doctor of Education Leadership (Ed.L.D.) candidate at HGSE this year. I'm happy to answer any questions or be of service in any way if you are looking to apply this fall.

I'd recommend cardio exercise 30 minutes a day (ex: cycling, running, etc) to help keep depression at bay. Remember to spend some time with good friends or family and keep up your favourite hobbies/activities during your free time. Even if your schedule is hectic, find one hour everyday to do these things (it can be broken up into two 30 minute blocks of time if needed). Remember to do at least one thing every day that typically makes you happy to take your mind off of your troubles and to give your day more meaning and happiness.

Of the 15 or so TFA CMs in my school, I know of none who are teaching their area of expertise.  I know a Chemistry major teaching math, a Biology major teaching math, a history major teaching Biology, a history major teaching ELL, a business law major teaching math, etc.  You'll be placed where the need is greatest.  If you go the traditional route, not only will you be better prepared, but you'll have a lot more control over your career.

If you get a traditional education degree, you should be able to get a job in any of the areas where TFA or TNTP are located since these areas are typically desperate for teachers.

Your preparation in many "traditional" programs will probably be better as well. Although TFA participants have shown well in some studies, particularly with increasing students' math scores, their training is typically rushed; as mentioned above, they are headed into schools that are desperate for teachers, many times because they are difficult schools. A traditional program, with structured observations and student teaching with a responsible cooperating teacher, may be better if this is the career for you.
 
I just started working in a university that trains some teachers using the "Professional Development School" model of teacher training. Co-teaching is a key component of our interpretation of this model, and this means student teachers/"interns" go right into the classroom as active participants, rather than wallflowers who just observe for a period of time before being thrown to the fire. If I had the opportunity to do my teacher training over again, I would absolutely look for something like this, rather than "alternative" programs that pump teachers out whose true preparation for the rigors of teaching is in question to say the least.

$20 couch. (I'm the 3rd owner).

While I understand where you're coming from, having taught in public schools as well, your stated claim potentially restricts the power of reform and the positive changes that it might bring to schools and kids. This doesn't mean that we have to tear down every facet of the system and start from scratch, but we need to be cognizant of the fact that our methods of teaching and schooling are at the very least underperforming, and they are in need of some serious, and maybe systemic, changes. Teacher education, standardized assessment, teacher's unions and representation, standards, school funding, "accountability", teacher evaluations, and a host of other issues have been and should be part of this conversation, to the point of being changed. Such a willingness to truly improve the system should mean that no aspect is sacred, and at the same time no aspect is evil or always bad. Our biases towards or against different people or programs or political and economic approaches, or even our fondness for how we were prepared, cannot dictate the course we chart towards reform.
 
Methodologically, the NCTQ study has serious flaws, but their conclusion is true: teacher education is a logical area to improve. I don't understand how NCQT can claim that it can accurately gauge an interactive activity like teaching and teacher preparation merely by examining documents, booklets, and handouts. I've read just about the whole report, so I have a rudimentary understanding of their data collection, but I don't know what this really tells you. Without factoring in faculty and the quality of instruction, which would admittedly be difficult to collect and to evaluate given the amount of data and its subjectivity, one is really left with only a paper shell of a teacher education program. Also, the lack of focus on alternative certification programs, which I guess will be measured in subsequent reports, is disconcerting, as these programs are bringing an increasing number of educators into the classroom, and these programs vary tremendously from program to program.
 
If you disregard the data they collected and how they analyzed it, instead looking only at the logic of their approach, the NCQT does have a point. Teacher education is a vital experience for pre-service teacher, so its effectiveness should be a key issue.
 
Can you really tell me that teacher education is not contributing to the problems we have? Whether you think that the best students should fill the ranks of teachers or not, the reality is that there are some particularly uninspiring and limited people in our classrooms. I've worked with them--hell, maybe I was one of them my first year of teaching, and they seem to be an overwhelming majority in the schools I've worked. I worked with one teacher in New Mexico who had joined our staff after completing a degree at the state's "flagship university," and she did not know how to write a lesson plan. Her ability to manage a classroom was nil. Curriculum design? Forget it. I won't just point the finger, either. I went through alternative certification in New Mexico, and I was left woefully unprepared for the world I entered. 
 
