hesadork

Is you interest in ed policy or in curriculum/learning & instruction? The substance of your post suggests the latter, but you start it and end it talking about policy.

Here are the criteria that were recommended to me that I used during my search: 1) Cost. Spend as little as possible to get this degree. That means applying to programs that have full (or close to it) funding and as well as in-state public universities (or other inexpensive options) with programs that fit your other criteria. Some public universities are very affordable, even for out-of-staters. Caveats: the fully funded programs are super hard to get into because lots and lots of people apply, and some have strong SA orientations that may or may not fit your interests. And many of the "top" ranked programs in USNWR are pricey while their return on investment is questionable. (See below for more on following rankings.) 2) Internship. If you're just out of UG, your program should have a very substantial internship component in a field that interests you. Once you're 3-5+ years out of UG the internship component probably becomes less important, unless you're trying to change fields. (It's another matter entirely whether it's wise for someone just out of UG to go right into a master's, but I'll leave that for another thread.) 3) Orientation of program. This one's tricky. Many people reduce it to "theory vs. practice"...but that's not quite right. The better distinctions are HE (ie, "theory") vs. SA (ie, "practice") or weak/no internship requirement ("theory") vs. strong internship component ("practice") or institution-centered ("theory") vs. student-centered ("practice"), but all of these are a little crude and reductive. The truth is, even the most theory/HE/course-intensive/institution-centric program and the most practice/SA/internship-intensive/student centric program still end up spitting out the same degree with relatively the same entry-level and mid-level earning potential. But there are differences and you should be aware of them. 4) Length of program. This is closely related to (and sometimes and artifact of) points one and two and three above. Shorter isn't always better, particularly if you're new to the field. 5) Where in the country you want to work. Irrespective of reputation, programs in this field often place regionally, and some professional networks (eg, ACPA/NASPA) work on a regional level. If you don't care where you end up, ignore this point. But if you really want to be in the northeast, for example, then go to grad school in the northeast. 6) Prestige. Reputation/rankings matter far less at the master's level in education than in other professional fields (law, business, etc.). Master's degrees in ed (MA, MS, MEd, MSEd, MAT) are essentially commodities. If you can go to a "name" school for free that meets all of your other requirements, that's fantastic! But it's not worth compromising on the other things that really matter in the pursuit of reputation. And determining what qualifies as a "name" school is tricky because...the USNWR rankings of HE are of doctoral programs, not master's programs. There is a big difference between the two, and you cannot conclude that a highly ranked doctoral program would be a great place to get your master's. So, Jsparks63 (and others) - because I'm a dork, I turned this all into an Excel spreadsheet that helped me weigh the pros and cons of various programs and narrow my list. I used a simple plus or minus system and got more detailed for places that were on the bubble. I also was applying on a budget (I vowed that I wouldn't spend more than $xxx on app fees, transcripts, GRE reports), which definitely helped limit the number of programs I could keep in the mix. Hope that's helpful!

I think one of the challenges you're likely to encounter is that many queer studies master's programs focus on theory, culture or literature to a far greater degree than on, say, health, diplomacy or policy. So the question becomes, what do you want to do with the degree? If you have ambition to work in public health, I'd second nowaynohow and suggest an MPH; if you want to do int'l human rights, I'd suggest an MIA or a human rights-specific master's. Friends of mine who've pursued interdisciplinary studies at the master's level have sometimes walked away feeling that the degree wasn't terribly marketable (outside of the context of doctoral admissions). But again, it all depends on what you want to do with it. Last point: CUNY's program is relatively inexpensive, which might be a major selling point!

