ZeChocMoose

The newness of the program, location, people wore off so that makes navigating second year easier. I also don't have to figure out where to go for certain items (groceries, dry cleaning, medical services, gas, etc) so that also helps. For me, the expectations that you'll produce better work in your courses and you'll be further along in your research are definitely higher. That may make it more academically difficult than last year, but I feel better equipped personally to meet these challenges since I am more settled in my location. I imagine my hardest year will be next year when I have to take my comprehensive exam. High stakes, timed writing doesn't sound that pleasant to me...

I agree with michigan girl. It sounds like you will enjoy your master's experience more in a MPP program. Then I would take higher ed electives so look for a school that offers both. It is going to skew heavily towards student affairs. If you don't want to do that, you may be able to find entry-level positions in ed policy or ed research either at a university, in a dept of ed, research centers or think tanks (that are sufficiently large enough to have non-PhD level researchers), or other non profit organizations. There are lots of caveats to this path though-- you'll need to look for 2 year programs and take a lot of quantitative methods and stats classes (and policy analysis if you go the policy route not straight research). You'll need one substantial internship in this area. You'll may need to relocate for the summer to get this experience (unless you are close to a major city). Not all higher ed programs are set up to allow you this flexibility to take a lot of methods and analysis courses hence the recommendation to also look at MPP programs.

I am taking this to mean that you are interested in either university admin -or- research and policy work. If that is correct, then the issue is that you would chose different master's programs to meet these goals. I am not aware of a program that is going to do both of these well or really at all (but perhaps there are some). I guess I would lean more towards the research/policy side because there are technical skills that you'll need to pick up in a program in order to be competitive for an entry-level job. (I did educ research after my master's degree made possible by the different classes and professional experiences I had in the program). Pure-ish admin jobs at universities don't necessarily go to people with a master's in higher ed. You may ultimately reach a management position at a university (after maybe a decade or so of experience), but it will be in an office that is going to be directly or indirectly related to students somehow (admissions, advising, res life, student programs, etc). I am having trouble because you list that you are interested in doing "quality improvement" and "institutional management." If you want to practice this, you might be better served in a MBA program. I know people who do similar-like activities to this at universities, but they don't have master's in higher ed degrees. I am not aware of any higher ed programs that promote research assistantship positions for master's students. There might be some programs that have a couple positions for master's students (1-2 per year), but most RA positions tend to go to the doctoral students. Most likely, you could volunteer to be involved with a professor's research that you find interesting. You'll have to juggle this with courses and work obligations. In a one year program, this may be very difficult to achieve given that you'll also be job searching in the spring. You can definitely limit your exposure to student affairs in your course work. I know I did in my higher ed master's program because that wasn't what particularly interested me about the field. The programs that you list have a more higher ed focus than student affairs so you should be good (I am not familiar with UPenn's program though.) I would just look to see what the core classes are and make sure that you don't need to take any student development or counseling classes. It's sorta unlikely that you'll be able to get away from students completely in your internship or assistantship positions though.

Well-- there seems to be a disconnect between your academic and professional goals. It is not particularly realistic (at least in the US) to achieve your career aspirations without a PhD and a sufficient amount of experience esp the senior leadership position or a faculty job at a college or university. You might be able to secure an entry-level job at a dept of ed with only a master's, but it really depends. You also don't say what you want to study-- higher ed leadership and policy is a bit too vague for anyone to be really helpful. What particular subarea interests you? I haven't come across any "masters-doctorate integrated programs" in higher ed. People typically get a master's, work for a couple years in the field, and then apply for the doctorate. There are a couple rare instances where someone will go directly from a bachelor's to the PhD, but they tend to have a lot of research experience under their belt and their reason to pursue their PhD now is very specific (i.e. they figured out what they want to study and why the program is a great fit for them). Also funding at the master's level in higher ed, typically requires some sort of student affairs component i.e. you work in an office in a university and deal directly (or maybe indirectly) with college students. I don't know any master's programs where this is not the case.

This quote really stood out to me. I don't know how your cohort experience is shaping up, but you'll need at least a couple people in your corner that can be supportive when you hit snags along the way. Personally, I don't view my cohort mates as competitors at all. We all have different research interests and ultimately, I doubt many of us will be applying the same type of jobs given the diversity of our experiences and career trajectories. I actually view them as strong current (and future) colleagues. My field is small and I imagine your field is small as well. It is really good to have your cohort mates (and other students in your program) placed in universities across the country. They might invite you for a research talk or to collaborate on research projects in the future. I also think being collegial with your cohort mates makes the doctoral process a lot more enjoyable.

