Seeking

Every discipline has its own list. This list varies by the organization that prepares the list and it changes every year even when prepared by the same organization. This is why several lists should be compared to get a fair idea of where a Program stands and its alumni's success rate after graduation should be inquired into. Here is the NRC ranking of English language and literature programs - http://chronicle.com/article/NRC-Rankings-Overview-English/124728/ This should be compared with the ranking lists mentioned above and where their graduates from recent years are today should be found out before applying to these programs.

Thanks!

Thanks for this list, which is very helpful indeed. I would like to add a few to the above - The "Grade" in the link given above largely applies to the STEM disciplines and perhaps to the MS programs. It will differ largely for PhD programs and for Humanities and Social Sciences disciplines. Before applying, candidates should search for their preferred Programs' rankings on US News, Times Higher Education Rankings and QS Rankings, NRC rankings etc to name a few. Besides, they should write to the Graduate co-ordinators of each program and ask about the success rate of the alumni of these programs in the job market. They should also find out how many candidates are typically admitted in a year and out of these, how many are International candidates. The GRE scores are not so very important in the admission process, unless funding is not automatically linked to admission. Candidates with lower GRE scores can get admitted over those with higher GRE scores if their overall application package is stronger. Especially in the Humanities programs, Quant scores don't have much importance in the admission process. Before applying, the candidates should find out from the Departments what kind of role the GRE scores play in the selection process and if there is data available on the range of the GRE scores of the candidates admitted to the Department in previous years. Often, all the above information is given in the university website. So, the candidates should spend time exploring the websites of the various programs to see what information is given and about what more they have to write to the Department to find out. Those who want to apply for funding, should explore if the University website clearly mentions funding - for domestic as well as for International candidates. If it's not mentioned clearly, they should write to the Department and find out the possible sources of funding. They should clearly mention their citizenship and residency status while asking for this information. Like the SOP, check and proof-read your writing sample several times and make sure it's related to the field you are applying to and it's the best writing sample you have in that field. SOP and writing sample play a vital role in the selection process. A Majority of the American universities expect that you should have already taken Undergraduate or Graduate level courses in the discipline you are applying for - this is true of even many top-ranking universities. There are some that don't make this a requirement and they usually say so in their websites of the relevant programs. If the university doesn't clearly mention that prior training in this field is not necessary, it usually means that you should have taken coursework worth of at least 12 credits (15-18 credits in some cases) in the discipline in which you are applying. This translates to approximately 4-6 courses. So, make sure you have taken enough courses in the relevant discipline before you apply for a Graduate Program in the US. MBA program may be an exception to this, where many STEM candidates are admitted without a prior training in financial fields. However, most MBA programs are not funded. In your SOP, you should write very clearly why this program is relevant to your future career goals. Relate the professors' works and the courses being taught there to how you want to use this training to your future goals. And before convincing the admissions Committees, convince yourself that this program is really relevant for your career goals. Don't get admitted into a program just for the sake of getting admitted. Especially for Indian candidates - It's not a good idea to get admitted into a low-ranked non-funded program by paying a lot of money to the university and/or to your admission counselor in India. Greater chances are that your degree from these low-ranked non-funded programs are not going to be valuable in the job market when you graduate. A graduate from a higher-ranked school will most likely always top you in the job market. So, it's really a waste of time, money and energy to get into such programs. Please check the ranking, success rate of the alumni and the reputation of the universities on the list that your admission counselor in India places before you when you go to them, especially if the universities are not very well known and especially if the payment of a lot of money is involved. There is every possibility that you are just being exploited for your money and being sent to a low-ranked non-funded program, from where your degree will not be regarded as valuable in the job market when you graduate. Don't fall for such admissions counselors in India, even if they are well-known. Know this that many Indian candidates have fallen into this trap before you and they have suffered later after completing their US degree. If you need any help and advice regarding this, you are welcome to PM me.

Both of you have strong profiles - and your schools lists overlap too!

While it helps in the sense that it establishes contact with the POI before you apply and s/he knows your profile and anticipates your application, it doesn't quite ensure acceptance to the program. The acceptance will depend upon the kind of applicants' pool they have got and how many they can take. So, while it would have been better to contact the POI before you applied, especially for schools that mention it on their websites, if you didn't do so, it may not appear right if you contact them now, when the applications are being reviewed. If you informally know from some friends, administrative staff or professors at those schools that the ad-comms haven't begun reviewing the applications, you may contact the POIs, telling them you have mentioned them in your SOP and of course you understand that competition is stiff and you may not get selected. But if the application review is in process, it's not appropriate to contact the POIs or anyone else on the ad-comm.

