nashville0808

If you are not admitted to any programs in your field, why do you choose to attend? Wait for next round. A one-year master's program is not so useful even if it is at UPenn or other top schools. When you apply for Ph.D. programs next time, you will not have completed the first semester. What makes you more competitive? You will waste your time and money. BTW, UVA is a very good school and has good researchers in school leadership.

What I meant is a general statement, not for one particular year. If you look at the number of students in each cohort over time (from at least around 2005), there are years in which they admitted a lot more students than the other departments.

Just FYI, each Ph.D. program at Peabody is small. Ph.D. programs in Teaching and Learning tend to be larger than those in the other departments.

While I understand the uncertainty you all feel, I don't think it is a good practice to call the admission office, the departments, or other program staff/faculty members. They are busy with their daily operations and don't want to get interrupted by applicants.

Applicants who get admission offers from Peabody tend to get admission offers from other top schools, and depending on the strength of each program and location, they may choose different schools over Peabody. So there is still possibility. I was admitted off the waiting list long time ago but had multiple admission offers from other top schools. I chose Peabody as it is stronger in my field than the other schools.

There are multiple reasons. In education policy, a lot of research is now highly quantitative and uses advanced causal inference techniques. This program offers rigorous quantitative training to conduct such research. Second, folks in this program, both faculty members and students, often work with researchers at the other departments (e.g., teaching and learning, and special education) within the college and schools (e.g., political science, economics, sociology, etc.) across the university. They bring in interesting interdisciplinary projects. They also work with the Tennessee Department of Education and publish a lot of interesting policy studies. Also, the program has many research-active high quality faculty members and researchers, who consistently bring in new projects with a lot of grants, which fund Ph.D. students and offer various research experience. For funding, across the departments within the college, Ph.D. students are fully funded for 4-5 years with a lot of additional grants such as travel grants, professional development grants, and technology grants. My friend in this program earned close to $40,000 a year including summer RA jobs, and by the time she graduated, she had a lot of saving.

The LPO's Ph.D. program is very competitive. What I hear is typically they receive over 200 applications, invite about 10 applicants, and offer about 7 admissions. Since they have K-12 and higher education concentrations, probably each year about 4-5 are in K-12 and 2-3 are in Higher education.

I don't recommend TC for a doctoral study. They have great faculty members but lack funding for doctoral students. In addition, it is difficult for doctoral students to get RA/TA positions. So you are likely to face a lot of financial pressure during the study. I know some doctoral students who transferred to different, cheaper schools after accumulating a lot of debts. You may need to keep a full-time job to continue studying. In addition, because so many graduate students are enrolled, doctoral students do not receive adequate training.There are many other high quality schools that offer a lot of funding. I would consider these schools seriously.

I was admitted to a MA program in a different field long time ago, switched to an Ed.M program, and received an Ed.M. Then I worked for some years and applied for a Ph.D program in the same field. I was admitted without funding and so declined the offer. In that field, my classmates switched from the MA to the Ph.D. program. I thought it was very easy and just a matter of submitting necessary documents. Competition appears to be different from field to field.

You need to evaluate your qualifications objectively. I'm not sure about your outcomes this year but if you didn't get into any of your top choice schools this year, there are some reasons. They may be something you can control or cannot control. You need to carefully investigate them and prepare for next year's cycle. In terms of personal network, I am not discouraging you to contact professors. Probably it may be better than not doing so but I don't think it would matter a lot. For my case, I was admitted to six top schools and was put on a waiting list for two other top schools (eventually rejected). I didn't contact any professors. Some professors don't like to receive e-mails from applicants because they receive too many e-mails every day. Personal network may matter if a program is small. For example, if a program within a department admits two students every year, personal network matters a lot. I think Stanford is one example. For publications, at least at my department, it doesn't matter very much. Most of the students at the department, including international students, were practitioners or junior researchers. I just had one publication. This is not a peer-reviewed paper. It is a non-technical report. On the other hand, I presented research papers almost every year at well-known professional conferences. This might have made me more competitive. But this would depend on which field you belong to. If you are interested in neuroscience and education, probably publications matter more than my field. In any case, you should do your best to improve your chance of admission. If you are interested in top schools, keep in mind that there are so many Ph.D. applicants for a limited number of spots. My department receives over 200 applications just for 5-10 spots and this competition would be similar across top schools. It is not surprising that an applicant doesn't get admission offers from any top schools. It would be wise to stretch your choice to get at least one admission offer. Good luck!