I think your explanations for switching into a different program sound reasonable to me. Have you researched professors/programs in your home country? If not, I would suggest that first. Then I would reach out to professors that you want to work with to see whether the fit would be good and what are the requirements for the PhD if you already have a master's degree. I know when I was looking for PhD programs with a master's in hand, different programs had different policies on how many credits that I can use in fulfillment of the required coursework for the PhD. I imagine you would want to know whether you are signing yourself up for 2-3 more years or 5-6 more years. As how to go about it with professors in your program-- I imagine you will have to say something at some point this semester as you'll need recommendations and you want to give your professors a heads up. Besides your advisor, is there someone else on faculty that you feel comfortable talking with about this?

How I read a difficult academic piece depends on whether it is empirical or conceptual. If it is empirical, I ask myself these type of questions: What is the research question(s)? What methods were employed to address the research question? How did the author(s) conceptualize the variables? What were the findings? What are the implications of those findings? Do I agree with how the author(s) conducted the study? If not, what would I recommend? If it is conceptual, I ask myself these type of questions: What is the general theory? How is the theory situated in the current literature? Why is the theory important? Is it an extension of someone else's theory? In what situations or populations would the theory not work? For me, this really helps to get the general idea of the piece and I don't tend to get bogged down with not understanding every single sentence in the article. It might also help to write down the answers and bring them to class with you. An added bonus is you'll be better prepared to add to the discussion and it helps you remember what you read especially if you are reading 5+ articles for each class. I also think it is important to ask clarifying questions about the piece-- "I really liked x, but I had trouble understanding the author's point about y (or something to that effect). I think he or she was trying to infer this [insert explanation]. What do you all think?" Since this is a discussion based class, this can get some really interesting dialogue going. After rereading what I wrote, this is probably more in align with how social scientists tackle difficult work, but hopefully some of what I said can be useful! I also found that tackling difficult work gets much easier over time. Good luck!

The timeline in my program is sorta similar except that people typically RA in years 1 - 4. In the 5th year, students will either TA, RA, or compete for a fellowship to finish their dissertation. Comprehensive exams are typically taken in the third year, but sometime people will take them in the second year. In our summers, people do all sorts of things: take classes, do research, intern, get a fellowship, study for the comprehensive exam, etc. I think my program is a bit atypical as most of the PhD students are on research teams. I have seen some programs where the majority of PhD students have graduate assistantships and work for a unit within the university. I imagine that you can get involved in research if you ask a professor that is doing research that you are interested in.

That seems to be the consensus on the Chronicle forum. Personally, I would leave it blank. It doesn't sound like you know enough about the job to give a minimum hourly wage.

It's not okay. Move on, consider it a learning experience, and apply to more jobs.

I don't know enough about schools in California to give proper advice. I imagine you could narrow it down by looking for schools that have education and public policy programs and see which ones appeal to you. Or hopefully someone else will come along and post. You can also try the Governmental Affairs section-- they would have a better idea of MPP programs.

This is a great compromise. Since it sounds like you are going straight from college into your PhD, it might be harder for her to see you as an adult and she wants to help you settle in to help alleviate some of her fears (possibly). If she does end up coming the whole week, I won't worry about what your cohort thinks. It is really unlikely that they would know or if you do discuss it, I doubt it will be an issue. My cohort mates are a range of ages and had different people helping them get settled into the new city.

I am going to agree with juilletmercredi. Moving can be a very stressful experience (especially if it is from a long distance). If you think your mom is going to add to that stress and not alleviate it -- I would thank her graciously and plan for a time that she can visit in the near future. Most likely that will be better quality time with your mom anyways and you'll be settled enough to be able to show her around to your favorite places and to the university. Also-- one week is a long time for *anyone* to help you move especially if your place has no furniture and you are going to be sleeping on the floor/air mattress until you can furnish the place. That can get old pretty quickly especially if you are stuck in a situation where you and your mom are not getting along so well.

If you really think a policy job is what you want to do once you graduate, I would lean towards a MPP with an education emphasis, the dual degree, or the Higher Ed master's. If you know you don't want to work directly with students, a HESA program will not be the best fit especially since they tend to lean more to the Student Affairs side than the Higher Ed side. I don't remember Ed Policy programs (at the master's level) really emphasized research experience. At the PhD level-- yes, but I can't imagine that a ton of master's applicants will have relevant research experience. I applied to a couple (of MPP programs) when I was looking at master's programs and I remember them focusing on your quantitative skills over everything else. You can always ask the folks over on the Governmental Affairs forum. They would know better than I and they will have more up to date information.

