Seeking

As you say, it varies by the program, school and the area. In some places, the full funding amount may be lower than in others, but there may be plenty of work opportunities to supplement your income, or to completely cover your room and board costs. In other places, funding amount may be higher, but the cost of living may be extremely high, thus making this amount insufficient. You can write to the current Graduates in the programs you are applying to in order to get a sense of the funding and costs situation in these places.

I have already said they couldn't have got the job without a few semesters worth of Grad School credits. Just the Undergrad degrees are not helpful in getting those jobs. And if they get these jobs after a few semesters worth of Grad School credits, the Grad School has successfully achieved its aim. How many semesters' training they require before they land a job depends upon their own intrinsic abilities, the dynamics and the environment of the Program they are in. In fact, this can be compared to the funded Humanities PhD Programs. Precisely because job opportunities for Humanities candidates are very low, Humanities candidates hang around for many years in their Grad Programs. And because their staying long in the Program is expensive for the University, the annual in-take of Humanities candidates in funded Programs is much lower than that in the STEM Programs. You are a Humanities candidate, perhaps that's why you are thinking from the perspective of loyalty to the Program. Dynamics of STEM Programs are very different in nature. As mentioned above, Grad Schools have an annual search for candidates anyway, whether students in previous cohorts leave or not. It's not like the Corporate Sector where if a candidate leaves they have to invest money in finding a new employee. This is part of the annual selection process of the Grad School, irrespective of whether students leave or stay. It's not a loss for the candidate and it's not a loss for the Grad School.

Yes and you know that most candidates get tuition waiver in Grad School - which means the Grad School is paying for the tuition of most candidates. The longer they stay, the more the university pays for them - and also spends on their research and teaching training and is also giving them RA/TA salaries. The Grad School is not just a business about tuition. As I said, its primary aim is to train people in research and teaching. It has to show how many people it trained and with what results. Candidates who leave for a lucrative job offer in fact help positively in this index - and they cost less than those who stay longer.

I think the comparison between a company and a university is not appropriate. The primary aim of the Grad School is to train candidates in research and teaching skills, which these candidates can use in their future career. Whatever teaching and research employment they get in Grad School is by way of giving them the opportunity to hone their research and teaching skills. On the other hand, companies hire candidates who already have skills and who are willing to use their skills for the benefit of the company. In the process they also hone their skills further or acquire new skills, but that's the not the main aim of the companies while hiring employees. Precisely because the Grad School is into training the candidates in research and teaching, they don't necessarily regard it as a loss if some of their best candidates find a job half way through and leave. If they find a lucrative job, it is a matter of prestige for the Grad Program that even a few semesters' training they gave to these candidates has turned out to be fruitful. They may even use it as an index of their top-grade training quality to attract more top-grade candidates. Grad School has well-conceptualized degree-programs of 2-5/7 years for candidates who would like to use the full range of training for the entire 2-5/7 years. But if some candidates can have a successful career with less than the entire term of a degree Program, it's not much problem for the Grad School. It means that they have been able to train these candidates so much that they could achieve their professional aim with less than the full-term training. In this sense, the Grad School has achieved its aim. As for the lab work getting affected, there are always candidates available to carry further the work that was done by the previous candidate. This is one of the reasons that often more candidates are taken than they can accommodate, with a view that some of these will leave. And this is the reason the most qualified candidates are selected - they are most likely to get the desired training in the shortest period of time. In fact, the candidates who stay for a long period in Grad School are going to cost more because more resources are required to be invested on their training. We need to understand that Grad School is not a regular employment in the sense a regular job in a company is an employment. The dynamics of Grad School are different from the job dynamics in the companies. PS - Deliberately hiring the less qualified candidates who will stay loyal by avoiding the top-quality candidates is what the Third World countries do, because loyalty at the cost of quality is more important to them. And it shows in the cumulative results the countries show.

