Seeking

I'd say STEM and Social Sciences candidates - don't try the NS and try to have a good score on both Quant and Verbal sections. Of course, "good score" varies according to each department and discipline. Humanities candidates - I doubt that they even look at the Quant score, so NS is a good strategy, unless a department mentions that they expect both parts of the GRE. You may always write to the department and ask in advance. English literature, rhetoric and composition candidates - Try to have high verbal and writing scores and ask in advance if they are expecting the Quant score.

It depends upon how strong the rest of your application is. A verbal GRE is essentially a reflection of your linguistic analytical ability, but in a highly competitive department they may use it as a filter to exclude candidates from getting selected. So, if the other parts of your application - mainly your writing sample, personal statement, references and GPA are strong enough, you can still send in your application and have a fair chance of getting selected. You may also write to the Department and ask what kind of role the GRE plays in the selection process. If 166 is not the cut-off but just the typical score of the successful candidates and if the department doesn't have an official cut-off, I would still send in my application if the rest of the application package is strong.

BB, Look at the Meadows School of Arts at SMU.

Rankings for different disciplines differ significantly. For rhetoric and composition, Oregon and Maryland are very much part of the group of schools that send out successful Graduates who land a faculty position. One has to see the faculty profiles in one's own discipline to see where they got their PhDs from.

Personally, I am against this culture of selecting candidates by the school they went to, instead of the kind of research they did or the teaching/publication/conference papers track record they have. But unfortunately, it is very true that when you go for the interview, almost always you will be topped by an applicant from the T-20 group. To get a sense of the list of schools that are successfully producing teaching faculty, look at the faculty profiles of about 50 schools in your discipline from the top rank to the lowest rank. You'll see how many times a selective group of schools get repeated on the faculty profile pages. This is true even of the lowest ranked schools - you'll be surprised to see how many Ivy-PhDs teach at these low-ranked schools. Apply to these schools from where the faculty is coming and you should do fine. This is in fact my main argument against the culture of selecting candidates by the ranking of their Graduate school - if the same group of faculty is teaching at all these schools, then how is their teaching quality lower or higher? But the problem is that we are trapped in this vicious circle and it's very difficult to break this circle. So, at this stage you have to play by their rules. When you become chair of a selection committee, you can make a difference.

You can write to the department and ask about their policy - if they don't mention it as a requirement but just "prefer it" - if 152 is their cut-off and whether a lower score will result in the rejection of the application and how much influence the Quant score has on the application process. This will give you a sense of whether you need to re-take it. If it's not the cut-off, you can still get in with the rest of your application package which is quite impressive.

If you need funding and that's the only way you will be able to attend Graduate school, then it's not rude to check boxes - it's being honest about your case so that they will know how to treat your application in the fairest possible manner. If you get funding, you attend otherwise you don't attend because you don't have funding. If they like your application, they will find funding if they can, otherwise they will tell you they don't have funding and then you don't attend, period. Although it is usually more difficult to get funding for Masters, I know several cases where Masters students got funding because their applications were highly appreciated by the faculty. Besides, usually it's possible to find out in advance before applying if a Masters program has funding. A PhD without funding is not worth getting into.

What Condivi says is right in most cases (though not necessarily fair), though the list they have given is not complete. Michigan certainly is included in the so-called "prestigious" group - so also UCLA, U-Chicago, NYU etc. But it matters for the PhD program in Art History, not for the Masters so much. If you are looking for a Masters Program, I'd go to any school that gives me funding and is a good fit for what I want to do - and try to do well there. By the way, there is a thread for a list of funded Masters in Art History that may help.

In most cases your scores would be fine. But if you are applying to Columbia then you should re-take the GRE, since they have specified the minimum scores. You could also write to the academic co-ordinator there and ask about it, in case it's a flexible policy. The Grad-admission page of Columbia mentions that only Psychology Department at Columbia has a fixed minimum score. So, I would certainly write to the Art History Department and confirm.

Don't worry about the quant score - they won't consider it. Your verbal score is fine. You don't have to re-take the GRE. If you are an International candidate, make sure your IELTS/TOEFL score is high enough. Also, you'll need to show proficiency in Japanese if you are a non-Japanese speaker.

Kdavid, Your CV is fine. Don't worry about the length. You may delete the last 3 sections and write about your Master's thesis in a shorter paragraph - some of the sentences are very long. Break them and try to give the same information in less number of words. Apart from these, rest is quite fine. All the best to you.

