Seeking

Armadilla, Yes you are right about the EC 2 backlog for the Indian and Chinese applicants. What I meant by it being easier in the academia is that academic institutions support a GC application more readily than business employers, who can exploit the candidates because of the nature of GC regulations in the US. Academic institutions don't want to lose a well-qualified candidate whom they have already employed for several years. Besides, once the priority date for a GC application is reached, the application from an academic from a reputable institution takes less time to get processed than one from the business or professional sector - unless there are some errors in the application. A limited number of academics also manage to show that they fall in the EB1 category, for which the priority date is current, but they are very few in number. Otherwise, you are right that the rules for EB 2 immigration are the same for all who fall in that category. This is why Indian and Chinese applicants keep on getting registered in different Graduate Programs and changing jobs with whoever wants to give them an H1B visa till they are able to file a GC application. This not only creates problems for the candidates and makes the work of the USCIS more difficult, it is building up extra pressure on the Grad programs, who get an inflated pool of applications, from candidates who are not at fault. And the US is not able to utilize this pool of skilled workers to its utmost potential, because these candidates spend a lot of time getting stabilized in the US. This is why I said that instead of having this complex categorization of skilled workers, they should just allow the highly skilled candidates with a US degree and a regular job in their field to file a GC application without having to seek sponsorship from the employer and process the applications on a case by case basis. This way, the US will be able to use the high skills of foreign workers much more efficiently than at present. Canada is a much greater illusion than the US when it comes to immigration and a job in one's own field. It's relatively much easier to get the Canadian immigration, but once these candidates reach there, they discover that the Canadian employers offer jobs to only those who have a Canadian degree. As a result, very highly skilled candidates from India are not able to get a job in their field in Canada after they immigrate and are forced to engage in work that doesn't recognize their high-level qualifications. At this advanced stage, they can't even begin their education all over and it is really demeaning to all their previous qualifications if they have to do so. Hence, they go for business or job that is not in their skilled field, or just get a Graduate degree in a professional field for a couple of years that will get them a job in Canada. In the last case, their job relates to only their Canadian degree and devalues all their previous qualifications. Thus, Canada is actually wasting almost all of its skilled immigrants' qualifications by the way the work situation in Canada is oriented. Earlier a lot of Indians were attracted by the relatively easy immigration program of Canada, but now they are beginning to realize the problems that lie in Canada and hence, the interest in Canadian immigration is falling now. In fact, all these candidates who would have otherwise gone to Canada are turning towards the US now, because despite whatever problems the US immigration system has, it is still better than the Canadian illusion. If there are Indians going from the US to Canada, it's perhaps only with an intention to come back to the US at a later date.

What TakeruK says is true for the jobs in the market. In the academia though, everything depends upon whether you are able to land a TT position in a reputable institution as soon as you complete your PhD. Applying for a Green Card from thereon is relatively less troublesome as compared to the jobs in the business sector. You need to be in the top range and have very good contacts to land a TT job straight after PhD. Of course, it depends upon whether you are applying for a PhD or a Masters. I am not sure that candidates from India are mainly immigrating to join families - except those coming on a spouse visa - this is true for other immigrants, not for Indians. Indians mostly arrive in the US to study and keep on moving from one degree or job to another till they can file for a Green Card. Perhaps this is why Dardie has asked this question. I wish the USCIS would grant immigration to those who have a US degree and who have found a regular job after completing their US degree, rather than making the candidates dependent upon the employers to file for immigration. A candidate who has a US degree and has found a regular job after getting the US degree should be able to file for Green Card on their own.

You should consider funding, past alumni's job placement record and faculty profiles in your specialization. All things being equal, go to Univ of Texas A&M - even if funding is a little less than at NCSU.

All of these journeys are amazing and deserve an acceptance into Grad schools! It's interesting to see the absolute contrast in the journeys of Fall13 Applicant and Madricka, one following the other - both very inspirational in their own ways. Reading through Fall13 Applicant's journey I felt s/he could be from India and then looked at their location and signature line - yes, sure enough.