Here we need to differentiate between various categories of students who don't finish Graduate School. Some drop out because they didn't meet the evaluation standards - and their initially being intensely willing to get admission into a Grad Program has nothing to do with their under-performance. They were intensely desirous of this degree, but they didn't foresee that they would not be meeting the expectations of the Grad School. Some lose funding for reasons other than grades and are forced to drop out. Again, they didn't see that this would happen. Illness is another reason for not completing. Some leave because their Adviser leaves and they don't want to work with another Adviser. They too didn't foresee that this would happen. There is a % of students who get a job half way through Grad School and since at the end of Grad School they had intended to get a job anyway, they decide to leave. The last category is of candidates who couldn't have got this job offer without their Grad School credits. Even 1-3 semester's Grad School credits make them attractive in the job market, which wouldn't have been possible without these Grad School credits. So, they are not failures. Rather, they are successes. And, their intense involvement with Grad School is justified because it made them do well in whatever semesters they completed and eventually they got a job because of it. So, first, this data should include information about why these students didn't complete and where they went after leaving. Second, they are not making a mistake by getting into Grad School. People change their way of thinking throughout life, they change their ambitions and their goals in life. At no point can we say how we will think a few months or a year after today. And no one can foresee a circumstance that will arise in future.

Berna, There are some US Faculty in Political Science responding to questions down the menu. You can directly seek their advice -

Loric, I am sorry to hear about all the struggles you've had. Well, any school that treats its students like your last Grad school did is not worth going to. It was not your fault. It's not as if you didn't get it. It was just that your Grad program didn't get how to handle a student who thought differently - the professor's Yale degree not withstanding. As I said, I have seen enough Ivy Graduates who don't know how to be a good academic, but who flood the academia. And any Grad program in Arts that doesn't talk about "isms" is not worth its salt. So, I would say don't worry about your past record and don't get tensed thinking about what might happen now. Just relax. If you can afford it, apply to some more funded programs whose profiles look as though they will be a good fit for you and if a Professor there responds to your email positively. In the worst event, you can explore job options, work and save money and get back to Grad school next year with more experience. It's not the end of the world. So, think positive and who knows, you may get in with funding. Feel free to pm me if you need any advice about Grad applications.

WorriedWarts, Don't worry. A- is not likely to adversely affect your funding. And your Harvard degree is going to take care of the rest, as long as you maintain an A- or A. You can take this degree to where many others can't go, despite your A-s. The greater danger is that precisely because of this "immunity of Ivy degrees," I have seen quite a few Ivy graduates who are quite mediocre in their understanding of their subjects - and Harvard graduates are no exception to this. You should not fall into this trap. Concentrate more on your research and gain a good understanding of your subject, so that when you go out into the world, people don't say "what kind of trash Harvard produces that keeps on circulating around." That's the real danger of an Ivy degree, especially from Harvard. The amount of trash I've seen coming out of the Ivies, especially from Harvard, is not funny.

To give another perspective, I have seen quite a few Art History and Fine Art students from different schools who have got only As and A-s and when I talk to them, I find them very average in their understanding of their subjects - which means that their grades are highly inflated. And this includes the crop from the Ivies. To Francophile1, a letter grade has different meanings in different departments and also in different schools. So, you need to talk to your Advisor or Graduate Co-ordinator about it to get a perspective on this. Normally, B should not be too bad if you're making a GPA above 3.7.

Can you not request for another chance to enrol for Biochem once again and try to improve your grade? There is no harm in asking about this. You can point out that you're otherwise doing well, so you may be given a second chance at Biochem.

It depends upon the country. In the North America and in Australia, it's the norm to get funded for PhD and one shouldn't go for a PhD program that doesn't offer funding. But in the UK and in the rest of Europe, funding probabilities are mixed. Some top-ranked universities have almost guaranteed funding (also shorter PhD), but there are many universities that don't guarantee funding if you are not from the EU. The question is how badly you want this unfunded PhD from the UK. If you can wait for another cycle and apply for PhDs with guaranteed funding, I think it's better to take that option. If you can't wait, then you need to think how competitive this PhD will be in the job market against similar PhDs from other institutions and whether you feel confident about getting the kind of job you want with this PhD. From your list of Universities, Edinburgh was the best option, but since it's no longer an option, I think Manchester is the other competitive PhD and my guess is that Manchester will most likely give you at least partial funding. So, worth waiting to hear from them. I'm not sure about the unfunded PhDs from the rest. You know best about their potential to get you success in the kind of job you want to do. I would suggest wait to see what kind of funding you get from the rest. If you don't get funding this year, apply next cycle to funded PhDs across UK, EU, Canada and if possible, US.