And now this, from today's NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/15/nyregion/new-york-issuing-scorecards-on-teacher-colleges.html?ref=nyregion&pagewanted=print) Seeking Better Teachers, City Evaluates Local Colleges That Train Them By JAVIER C. HERNÁNDEZ Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has used data to rate restaurants, track the repair of potholes and close lackluster schools in New York City. Now he is bringing his results-oriented approach to an area far outside his usual purview: teacher colleges. In an effort to shake up institutions that have been criticized as too insular and inert, his administration released scorecards on Wednesday for a dozen teacher-preparation programs in the city. Public and private education schools are being evaluated in various ways, including how many graduates are certified in high-needs areas like special education and whether their teachers have been able to increase student test scores. The release of the scorecards places the city at the forefront of a national effort, backed by the Obama administration, to use data to upend the teaching profession and the pathways to it. Critics have said subpar teaching programs too often hamper school systems, churning out graduates familiar with theory but lacking in practical classroom skills. A study by the National Council on Teacher Quality released in June argued that teaching colleges were too lenient in their admissions criteria and had not adequately prepared teachers in subjects like reading, math and science. The results released on Wednesday showed that even some of the country’s most prestigious programs have room for improvement. For example, one in five recent graduates of teaching programs at Columbia University and New York University were given low marks for how much they were able to improve student test scores; by contrast, 1 in 10 teachers who graduated from City College of New York received poor marks. City officials cautioned against drawing sweeping conclusions from the data, saying the numbers were meant to provoke conversation, not rivalry. They noted that sample sizes were small; that test scores were available only in certain grades, in math and English; and that the data reflected only information from the past four years. But in New York City, where competitive streaks are widespread, education leaders could not resist a little jockeying. David M. Steiner, dean of Hunter College School of Education, said the results would prompt schools like Columbia and N.Y.U. to rethink elements of their program. “These are places that are very well known for their research and scholarship,” Dr. Steiner, a former state education commissioner, said. “Is it possible that they need to pay more attention to their clinical preparation of teachers?” Thomas James, provost of Teachers College at Columbia, said the reports prompted the school to examine how closely its curriculum aligned with city academic standards. He said the data also spurred interest in increasing the number of teachers who pursue certification in special education, where city data showed the school lagged behind its peers. “We can see more clearly what the greatest needs are,” Dr. James said. “The direction we’re going is to have more comprehensive and better planning.” Other education school leaders were not as enamored of the city’s decision to broaden its interests to higher education. Alfred S. Posamentier, dean of the Mercy College School of Education, which was credited with sending the largest percentage of its teachers to schools with the greatest needs, said it would be more useful if education officials compared teaching data over a longer period. “It’s nice to look at, it somehow verifies what I already knew, but it’s not going to change anything,” Dr. Posamentier said. The city’s data-driven foray into the world of higher education is also likely to encounter resistance from professors and graduates of schools that did not fare as well on the reports. Some have objected to the idea of judging teachers on the basis of student test scores, arguing for a more nuanced approach. And because graduates of Teachers College and N.Y.U. are in demand at high-performing schools, where test scores are already approaching the top of the scale, they may have a harder time showing improvement. City education officials noted that the scorecards this year were only a beginning. They said the results were mostly positive, showing that recent hires generally received high marks in the classroom. David A. Weiner, a deputy chancellor in the city’s Education Department, said that for too long, city governments and universities had worked in isolation. The reports, he said, would help bridge that divide. “It can’t just be the universities; it can’t just be the school system,” Mr. Weiner said. “We want a highly effective teacher in every single classroom, and every single university president says the same thing.” Under the city’s system, teaching programs were evaluated on six measures. The city looked at the number of teachers that were placed in low-performing schools and the number of teachers certified in areas with high demand, like math, science, special education and English as a second language. Touro College had the largest percentage of teachers certified in special education, at 86 percent, double the citywide average. The city also factored in teacher performance, including whether recent hires were denied tenure and whether they received an unsatisfactory rating from principals. For teachers of reading or math in grades four through eight, the city looked at student progress on state tests. Teacher retention was also considered. Citywide, 80 percent of recent hires still worked as teachers in the system three years later. But for several schools that serve large populations of New York City natives, the numbers were higher. More than 90 percent of recent graduates of Queens College and St. John’s University, for instance, were still working as teachers after three years. By contrast, 72 percent of students from Teachers College still worked in the system three years later. (Teachers College noted that it serves a large population of students from out of state, and that many eventually return home to work.) The city said it had no plans to award letter grades to universities, as it has done with public schools and restaurants, saying education officials were focused on identifying and sharing effective practices. Next year, the scorecards will expand to include more rigorous teacher evaluations developed by the state. And this fall, the city plans to release similar reports for teachers certified through alternative pathways, like Teach for America. City officials said New York would be the first urban district to compare teaching programs. Ohio and Tennessee have also started evaluating elements of university teaching programs. And New York State, which will require new teachers to complete a more stringent certification process beginning in 2014, plans to start delivering feedback to teaching schools this fall. The federal education secretary, Arne Duncan, said that he saw New York’s efforts as “a major step forward, and one from which others can learn.” “It puts the record of preparation programs, including their impact on student learning, into sharp focus,” he continued.

It's definitely curious that this thread has generated so little traffic. My only thought is that it might be an artifact of Stanford GSE's small size -- it's the only top 10 Ed school with an enrollment under 500, and one of only four in the top 25. Anyway, just a thought!