I sat on the admissions committee when I was a master's student for PhD and master's applicants in higher ed. I got to read the applications, participate in the discussion, and vote on whether to admit the applicants or not. My experience (and this is for a program that focused on higher ed than student affairs*) was that limited experience in higher ed wasn't too concerning for applicants who were coming straight from college. The faculty were more interested in their past academic performance (grades and courses taken) as well as recommendations from faculty who can speak to your academic abilities-- pretty much that you can write well, have good ideas and execute them well, and participate in class. I think the experience card comes into play when you write your statement of purpose (SOP). Here the faculty want to see whether you have a basic understanding of the field, what you want to learn/do in your grad program, how this program helps you meet these goals, and what are your ultimate career goals. For example, at my master's program if you said that you wanted to study student athletes at colleges and universities and you hope to be an admin in athletics, it was probably not the best program for you because none of the faculty study that and there are no assistantships in that office. That being said, most likely you'll be competing with people who have had professional experience in higher ed. Personally, if I was you student #1, I would just apply to 4 - 5 programs and see what happened. If you don't get in or discover the programs that you get into are not a good fit, then you can always try again in the future after working in the field for a bit. * The difference between higher ed vs. student affairs can be an important distinction depending on your academic and professional interests. Students affairs usually looks at the student as the unit of analysis and emphasizes student development, counseling, transitions, etc. -- issues that affect students. Higher ed programs tend to be broader and examine student issues as well as faculty and administration issues. They also look at college and universities as organizations as well as examine state and federal policies (that affect higher ed), governance, etc. There are hybrid programs too that usually are called HESAs = Higher Education and Student Affairs programs. When I was going through the process of looking at master's programs, I didn't realize how different the programs can be even though they have similar sounding names. Looking back at it now, I applied to a random collection of programs that really made no sense given my interests, but I didn't know any better! Thankfully, I ended up at a program that was a good match.

The programs that I remember who fully fund their students (granted this was 5+ years ago) are UConn, University of Vermont, Maryland, and Ohio State. The ones that partially fund are NYU, Harvard, UPenn, and Michigan. I am sure there are more schools in both categories that I listed. For the second student who is interested in education policy, you'll want to go to a program that teaches you research methodology and statistics so you'll be marketable for jobs after you graduate. You might also want to go to a higher ed program that has a public policy school so you can take elective courses. I know Michigan has a dual Master's in Public Policy and MA in Higher Ed that you might be interested in. I am not sure if any of the other schools have a dual degree program quite like that. I know that Vanderbilt has a strong education policy and higher ed program. I am not sure how their funding structure works for their master's programs though, but it might be worth it to check it out.

I wouldn't. The reasoning being that they may be concerned that you are going to quit after a year to attend school. Most hiring managers want you to stay for more than one year because the hiring and training process is so expensive (at least in salaried positions where you have independence and responsibility). And a lot can happen in a year. You may decide that you want to continue in the job for a couple years and delay grad school again. Or you may decide to change your field and apply to different schools. The only reason I can see that you would disclose the grad school deferment if they ask you to commit to a certain amount of years -or- if the position is only for a year.

Typically early to mid 30s for programs that are focused on research and full-time PhD students. You'll probably see higher means at programs where there are larger part-time student populations, only have EdDs (with some exceptions), and/or heavy focus on practitioners jobs instead of academic jobs.

I agree. Since it sounds like you are not interested in housing, don't pursue this as your assistantship. It can be extremely difficult to get out of housing especially if that is the only experience in higher ed that you have and you find out it is not your cup of tea. Live-in positions (which are a lot of the entry-level housing positions) are not for everyone. Having worked in academic advising, they do value people who have counseling skills and have worked on the more academic side of the fence. I suggest looking for positions in admissions as well as advising because you'll get comfortable with reading transcripts, offering advice, and meeting with students (and possibly) their families one-on-one. I worked in transfer admissions (as a grad student) so I got to learn a lot about different departments/schools and their requirements. It set me up well for my academic advising position. Oh and I went to a well-known program for my master's in higher ed. I didn't have the problems like studentaffairsgrad describes. I was treated like a professional, given great experience in the field, and I didn't have a difficulty finding jobs post graduation. You'll want to talk to current students to see what type of experiences that they have and whether it fits what you are interested in. I won't rule out well-known programs just because they teach you theory and research skills. Those are important skills to have especially since a lot of campus units are now starting to evaluate their programs. If you have those skills and can do the hands-on components, you'll be extremely marketable. Good luck!