Hi Kdavid, I had a look at your CV. Just some thoughts - 1) It's not clear whether you are a native Chinese speaker or a native English speaker. If you are a native English speaker, mention it. 2) It's not clear why you want to emphasise that your entire Master's study was in Chinese. If you want to stress that despite being an English speaker you have gained native fluency in Chinese, say so. 3) Make a heading "Chinese Proficiency" and mention there that all your Master's education was in Chinese and that you have a Chinese proficiency certificate as well. 4) Change "Teaching experience" to "Work experience." 5) Mention your BA qualifications above language certification qualifications. Further, mention what courses you took in BA that are relevant for what you want to do now. Also mention in total how many credits you have got in the area that you want to study further. 6) Normally, the order of your qualifications should be - Educational qualifications - Master's Degree - In what subject, from where, year when completed, total credits, any significant grade points if available. - Master's thesis - Topic and description, when completed, grade point if available. - Bachelor's Degree - In what subjects (Major and Minor), from where, year when completed, courses taken relevant for your future study, total credits, grade points obtained. Chinese proficiency Certifications - - TESOL etc - Chinese etc Lectures delivered -Arranged from most recent to the oldest in sequence - Titles, where delivered, date, purpose of lectures. Work experience - Arranged from most recent to oldest. You should translate all Chinese titles into English in bracket.

Roquentin, First, I didn't say if two candidates are equal - I said if two universities are equal in resources, funding, faculty strength etc. No two people can be equal ever - every individual has different strengths. Now, about what you say about candidate's own ranking - You are talking about an ideal world, where everything is done by fair play. This is not an ideal world. People don't do things by fair play. Professors and hiring committees least of all. Yes, ideally a student should choose a university that answers best to their own needs and criteria. It's also correct that lots of bright students attend lower-ranked schools - and I have always spoken for them - that they should get their fair due. But it's not correct that top-ranked schools attract lots of bright students. Believe me I have taught, interact with and read the writings of the products of the topmost schools in the world. And the amount of mediocrity I have found in the top schools is not funny. And the way I have seen all this mediocrity getting a tenure-track, sidelining the bright students from the lower-ranked school is also not funny. If I didn't have a first-hand experience of all this mediocrity coming from top-schools getting tenure-track at the expense of way better candidates from lower-ranked schools, I myself would have argued like you. It came as a shock to me initially, but gradually I saw that this was a norm. And the bigger injustice is that all this mediocrity is promoted at the expense of better candidates from other schools. I don't believe in any kind of ranking of universities. I only believe in the personal strengths of candidates. There are bright candidates in all kinds of schools. Similarly, there are mediocre and below-mediocre candidates in all kinds of schools. The hiring committees should begin to assess the candidates by their academic strengths, not by the gloss on their degrees. If the gloss on the degrees is the sole criteria then there is no need for the hiring committees. From the pool of applicants, the candidate with the glossiest degree can be automatically appointment.

Well, that's an overly simplistic comparison. Prestige really matters - more in the Humanities and Social Sciences than in STEM - when you have a choice of two or more universities with equal strength of faculty in your field of interest, comparable funding and comparable resources. All other things being equal, when you go for job interviews, the candidate from a higher-prestige university will always top a candidate from a lower department. Your description still doesn't say what would you regard a better ranking of Canadian universities - the top 4 at least seem to be the same in all rankings across the board. And it's usually these top 4 that make the difference - unless the candidates from these top 4 are competing against candidates from the T-20 from the US or from the top UK universities. So, since the top 4 are the same in all these rankings, what would you regard a better ranking and why are these lists biased? I do agree with your argument that departmental ranking may differ from the university ranking and in many cases it's the departmental ranking that matters. So, perhaps they should publish a department-wise ranking list. I would also say that they should not club together the Undergraduate and Graduate rankings. They should have separate lists for these 2 categories. But these points need to be considered in other global rankings as well.

They haven't said they asked only the Undergraduates. Besides, I don't have much faith in the Professors' rankings either, considering what kind of politics they play when it comes to ranking. I only posted the links to get people's perceptions about what they think of the various Canadian schools, since we don't have much discussion on that. I neither agree nor disagree with these rankings. But we are only having people telling us these rankings are biased, without saying what they consider as better ways to look at Canadian universities.

Roquentin, That's what I also found puzzling - perhaps they took into account factors other than overly enthusiastic responses. I also wonder why Queen's is lower than UBC on this scale. I any case, in Canada, a US degree seems to rank higher than any Canadian degree. Please read this other thread -

Here is Collegesage ranking - http://www.collegesage.com/ranking/top-10-canadian-university-rankings/

Indian students usually apply after completing one year of Masters in India, or after getting a Masters degree - precisely because of the 1-year discrepancy in the Bachelor's degrees in India and in the US. You need to find out whether your CFA course credits will compensate for the 1-year's shortage. For this, you need to write to the Graduate co-ordinates of a couple of universities and ask if they will accept the credits from CFA towards the eligibility of 4 years pre-Graduate training. If not, then it's better to get credits for the remaining one year before applying. You may be able to find pre-qualification or bridge courses for this purpose. So, you need to get this sorted out first, before you actually begin to apply. Another option for you can be to get a Masters from a reputable university in India and apply for an MS or PhD in the US.