It's worth a try. My hunch is that even if you get a response it may not shed much light since this year is the first cycle under the new scheme. Going from EdD's in many fields to PhD's in three likely means all bets are off -- what worked in past cycles, or didn't, may not have much bearing going forward. And they've stated publicly that they're using this as an opportunity to trim enrollment...only 25 PhD students total will start in the Fall of 2014.

I'm still confused about which program at HGSE you're interested in pursuing; there is no longer an EdD in Higher Ed. They've completely overhauled the doctoral program and going forward only offer three PhD concentrations (CIS, EPPE, HDLT) will be offered; more info here: http://www.gse.harvard.edu/academics/doctorate/phd/concentrations/index.html. I'm guessing maybe EPPE best fits your interests? I don't have an opinion as to junior vs. senior faculty. I'm not sure level is important, but fit is. However prestigious Harvard may be, it may not be a good fit for your particular research interests; few or no faculty doing work that interests you should be a red flag. (That said, the research interests you articulated above are quite broad, so I'm skeptical that there are no junior faculty doing work germane to what you want to do.) And I think you're going to have to be able to articulate WHY Harvard in your SOP...beyond their name and the generosity of the funding package, neither of which is likely to move an admission committee.

I think having the same recommenders is fine. What is drawing you to Harvard, and to this program, specifically? You need to have a good answer to that question, and it should come through in your SOP. Are your research interests so specific that they're completely incompatible with the interests of more junior faculty? What field is this for? Your profile says "HE, policy." For HE, 2 years of work experience and no master's is probably not a winning combination. Your last question suggests that you might benefit from additional training in education prior to committing to a doctorate. Best of luck.

New Brunswick is a total college town - everything revolves around Rutgers. In that respect it's very similar to other other towns with big public universities. It's also just an hour train ride to/from Manhattan. I would not say the same about the other Rutgers campuses (in Newark and Camden), but New Brunswick is just fine and perfectly safe.

Again, take a peak through some of the recent HESA threads on this board for tips on who offers fully funded master's. Recent threads have discussed UConn and Rutgers-New Brunswick among many others. Bear in mind that some of these programs are heavily focused on student affairs, which may not fit with your interests. I think you're smart to start with public universities in your home state. Even if they don't provide a full ride, in-state tuition will be very helpful. Finally, bear in mind that most of the faculty who teach HE have significant professional experience (in or out of HE) under their belt that informs their approach. This is a very practice-oriented field (even at the doctoral/faculty level) -- so you may find that it will be wise to get a few solid years of work experience after your master's before jumping into a doctorate. And if development/advancement is truly an interest, that may be where to focus to get some real experience to inform your research.

It isn't in the midwest or south, but you might consider Rutgers-New Brunswick's EdM program in College Student Affairs. It provides full tuition remission + a stipend to all admitted students. Program page is here: http://gse.rutgers.edu/academic-programs/edm-programs/college-student-affairs-ed-m Hope that helps!

It's difficult, if not impossible, to get admitted to PhD/EdD programs in HE without a master's in the field. If you're serious about a doctorate the next step should be a master's degree, which will give you the credential, allow you to up your GPA and greatly focus your research interests. Absent distinguished performance in a master's program I think it would be exceedingly difficult to get admitted to a doctoral program (with funding) given your credentials and work experience. But don't despair! There are lots of amazing master's programs that would set you up for further study. This issue comes up from time to time on this board...you might check out older threads along the "masters before PhD" lines to get a flavor for the discussions. Best of luck.

I don't know the HE program or the aid offerings, but I grew up outside of Rochester and took classes at U of R for two summers. It is the dominant private research university in Western NY, with several very highly ranked graduate programs (medicine, music, political science, business, etc.). Rochester is a great small city - easily the most vibrant of the major Upstate NY cities (Buffalo, Syracuse and Albany being the others). Safe, clean, accessible. Good culture (esp music), good restaurant scene. Also quite accessible to the Finger Lakes region of the state, which is fun. Cost of living is average, I'd say. There's a decent sized airport, and the Buffalo airport (which is larger) is just about an hour away. A few things - winters can be brutal. You'd definitely need a car. It is a small city, for sure, but things can be spread out outside of the downtown and off campus. And U of R dominates the higher ed space there, so opportunities for local networking may be limited (if that even matters).

Are you interested mostly in int'l education in higher ed settings? (Your mention of study abroad made me wonder.) If yes, you might also consider higher ed or ed policy programs that have faculty doing int'l research -- BC (Altbach) and SUNY Albany (Kinser and Lane) come immediately to mind, though there are others.