"Special education", "inclusion", "differentiation", "co-teaching", etc should not be buzzwords. They should be tools and approaches, theoretical and yet practical, that the new teacher should be familiar with, if not well-versed in. The very basics of teaching, things like ye ole lesson planning, should be engrained in prospective teachers.
 
What I've read in the report doesn't jive with parts of your post. The NCQT doesn't insist that "only the top students" be accepted to teaching programs; the recommendation is that a higher bar is set, and the specific suggestion (if I recall correctly) was a 3.2 GPA and 1120 SAT average, for the entire program. Those numbers do not necessarily mean much. I know a girl from my hometown who scored poorly on the SAT, yet she is fantastic with children. She ended up going to a second-choice school, majoring in elementary education, and she seems to be doing quite well in the classroom. I don't think the NCQT is saying people like her should be passed over simply because of a standardized test score, but generally speaking we should be looking to draw in talented individuals. Perhaps that is an ideal, one that is not properly incentivized at present. But our teacher education programs have went in the opposite direction; rather than allow qualifying candidates trickle in after meeting high standards, they have opened the floodgates and allowed virtually anyone to be a teacher. True, colleges of education can't make teaching attractive on their own, but that doesn't mean they have to use their programs as a cash cow, either.
 
For sure, a closer look is needed at the items you mentioned: faculty, quality of field experiences, alternative programs, and other important criteria need to be weighed to make this kind of effort truly effective. What I see in the report does concern me, regardless of the foundation or person who inspired the study or what their motivation are. I'm headed to graduate school this fall, on a statement of purpose that addressed engagement in teacher education as arguably the biggest issue education and schooling faces in the US.

dabuabdo: I've been out of the market for an M.Ed, MAT, or MA for a long time, but I wanted to add one suggestion. If you're looking to teach, I would give more weight to MAT programs than many MA/M.Ed programs. Based on people I've met and talked to in the past, I think the MAT programs do a much better job preparing people to teach. I know I did an M.Ed, which included initial certification, and we spent a hell of a lot of time on research methodology and very little on more practical matters. I'm happy that I had that experience now, as I'm heading back to graduate school, but six years ago this training wasn't too useful to me as I headed into the 7-12 classroom.
 
My colleagues who had MATs didn't seem to share in this experience, and they seemed much more versatile than I was. Perhaps some of that comes down to personality and/or experience, but I feel like I've observed a definite trend among people who have a MAT (versus the other graduate degrees).

You were admitted to UCSF's program because they were confident you would be able to successfully complete your degree there. If UCSF is truly the academic powerhouse that you say it is in your field and if it will help you accomplish your career goals then it should be the obvious answer here.

The name shouldn't matter. Call them school X, Y, and Z. No, I mean you should really forget the names of the schools. Would you still want to attend school X, which is expensive and doesn't have any research opportunities? What are you planning on doing beyond the Master's, a PhD? If so, I'd say research is more important than whatever you could learn in classes at school X. So I'd say Y and Z are much stronger options. 

I don't know about Harvard specifically, but I think most are generally business casual.  I'd err on the business side.

Quote: how far into Harlem would you have to go into before one can get decently priced housing yet still close enough to Columbia?

(sorry I can't actually quote, silly iPad widget.)

To answer this question...as a native New Yorker, I wouldn't recommend trying this; a lot of neighborhood in Harlem, especially east Harlem, are very spotty and can still be dangerous, and without doing a lot of scouting ahead of time on location you just won't know what you're getting in to.