We needed the STEM people to come here and show Loric where s/he belongs.

While you are a TA in Graduate School, or completing your PhD and looking for a TT position, or alreay teaching in any capacity, a teaching portfolio helps you to advance in your teaching career. Have a look at this link for strategies about how to build a Teaching Portfolio - http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/teaching-guides/reflecting/teaching-portfolios/

Squeaxy, From what you say, it looks like you are already in an Undergraduate Program - where your GPA is 9/10. If that is so, I think your profile is good enough to be admitted to a good Graduate Program in Business Studies if you apply closer to completing your Undergraduate Studies. Try to get some internship or volunteer work or some kind of work experience as well, to strengthen your application, although they usually are aware that students from developing countries don't have that many opportunities and hence, it shouldn't matter much that you don't have work experience. PS - But you also say you have been working for 1 year. if this is work experience, your profile is fine for Graduate admission.

Takeruk, I don't know much about the funding sources of each discipline, but concurring with your view, yes it is not only possible, but necessary for the government to fund both STEM and Humanities/Social Sciences research. Let alone Canada - if you remember the discussion on the academic jobs thread, we found that even Third World universities like those in Brazil and India have more or less equal funding for STEM and Humanities/Social Sciences research. India has an entire Ministry devoted to awarding hundreds of research fellowships in arts and culture every year. But the important point to note here is that in countries such as Canada and elsewhere, higher education is regarded as an important investment in developing human resources. On the other hand, in the US, investment in higher education is profit oriented - profit in terms of financial gains or in terms of technological advancement which keeps the US ahead of the rest of the world - and this is not necessarily geared towards only the arms-manufacturing and military interests. There is a whole range of technological fields that cater to advanced research in non-military relate fields. And apart from government funding, there is a lot of industrial funding that supports this research for use in industry. Perhaps the US model needs to be revised. This requires an understanding that all disciplines are equally essential for the society. We only have to imagine a society where people are only engaged in STEM-related activities, with no outlet for Humanities and Social Sciences-related activities. I don't think many people would like to live in such a society! But at the same time, we should also be aware that if we look at the US situation from a global perspective, there are in fact more number of jobs available in the Humanities/Social Sciences fields in the US than in any other country. It's not as if the US is not promoting the arts. It's just that the focus on STEM is a little more tilted than on other disciplines.

In Masters level ranking doesn't matter. It matters in PhD level if you are going for the academia. If you're in STEM and going into industry, ranking doesn't matter much. Besides, if this professor has a world-wise recognition, then this Department's ranking is likely to be higher within your discipline. You can go for University B.

Yes, exactly. And when you become a Selection Committee member later in life, change this system, so that brilliant candidates from other schools get their fair due and the mediocre ones from these so-called Top 10 are weaned out and don't get placed just because they have a gold-plated degree. Of course, there are good candidates coming out of the top-10 too, who should get placed.

I didn't know Linkedin had a resume generator - thanks for this information! I keep only my Academia edu profile updated. Facebook is where all my family and friends have found me and we communicate across the globe. I do have a Facebook page which I try to keep updated. I have several other profiles whose Id-passwords I have forgotten.

Perhaps not too low for Top 50.

The administrative records may be in Persian in the Sikh Empire, but you need to corroborate your evidences with other kinds of sources, which may be in Punjabi of 17th century and in a host of other local languages. Vijayanagar certainly was using a lot of languages - apart from the administrative records, inscriptions are very important at Vijayanagar, which are in Sanskrit, Telugu and in a mix of archaic Telugu/Tamil and Sanskrit - the script of which is also archaic now. Then there are other categories of texts which are in Marathi and become important for a study of Vijayanagar. In the Maratha kingdom, Marathi, Persian, Sanskrit and a script called Modi script are important for a study of administrative records, inscriptions and texts of other categories. When you begin to do your research, you'll realize all this. I don't doubt that you have been studying South Asian history for several years. But I would say a Masters in History from Delhi or Aligarh - preferably latter - will stand you in good stead. I know several students who have taken this route - of getting an MA in History from India and continuing into PhD in South Asian History in the North America or UK and it helped them a lot. Of course, it's your decision, but think about this option.