For doctoral programs, in my field, it doesn't matter very much whether you have personal contacts with professors unless you advance from a master's program to a Ph.D. program within the same university. Publications do not matter very much either because most of applicants do not have publications in good academic journals. Professors at my program do not expect Ph.D. applicants to have any publications. In fact, I have rarely seen new Ph.D. students come with any publications. Just contacting professors won't help you very much. And they wouldn't remember you anyway. The only way that I think is useful would be that you present a high-quality paper at professional conferences and have professors of your interest come and see your presentation. When I presented my paper at a professional conference, a professor that my supervisor and I personally knew from work came to my presentation and aggressively recruited me to his school's Ph.D. program with generous funding. Although I didn't even apply for the program, I think presenting a high-quality research paper would be a good way to sell yourself. Experience matters a lot here. Many new Ph.D. students come with great work experience. Typically students have working experience for 3 to 10 years in various settings. It is very rare that students come straight to Ph.D. programs in education from undergrad. Finally, the statement of purposes makes a big difference. It demonstrates your passion for a Ph.D. program, fit with the program, and writing skills. If you write a long SOP, this is a bad signal. SOP should be short and succinct. Don't use tricks to put more words or sentences in a 2-page SOP. All of this assumes that you have very high GPAs, high GRE scores, and great letters of recommendation.

From PhD admissions and from my experience. I wasn't invited to the recruitment weekend but didn't receive a rejection e-mail or notification either. In late March, I was told that I was on a waiting list and eventually got an admission offer in April. However, this is a very rare case across the departments. Peabody's admission offers are very generous and it is unlikely that admitted students decline the offer. This wouldn't apply to masters' programs.

I guess so, though I'm not confident.

Applicants who did not receive an invitation e-mail to the recruitment weekend are not shortlisted. Applicants who got a rejection e-mail or notification were rejected. Applicants who did not hear about the recruitment weekend or rejection are on a waiting list. These applicants will hear from the admission office as admitted applicants decline offers. This may come in March, April, or May.

I'm not sure about these programs. There may be different time lines for these programs.

The Ph.D. recruitment is scheduled from 2/12 to 2/14. So I believe that all shortlisted prospective Ph.D. students across the departments have already received an e-mail, although I'm not confident. I lived in big cities before coming to Nashville and I like Nashville better than them.

By now, all departments at Peabody have shortlisted prospective Ph.D. students and will send out (or have already sent out) an invitation to a recruitment weekend.

There are many routes to eventually land in a higher education policy job. If I were you, I would first consider higher education administrative positions at universities/colleges. This is a very important experience and even if you don't do any research at these positions, this experience will give you a deep understanding about higher education. You will learn many things about student affairs, remedial education, financial aid, admissions, financing, online courses (MOOCS), etc. Administrative positions at community colleges would be also valuable, as people are recognizing the importance of community colleges for low-income students. And while working as an administrator, you can earn a master's degree in higher education administration or policy with financial assistance from your school. This way, you can save a lot; at the same time, you earn a master's degree and valuable practical experience. So you may work for about 5-7 years. If I were a faculty member in a Ph.D. higher education program, I would recommend this kind of applicants for the Ph.D. program. I know some students who took this route and started a Ph.D. program at top schools. You may also consider state education agencies, College Board, Education Trust, and other policy-oriented organizations but probably not hard-core academic research organizations. You won't qualify for positions at these research organizations.