I think there is a lot of truth in what he says, though the point about the Humanities being the disciplines for refining human personality and not vocational training courses is also correct. I guess he wants to make those students aware, who may not know about the harsh realities. Almost every response to his article - mostly from the Humanities faculty and some from the students - has agreed with him. See link - http://chronicle.com/article/Letters-About-Graduate-School/63938 There is a need to look at it from a historical perspective. The idea of Humanities evolved in times when everyone didn't depend upon a job to survive in the world. There were other means of sustenance available to people, especially to those who went to study in the universities. Besides, the teaching of Humanities as a means to refine human character evolved as a reaction to the earlier times, when people from different sections of the society were expected to go for different kinds of vocational training. This is why Humanities don't give a vocational training to their students. Since then, our society has changed drastically. Today, most people depend upon a job in order to survive, regardless of the discipline they study. In such an environment, while the essential sense of Humanities as disciplines to refine human character and going to a university for pure passion of the discipline is not to be forgotten, there is a responsibility upon the Grad Programs to seriously try to resolve the problem of underemployment and unemployment in the Academia, especially in the Humanities. As for the availability of academic jobs in the Humanities, the career prospects in Humanities is a reflection of the economic health of a country.The general slant is that when the economy is robust, academic jobs in the Humanities will grow. Shrinking number of academic jobs in the Humanities reflect that the economy is declining. (This is with specific reference to the Humanities, not to other disciplines). This is because in any society more number of people successfully make an academic career out of the Humanities when the society in general is prosperous. In times of economic decline, careers in vocational fields grow in number. The question of whether we should study a subject for its market value or for our passion for the subject is also linked to the question of how holistically developed the society is. In most underdeveloped societies such as in the Third World, people study a subject for its worth in the job-market. This is because education is their means to advance their economic condition. Studying a discipline purely for the love of the discipline is a mark of a highly developed society. Mostly, in the developed part of the world people study a subject purely because they love it. By extension then, in a developed country if there is a growing number of people opting for a discipline because of its value in the job market or if more and more people feel that the Humanities should be linked to the job market, it is a sign of declining economy of the country. As the economy improves, the academic career prospects of the Humanities Graduates should also improve and more people will also automatically go into Graduate school because they love their subject. So, the effort should be focused on improving the economy of the country.

Dumpling, Check your PM.

I too used to think like this - and I still feel this is how it should be in an ideal world, but this is not an ideal world. I have seen quite a few well-published researchers getting sidelined by non-published PhDs just fresh out of Ivy schools. And the Ivy Graduates were no more brilliant or knowledgeable than their non-Ivy counterparts. They just had an Ivy stamp on their degrees to support them. Of course, I am against this culture of blindly taking in the Ivy graduates just because they happen to have an Ivy degree, but unfortunately, this is the way most selection committees think. The US has a long way to go in matters of selecting its faculty. If I were applying, I'd just go for funding and ranking of the school. I'd adjust with all other uncomfortable factors. Of course, it is presumed that one would apply only to programs that are the best fits to one's interests.

You can get the answer to this mystery only once you are in the US, completing a Graduate Program from a well-ranked institution. There are many kinds of information that you get only when you are in a US school. Almost all US schools do have an employment office and also an immigration cell to provide the right information to the International candidates. But you have to be there to get their help.

It looks like you need to critically assess your application profile and rectify the drawbacks. You may need the help of a professional Graduate education advising service to refine your application profile. If you have more applications waiting, that means you still have a chance, so you don't have to lose hope. Otherwise you can get your application assessed by a counselor or by a Professor you may know and trust.

St. Ambrose seems to come closest - http://www.catholic-saints.info/patron-saints/list-of-patron-saints-patronage.htm As for being a non-believer, the way it works is not so much by faith, but by entering into a business contract with the Saint. That is, you promise to donate money, study seriously for a year, not trouble your POI for a semester etc if your petition is accepted by the Saint. If the Saint wants to enter into this kind of contract and do business with you, they'll process your petition, regardless of faith(-lessness).

The Results Page is not opening in my laptop at the moment, but I think I saw an entry from someone there about getting a funded offer from Wisconsin-Madison and another from Missouri-Columbia. Funding for Masters in many cases is available only for the US citizens, not for the International candidates.

This was published in 2008 when the economy was at its lowest depth. Perhaps it's worthwhile to consider how much of this is still true - http://www.nafsa.org/_/File/_/marapr_08_frontlines.pdf

Also, find out about getting married in the US to an American citizen while on a student visa. It may not be allowed and you may face a lot of problems later while getting your visa status changed. As far as I know, it would be much easier for you if you go back to your country for a short while before getting married and if your would-be spouse visits you there on a tourist visa to get married to you in your country. But I don't have the official details. You need to check this.

Hal, they all are following the dominant discourses in their own sub-specializations - i.e., they all were always in line. They picked up a sub-specialization when it was on the rise and followed it up in the direction it was moving. They didn't really challenge the dominant discourses in their sub-specialization. And as I said, they all had influential mentors to promote them. You can't rise in the academia without an influential mentor and it's the mentor who decides what line you'll take. I am not suggesting that this is the way it should be - I am against this culture of the mentor promoting only a certain kind of candidates. I am only saying that this is how things are. This is also a reality. Thanks for this!