Hi all. I just learned that NYU Steinhardt is having an online general information session tomorrow (Weds, 7/24) at 2 pm Eastern and thought I would pass along the info. Here's the description: Please note: this will be a general discussion and Q&A session about graduate study and graduate admissions at NYU Steinhardt. We may not be able to answer questions about specific graduate programs at this event. We encourage you to visit our Graduate Application Guide for deadlines and other helpful information about your program of interest. RSVP is here: http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/graduate_admissions/webchat/rsvp/2013/7/24. This is the limit of my knowledge about this...just wanted to share!

JBums 1028, I think you're being hard on yourself! This sounds like a very reasonable approach to the personal statement. Plenty of "practice-oriented" folks have gone to UMich and thrived. You certainly won't be the only one among the applicant (or hopefully admitted student) pool, that's for sure, so just be careful not to overplay the "unique" card. IMHO, the theory vs. practice distinction is overblown in the context of a one-year course intensive program. Practice vs. theory differences among programs are generally differences of degree, not kind.

JBums1028, let me clarify. Lots of prospective applicants lurking here are consumed with chasing prestige. I wasn't trying to refute that. My point is that--in this field at the master's level--doing so is a fool's errand. The ROI on a a HESA master's from an Ivy (or the like) is about the same as the ROI on a HESA master's from a lesser known school. That's just the reality of our field. I think it's super smart for you to focus on Michigan. Have you looked at the compass point institutions (WMU, CMU, EMU)?

Just be really, really careful about this whole question of prestige, and how much you're willing to pay for it. You will regret going deeply in debt for a fancy name on a diploma given HESA salaries. One of the most valuable lessons I've learned in this field (and from this board) is that reputation and prestige matter way less at the master's level than you might think. The master's is a professional, practice-oriented degree that, for better or worse, has become a commodity. The goal ought to be finding a program that fits your interests, will give you valuable experience, and that will leave you with little or no debt. If you're lucky enough to find that with a "name" school, terrific. Otherwise, it just doesn't matter.

Well, wait a second. What do you consider to be a "top 20 Higher Ed MA" program? The USNWR rankings of Higher Ed programs are for doctoral programs, not master's. Huge difference. Some of the best PhD/EdD programs in this field treat their master's students as nothing more than cash cows/free labor. And some very fine master's programs aren't ranked well (or at all) by virtue of modest (or non-existent) doctoral offerings. I'm not aware of any recent rankings of master's programs that could help clarify this situation. In my opinion, you're far better off thinking about things like length of program, internship opportunities/requirements, net cost and regional placement than about "prestige" when pursuing a master's in this field. Particularly if you have to pay tens of thousands of dollars for that prestige. FWIW I think your credentials will hold you in very good stead.

CUNY Grad Center does not provide aid for master's degree programs. That said, I'd vote CUNY due to cost.

Better GREs would certainly strengthen your hand, but I suspect you already know that Have you thought about retaking them?

Best of luck, Dani. New York is an amazing town. --adl

At what stage in your educational career are you? If you're still in the first or second year of UG you may find that you figure it out just by taking more classes. One route might be to do a research master's - e.g., the one-year MA in Social Sciences at U of Chicago (MAPSS), the two-year MS in Applied Social Research at CUNY-Hunter, etc. These kinds of programs would greatly sharpen the arrows in your research quiver and may give you the time/perspective to figure out 1) if you want a PhD; and 2) if you do want a PhD, which discipline will suit you best. Of course, if you do decide you'd like to enter the professoriate I'd also strongly encourage you to think about employability. Of the fields you've mentioned a doctorate in marketing would make you more employable than a doctorate in the other fields, for example. Hope that helps!

Date of post announcing that you'd received 2nd round funding from SIPA = April 22 Final decision deadline, Fletcher and SIPA = May 1 Today's date = May 16 SMH. You started this thread because you wanted advice, so here's mine: land the plane. Nothing is going to change in the next three days. And the choice of one elite program over another or one great American city over another WILL NOT drastically alter your life's trajectory. PS. I sincerely hope for your sake that the admissions officers at the school you end up declining don't decide to call their colleagues at the other institution to try to get your funding revoked. I've seen it happen before...and it's awful.

It's not the fact that "everyone is probably as over this decision" as you are that should make you feel embarrassed. It's the fact that you're sitting on scholarship money at these institutions that could otherwise have really helped someone, or could have changed their decision. Just like the "unexpected 2nd round funding from SIPA" changed your calculus. And that's just selfish. And shameful. And sh+tty. Either put on your big girl boots and pull the trigger or make a date with the Karma gods. Your choice.