Personally, all one-year Master's programs are revenue-generating programs for schools. One year or 9 months is not enough for students to understand their field even at high-ranking schools such as Harvard, UPen, and Stanford. In education policy, there is a strong trend toward quantitative data analyses but you cannot learn quantitative skills well in a one-year program. You will end up with taking general courses without enough research or practical experiences. I'm not so sure if these programs really help you deepen your understanding. Yet, just in terms of job, going to UPenn may give you more options than going to local state schools. But, again, I'm not sure if it is worth $40K loan. I prefer a two-year program to a one-year program. Public policy programs are usually two years. They cost more but give you more rigorous training. Alternatively, you may work for a while (3-7 years) and apply for Ph.D. programs. You are likely to get some funding and avoid loans. In retrospect, this is what I would have done. I went to a three-year master's program (not three year but required 60 credits) at one of the high ranking schools. The program gave me a lot of research experience, which helped me get a research analyst job right after graduation and then get admission offers from top schools but it cost me a lot. Not sure if the master's program was worth it because I see many students in my program coming from local state schools, which cost much less. In terms of recruiting that you are referring to, it appears to me that it is a generic recruitment e-mail sent to many more prospective applicants.

Top schools receive applications from many people with similar (and probably much stronger) backgrounds and higher GRE scores. If you have any hole in your application package, you should work on it. Ph.D applications are more competitive than you think. My program receives more than 200 applications per year and gives between 5 and 10 admission offers. If a program is large, it will take more students but in this case not all of them receive full funding. Some may receive none. You have to be strategic.

Personally, I think a two-year program is much better than a one-year program. Even at Harvard or UPenn, if you just take 8 courses, you won't learn very much. The benefit of going to Harvard or UPenn would be its brand name and strong network. At Vanderbilt, you will take 12 courses, which is still not so many, plus summer internship, which probably you have to find by yourself. You may get some help from the program faculty members. Hearing from my friends, I think Vanderbilt does not offer any courses specific to regions you are interested in. This may change, as the program plans to hire a new faculty member this fall. She says that one candidate has been working on multiple projects in Afghanistan and focuses on education in emergency context, which may be close to what you are interested in. There is no guarantee that this candidate will come to Vandy from this fall.

This probably depends on what you want to do after the program. If you want to work at an international organization, I would suggest you consider Harvard and then UPenn. Harvard's brand and network (and probably UPENN) would help you a lot in terms of job hunting. Although this would not be in your choice, personally, Columbia's program (TC or SIPA) would be the best if you want to go to international organization. They have strong connections with international organizations and consulting companies which work for international organizations and governments. Vandy's placement is not so great. Very few students get a job related to international educational development. And their network is very weak. In terms of the curriculum, at Vandy, you will gain good quantitative analysis/research skills, which are not focused on international education so may not be interesting but will expand your job options (there are many jobs in the US education sector which require quantitative skills). However, they are weak in content. There are few region-specific courses or topic-specific courses (e.g., human rights, child labor, conflicts, gender, etc.). If you are more interested in content, you may get disappointed with Vandy. In terms of diversity within Vandy's program, according to my friends, one half of the students are Americans and the other half international students, most of whom are Chinese students without any working experience. This won't give you a chance to expand your job options around the world. I guess the student body is more diverse at Harvard and UPenn. I often hear that students of color feel uncomfortable at Vandy. I'm not sure what kind of experience they had but a lot of students and most of the faculty members are White.

@camly91 - Carefully check how many years of funding you have and whether it is guaranteed. A friend of mine got full funding in the first year but the amount was cut every year and she lost all funding in her third or fourth year.

@DHC - I would say that the reason why TC graduates are great is that they were selected by TC at the admission stage. This means that they were, "on average," already great at that time so whether they go to TC or not may not matter much in terms of their future job performance.They would perform well in their current job even if they had gone to a local state school. Of course, one would have some valuable experience at TC but he or she may also have similar experience at a different school with a lot lower cost. There are many teacher-prep programs in the nation that are comparable to or better than TC but cost much less. One clear difference between TC (and other expensive schools) and other prep-programs is its brand. It sometimes matters when you first start looking for a job but that brand effect will eventually fade away as you accumulate job experience.

@NChaku - If you want to go to a doctoral program, I would suggest that you go to a school that offers you a guaranteed four-five year full funding. If you think you were close, it would be much better to wait for another year. You may get admission offers with full funding from comparable schools or mid-ranking state schools. If TC doesn't offer you anything, consider it as a rejection not as an admission offer (TC's brand name is appealing but be realistic). There are many good state schools that would offer you better deals, assuming that you are one of the best candidates. You don't want to graduate with a lot of debt unless you go to industry after the program and earn $150K or more annually.