I second the advice about reaching out to professors that you are interested in working with or the admins at particular programs depending upon the culture of the program. I did this at 5-6 schools that I was interested in applying to and helped me get a better feel for the program in general and what to emphasize in my personal statement to explain why I would be a good fit for the program. It also helped me eliminate some programs that I thought were a good fit originally (just by looking at the program's website and faculty members' research interests), but after talking with people (faculty, current students, and admins), I realized that the program would not help me meet my academic and professional goals. They also told me information that I couldn't have gleaned from looking at what is online i.e. that they are hiring new faculty, new initiatives that will be starting next year, changing emphasis of the program, etc. All and all, I think it is a good use of your time to talk to at least one faculty member (and/or admin) and one current student of the program before you apply. You'll find out invaluable information that will strengthen your SOP -and- it's a good check of whether the program is still a good match for you.

I hear this sentiment a lot. It sounds like you are saying there is an expiration date on graduate school. There's not. Go when you feel ready, OP. I think racing into a PhD program before you are ready sounds like a recipe for disaster...

Time off between your master's and PhD is fairly common in education. Most people that I see taking time off (in education) usually take 2 - 5 years. Generally this is because they want to gain more upper-level experience in the field - or- they are working on a particular research project and want to be involved in writing journal articles. Since you haven't started your program, it is too early to tell whether you should take time off. I would revisit this again in a year after you had some experience with doing the full-time teacher, part-time student thing. It is also not clear to me why you seek the PhD. Generally, you pursue this degree because you have a certain research agenda that you want to explore more in depth. Once you know what you want to research and feel "ready" to explore it, this is when I would start applying to PhD programs especially if you are going to do it part-time. In order to survive the program, you really want to know that it is going to be worth it for your career goals. The part-time education PhDers that I know usually take up to 7 - 10 years to get their degree. I personally think education applicants are stronger the more experience that they have working in the field after their master's degree. This is different from some other fields that don't necessarily attach as much (or really any value) from taking time off from your studies. Although the application process is time-intensive for the PhD, it is much more time-intensive being in a program and you want to make sure that it is a good decision for you to pursue this degree.

I think a RME degree would serve you well in the IR field. At my former office, we always looked favorably on people who had that skill set -or- that specific degree. It's not impossible to get a full-time, permanent job in IR w/o the master's, but I agree that it is a bit tricky. Usually the people who do it have had data analysis experience in a previous job. That being said, there has only been one person in my office hired with just a bachelor's degree in the last 5 years or so. When I left, there were a lot more PhD recipients in the application pool to replace me, but that could also be a function of the economy and living in a highly educated area. All the RME programs that I looked into (granted for a PhD) focused on K - 12 issues. You might want to go to a RME program that also has a higher ed program so you can take some higher ed classes as electives. It's important to learn some content area as well especially when you are faced with designing research projects for particular areas in the university. I know that I have had to follow back on my higher ed knowledge as well as my methods expertise while working in IR. I don't know how the financing structure for master's programs in RME work-- but I imagine (or at least I hope) that some of them fund their master's students. I do agree with you that attending the program full-time would be better.

Do you know what type of statistical models you want to learn? If you do that could be really helpful as Dizzi mentioned that different disciplines have different methods. Given your background, I would look into econometrics master's as well. If you hope to eventually transition into market research, I would look to see what type of degrees they typically have. I assume some of them are more into programming and mining the data, but I could be wrong. If you decide to go into a statistics dept to get the master's-- I assume you'll run into particular math prereqs (calculus III, linear algebra, probability, etc) that they will want to see or you'll need to take during your first year. I don't particularly know a lot of statistics departments that do the applied side very well. Sometimes their applied stats master's are just a random collection of courses that don't necessarily get at the applied aspect really well. Are you planning to leave your job and attend full-time? If not, you might want to look at local programs and see whether your university can pay for some or all of the tuition. It is not uncommon to see master's students in the education statistics, evaluation, and measurement programs attending part-time.

Having worked in IR before heading to my PhD, I will offer my insight. You'll probably be better served in an applied statistics master's program. It could be in a School of Education but you can also look in other social sciences such as psychology, sociology, and economics. I wouldn't recommend a straight statistics program just because they are usually more interested in theory and/or methods that you will not utilize as an IR professional. If you are interested in more than statistics but measurement and evaluation, I would lean more towards a program in education or psychology. I would also ask IR professionals in your area what they recommend. Be really careful which one you select though. Unfortunately, method programs vary widely in their quality and depth. PhD programs are another kettle of fish. It is more about what you want to research than anything else. It sounds like you want a credential and some work-related skills so I would start with the master's first.