Apill, I think you have too much on your plate. In the 17th century, all the regions you have mentioned have records in different languages and you need very advanced fluency in the concerned languages. Maratha records are in Marathi, Sikh records are in Punjabi, Tibetan are in Tibetan, Vijayanagar records are in Telugu, Sanskrit, Marathi and ancient versions of mixture of Telugu and Sanskrit. Not only are the languages different, but their scripts are also archaic in the 17th Century. Learning modern versions of these languages often doesn't help to understand the records from the 17th century. Often, you'll find records that are not even printed, but written in cursive handwritten manuscripts which are difficult to read even for the native speakers. Besides, South Asia is a dynamic, forever changing region and hence, a knowledge of its contemporary situation often doesn't help in understanding its historical past. Believe me, one year's Persian learning does not prepare you to do this research. I am not trying to discourage you, but you need to develop a clarified focus - if you want to study the Mughal History, I'd say focus only on that, learn Persian for a couple of years, travel through South Asia a couple of times before you study the 17th century history of the region. This will help you to evolve a clear research project that will be fruitful. By the way, Mughal History and Vijayanagara are also intensively researched. But you can always find a topic of your interest in Mughal history that has not been researched, or you can attempt to reformulate a research question related to Mughal history that has been researched before. Perhaps getting an MA in History with focus on a Mughal Historical project with more Persian learning and field work in South Asia would be a good idea. Getting this degree from Delhi or Aligarh would be even better- these are two great places for researching on Mughal History and Persian learning. Between the two, Aligarh is somewhat better for Mughal History. Their Masters degrees are highly valued in the Departments of South Asian History in the West. With this MA you can apply for a PhD in the US or UK.

Apill, Exactly which region do you want to study in the 17th Century South Asia? Perhaps you already know that in 17th Century, Mughals ruled over a large part of South Asia and their records are in Persian. Although major ones are translated, you'll need to learn advanced Persian for research on their reign. The other big players in 17th Century South Asia were the Portuguese. Their records are less translated and hence, you'll need to know advanced Portuguese if you want to take up Portuguese part of the region. If you wish to study the Southern part of the sub-continent, it will also help to acquire an advance proficiency in the regional language of that region, which may not be easy, but can certainly be achieved. This study may take a minimum of 7-8 years, if you want to do it well, which I am sure you want to do. So, you need to be prepared for this long, hard research. On the other hand, since you are coming from an IR background, I feel it will be much easier for you to convince the selection committees about a topic on early 20th century South Asia. This period also mostly deals with records that are in English, unless you are studying the local history of a region, in which case you'll need to learn the local language. Please think about all this before you embark on a research project. UK has much more advanced scholarship on the history of South Asia than the US does, for obvious historical reasons. I'd suggest that you should also check the schools in the UK for your research. SOAS, Cambridge and Oxford would be great places to do this research.

m-ttl, The professor has given you the right advice - for Masters you don't have to worry about going to a top-tier school. Just apply to the schools that are good fit with your intended research, give funding at Masters level and have a curatorial track. For PhD you can move to as high-ranked a school as you can manage. Again, ranking is not so competitive for a curatorial job. But if at some point you would want to change to a Univ-level teaching job, then the ranking will be important- but you don't have to worry about it at Masters level. If you feel you'll be happy with a curatorial track then just go to a school that's a good fit, gives funding and has the research concentrations that you are interested in. Of course, there may be more than one such schools and in that case you can go to the best-ranked one that accepts you.

Apart from the GPA, I don't know if law courses will be enough for an IR MA admission. You may be expected to have 18-21 Undergrad credits in IR or political science. You can see this program - http://www.regents.ac.uk/study/postgraduate-study/programmes/ma-international-relations.aspx?gclid=COPyxpOtnrsCFUJlMgodc0sA8w Another option is to take a few non-degree credits in IR and then apply next year. This will also raise your GPA. But see that link. You may be able to get into that program.

Much of the "ranking" business goes by the reputation, not by the actual quality. Ideally, the candidates should be judged by their work, not by the reputation of their schools/departments, but we have to suffer this illogical system of ranking the quality of candidates by the reputation of their schools/departments.