Depending on your definition of "reasonably priced" and "close" the western part of Washington Heights (north of 168th street, west of St. Nicholas) is usually pretty okay, especially the part around 181st and Calibri; I lived on 171st for a year and never felt in danger. Inwood also works well (the area right around Fort Tryon park). Both these neighborhoods are on the 1 train line; when I lived in Washington Heights I could get to the Columbia area in less than 15 minutes by train, or it could be walked in about an hour (three miles).

In all of these neighborhoods, though (Harlem, Washington Heights and Inwood) look out for deals that look a little too good, though. I found a fantastic deal on a one bedroom for $1250 a month...and ended up with bedbugs.

Hope this helps!

So you have no plan to teach?

Please teach for a few years. You'll be amazed at how much better informed you'll be when dealing with educational policy if you've walked a mile or two in our shoes.

Well merit fellowship decisions are out, and I did not receive one (not surprised), so I think that seals the deal for me.  TC was my #1 all along, and offered me a decent scholarship.  It's a weird feeling to think of turning down Harvard though.

Thank you for bringing up this issue Sonic Youth, I think it is important to address.
 
It isn't hard to find critiques of Ed schools, they prepare practitioners for a job that seems a lot easier than it really is. Everyone has had teachers, and they have seen what they do day after day... or at least they think that they understand the life of a teacher. When people say that our schools aren't doing enough for our children, one of the first places they turn to are the Ed schools. Even our current Secretary of Education has made numerous statements about the failings of our nation's Ed schools, and that we need to raise our standards and improve our teacher education and our Ed research in order to stay relevant. When I had doubts about applying for a M.Ed or a M.A. in education, it was because of this daunting uphill battle, not because I would be making less money than I could in another field. Your info states that you are currently enrolled in a M.Ed, so I imagine that you are getting involved in Education for many of the same reasons that all of us (including myself) are pursuing an advanced degree.
 
It seems that you have two main worries about taking on debt for a degree from Harvard.
 
1st- that taking on debt to pay for an Ed degree is not comparable to degrees from other graduate schools because we will not have the same earning potential as graduates from other disciplines.
 
2nd- that "once we get to Cambridge" we will come to see that not all graduate programs are created equal.
 
In response to your first point: I disagree with the underlying premise that the reason to get a degree is to earn more money. I know that I am devoting my time and money to study something that I love, so that I can work in a field that I enjoy. I imagine that those pursuing a degree in medicine, law, business, and the arts and sciences are doing so for similiar reasons. However, if we choose to judge the value of a degree by median income, the case still is not clear cut. In the private sector, there are many alternatives to earning an MBA that will earn more money. There is a glut of people holding MBAs currently, and with the economic downturn, it means less of an advantage in both earnings and job security than was the case a few decades ago. There are also many studies about how there are now too many lawyers and too many doctors... and that many people graduating from these professional schools are unable to pay off their loans for a very long time. Again, I disagree with choosing finances as the sole deciding factor as to the value of a degree, and I think (perhaps unsurprisingly) that education is one of the most valuable things that a person can do with their time and energy.
 
As for your second point, no one is disputing that all grad programs are created equal. If they were, this admissions process would have been very different for all of us. We are excited by the prospect of attending well-regarded Ed schools that produce research that is used not only in the field, but in society as well. Harvard, (among others) is a leader in the field of Education, and its alumni go on to do amazing things. Attending the program is not a golden ticket, and no one thinks it is. We will have to work hard, make the most of the opportunity as we can, and hit the ground running after graduating. If other programs sneer at the Ed school as you seem to imply, so be it. 150 years ago, the field of medicine was not nearly as highly regarded. In 1880, there were only 11 history professors in the more than 800 colleges and unviersities in the US. Education as a field is much  younger than either of these professions, and I bet many of the people in this forum will do everything they can to make sure that the field continues to move forward.

Well said!  I am well aware that paying a lot for a masters is advised against by many.  You described exactly why I am doing it anyway.  I'm a pretty frugal person, so I won't be crushed by the loan payments.  I totally believe this learning experience will be worth my investment even if it does not result in a pay raise.