Thanks for this very realistic picture of the selection process!

Based on the information you've given above - Go for Minnesota.

I guess Princeton has been a big shock to most people here. Don't lose heart, you have other programs to hear from. You'll sure get in somewhere. Congrats to those who got in.

Josephinebeuys - This has to be true to some extent at most if not all grad programs. Yes, there are professors who encourage you to take risks, ask questions - be unconventional - but there are also professors who will not entertain divergent points of view. Unlike in undergrad, where professors will nod politely and feign appreciation, I have seen profs cut students down in seminar for arguing against their views. It's easy to write these profs off as out of touch hot heads, but sometimes you have to play the game - these are the people who decide on departmental fellowships, and who can write you letters of recommendation to their famous colleagues. This is actually true in many cases - including at top schools and in most Humanities and Social Sciences Programs. What I have seen is that they want you to be innovative and a critical thinker when you are entering Graduate School and during the first few years. But as you are nearing the end of your PhD and go into the job market, you are expected to fall in line with the predominant thought systems more often than not. Exceptionally brilliant, innovative and critical candidates who question the system too much are not wanted in the academic job market - unless they happen to have been fortunate to have made the right contacts during their PhD program. If they want to change the system, they should have an influential mentor who follows a similar idea - but the mentor will support such a candidate as long as the candidate doesn't deviate from the mentor's route. So, if an application gives the impression that this candidate is going to ask too many uncomfortable questions in future that the influential academics may not agree with, such an application is not likely to be successful. But if an application gives the impression that this candidate is going to add some more innovation to the POI's thought system without ever questioning the POI, the applicant is likely to be successful because of an innovative and critical writing sample. You can't afford to question your mentor's approach if you don't agree with it at some stage. Innovation and critical thinking end where your mentor's territory begins in the academia.

I agree with Losemygrip and others. You have a very good chance of getting accepted into a funded PhD program in Art History. Just try.

Personally, I rate a school highly only if the highest grades are given there to the most critically innovative students - regardless of whether the various ranking lists place this school in the top 5 or in the last 30. I know that not everyone thinks like me. But I feel that in an ideal situation, a good school should also rate its most innovative and critical-thinking scholars on top. That said, in an admissions process, apart from the writing sample, SOP and the LORs, the prestige of the previous school also counts - as also the names of the recommenders. Besides, it's a relative comparison process, so what also matters is how one's application compares with other applications and where one stands in the applications pool.

Thanks, Hal. About me - I am interested in cultural theory in all creative disciplines - visual, performance - including cinematic and audio-visual - and literary arts. I am interested in looking at theoretical models from a historical perspective. I feel theory without history is directionless and history without theory is not quite upto the mark. At the same time, I try to engage in theoretical discourses in a simple, layperson's language. I feel there is no need to go obtuse in order to engage in theoretical discussion. In fact, in my opinion the mark of a great scholar is that s/he should be able to explain his/her complex innovative theoretical critiques in a language that any student just out of high school can understand. That said, I am a kind of an iconoclast - I am a follower of none. If I don't agree with a scholar/theorist/philosopher, I don't follow their ideas just because it's the in-thing to do so. I don't feel obliged to accept anyone's theories as the last word. I feel there can be no last word in cultural theory, or in any academic discipline for that matter. So, at some stage you may see me saying things that may sound outrageous. Beware. Since this is a forum for Art History, let's stick to the issue of cultural theoretical criticism in relation to Art History. The question of exploring the issue of social justice vis-a-vis the divergent ideas of Postmodernity and Altermodernity in the context of Art History, Theory and Criticism is an important one. Since you have said you'll revisit this issue after thinking about it, I'll wait for your revisit. Thanks again.

That's a long list of interests! Perhaps these are oversimplistic questions and reflect my ignorance, but how do you correlate postmodern and altermodern with social justice issues related to race, class, gender etc? Or, do you really correlate them or do you see them as divergent planes where ideas of social justice are concerned, given that they are not really synonymous terms? Do you feel that postmodern and altermodern perspectives approach the questions of social justice in different ways? Further, as an artist, does your art flow between the postmodern and the altermodern, while experimenting with social justice? I am not being critical in a negative sense, but just trying to understand all this further from your point of view. Thanks

Some schools have notified. So, you are soon to hear something now.

Well, hope not! Good luck for this round!