Groverj3, Thanks for that insight into the finer dynamics of US education. I do feel very strongly that the undergraduate education in the US should have more funding from the government. It will reduce costs substantially. This topic is also about dynamics of getting a job after Graduate studies and I have said elsewhere several times that the most undemocratic and unsound part of getting an academic job in the US is that it places undue importance to the "prestige value" of the PhD - especially in the Humanities - which often does not reflect the real academic standing and potential of a candidate. I have also seen a trend in recent years - candidates with a "prestigious PhD" but not much academic potential tend to use the prestige value of their PhDs to fill up the available positions as adjuncts and keep the really good candidates out of tenure-track jobs for years. This is increasing the number of unemployed PhD candidates in the job market - in addition to economy and other aspects. The schools fall for the temptation of saving money by taking as adjunct a mediocre person who has a prestigious tag attached to the PhD, rather than offering a tenure-track job to an academically sound candidate. I have seen cases of positions initially advertised as tenure-track later being filled with adjuncts in this manner. I strongly feel that the system of adjunct teaching should be abolished. This will give the jobs to at least some qualified PhDs. And definitely, jobs should go to the most academically sound person, regardless of where they got their PhD from. In Canada, the trend seems to be slightly different - US PhDs seem to have an advantage over Canadian PhDs in general. The "prestige value" there seems to be associated with the US, not with the top-ranking Canadian programs - both cases would overshadow the actual academic standing of the candidates. I found this about the academic recruitment in the Philosophy departments in Canada. Please do read the comments below the article as well. It seems that this is the trend in many disciplines in Canada, though Sciences may be different - http://www.universityaffairs.ca/phd-to-what-end.aspx The bright part is that at least Canadian academics are beginning to ask the right questions about how recruitment is being done in Canada and whether it treats the candidates in a fair manner. I wish and hope the American academics would begin to ask questions whether the candidates are being given their fair due in academic appointments based on the prestige value of PhDs.

In Humanities, it's usual practice to publish research papers from revised sections of a PhD dissertation. The actual dissertation is read only by the Dissertation committee, the advisor and later students working on related topics. But it's always possible to publish papers from the dissertation. I have also known candidates who revised their dissertations and published them as books from well-known publishers. I come from a University where well-researched Humanities PhD dissertations are usually published - not because it's a rule or a requirement, but because unpublished dissertations are regarded as "not serious research" in this University. Of course, I'm talking about the well-researched dissertations. There are also many who just submit a dissertation to get a PhD and don't go back to it. Perhaps in the STEM disciplines it's much more difficult to revise and publish a dissertation - it means that one has to take up another project. But you can always publish research papers out of it.

Well, different people handle such a situation differently. Someone like me would say I was involved in some research project - if I really was involved that is - or, would just say that there were no vacancies when I graduated and I am willing to take the first opportunity that comes my way.

Depends upon where you are applying and how strongly you can relate your Grad Studies interests to what you are studying now. Some schools still prefer that you have at least 15-18 credits i Art History before you apply for Grad School. If you can spare the time and money, filling in the courses in Art History will make your application only stronger.

Thanks, booksnlooks, I wasn't aware that Queen's is much small than the other top 3. I wonder what would be a better ranking for the Canadian schools - as seen from the perspective from other countries such as the US and the UK. Also, I don't know if ranking matters much within Canada.

Money in bank account, stocks, shares, Mutual Fund investments etc, Fixed deposits in bank accounts - any money that can be immediately used when needed. You'll need a current bank statement or a current statement from the concerned authority with date, sign, seal on the letterhead of the organization saying on this date this amount of money is in the bank in this person's name. Photocopies of bank passbook are usually not accepted as bank statement. The money need not be in your name. Any family member, relative or friend can give a signed financial statement (usually the form sent by the university) saying s/he has this amount of money and is willing to spend it for you if you are in need. Current bank statement of this person has to be attached along with the financial statement.

MissmoneyJenny, Thanks for your comment. I don't have much idea about the ranking of Canadian schools - except the top three on this list. You certainly know better than I do. Queen's doesn't seem to be much represented on Gradcafe and I wonder why. The other top 3 are of course very well represented.