For Art History, even the top-ranking schools see the verbal scores, not the Quant and they look at the whole application while making their selection, GRE not being the most important criteria (For example, see the websites of Columbia, Princeton and Bard Graduate Center). Some schools may take the Quant schools into account if funding is not automatically linked to admission. But in all cases, Verbal and Writing scores along with the writing sample, SOP and the LORs will be the more important factors than the quant score on the GRE. That said, since you have time, you can see if you can prepare and get your Quant score up, without going down on your Verbal score in the re-take. If you feel it's possible, prepare well and go for a re-take. But if you feel the Quant test is really not for you, no matter how much you prepare, you can search for schools that specifically make it clear that GRE - especially the Quant score is not an important criteria for selection. Some schools write it clearly on their websites. From others, you can inquire and find out as suggested above.

Fuzzylogician, Yes, you have native fluency in English and DeeGrip, I feel you need to improve your English proficiency level - going by your writing. That said, I feel you should complete the program if you can get good grades in it. It's true that many native English speakers don't have as good a command over English as many non-native speakers do. Not all non-native speakers are poor in English proficiency. This is why I feel everyone applying to a Grad-Program in an English-speaking country - irrespective of whether a native English-speaker or not - should write the IELTS/TOEFL. Perhaps TOEFL should be changed to TOEIL (Test of English as an International Language). IELTS is already the International English Language Testing Service.

"One size fits all" is a bad idea for testing "general skills" for Graduate Research. For the simple reason that Graduates are not going to use the same "general skills" in their varied disciplines. There is no such thing as "general skills" for all Graduate research disciplines. I have not argued that the GRE should be done away with - I understand that when a program gets a number of applications, or even if it gets a small number of applications but from different parts of the world, a standardized test score comes handy in selecting the candidates. I have only argued that the GRE should not be the most important criteria for selecting the candidates - it doesn't test the skills required for Graduate research and certainly not in the specific disciplines. I am only arguing for making the GRE more relevant for testing Graduate Research skills - the current version of the GRE doesn't do it. I don't see why there is a problem in having three versions of the GRE - with varying focus on different aspects of the Verbal and Quant skills to be tested for three different categories of disciplines - I am not saying it should be discipline-specific, just that it should test the verbal and quant skills according to the measure and form in which candidates use them in different streams of Graduate schools. I really don't see what's the problem in having a STEM GRE focusing on advanced quant and general verbal skills, a Social Sciences GRE focusing more on the type of quant and verbal skills used by the candidates in Social Sciences and a Humanities GRE focusing only on the advanced verbal skills and not on quant skills. This will only make the GRE reflect the Graduate research skills in a more realistic manner. There is really no point in making the candidates go through a test that is really not related to Graduate research skills. The expenditure is not only $150 if you calculate the resources needed to prepare for the GRE, re-take of the test if you don't get good scores - and you don't get good scores not because you will not make a good researcher, but because GRE is not related to Graduate research skills - the extra cost of sending scores to more than 4 schools, the more cost of sending scores next year and re-applying to more schools if you didn't get in this year - not because you were a bad researcher, but because you scored badly in a non-graduate-research skills related test. The overall cost comes to over a $1000, perhaps more. And the registration fee for GRE has increased and it will increase further in future. Everything cannot be measured in terms of money. Add to this the extreme stress, anxiety and unnecessary efforts the Humanities candidates have to go through for this meaningless test for Humanities. Add to this the stress STEM candidates have to go through on a verbal test that doesn't test Graduate verbal skills anyway. Add to this the unnecessary effort and stress the Social Sciences candidates have to go through to master a test that tests their Graduate quant skills only partially and doesn't test the Graduate verbal skills - much of the energy is wasted in mastering questions that are not relevant for Graduate research in Social Sciences. So, I am only arguing that this test can be made really more helpful, relevant and realistic if only it is recast into three versions with varying focus on verbal and quant skills, each suitable for the stream it is designed for. And it is really not a great feat for the ETS to accomplish.

Logic and reasoning can form part of the verbal test for the Humanities - but logic and reasoning questions should be based on reading passages, not on numerical problems. Even many humanities departments of elite schools don't look at the Quant scores (and I am talking about top-ranking programs here) - simply because they are not needed in Humanities research. English literature is amongst the few exceptions to this because of the large number of applications received - so the quant scores become more a filtering tool than an assessment of research-related ability. Humanities candidates have to spend unnecessary time, money and effort in mastering this section of the GRE simply because it is there. It's not true that Humanities candidates can attempt the Quant section. Most of them have not studied Maths for ages - since they left high school - and they don't need it in their research. They have to undergo a lot of stress and make a lot of effort to do well on a quant test that they don't need in their research. It's really unfair for the Humanities students. Similarly, many elite schools look at mostly the Quant scores for their STEM programs and really expect the very decent minimum in the verbal section - these candidates don't require the kind of advanced verbal skills needed in the Humanities. And GRE doesn't test those kinds of verbal skills in its current format. This is also the reason why even the top-ranking schools don't make it an important benchmark for acceptance into Graduate programs - because they understand that quant scores are not required by the Humanities research, STEM candidates don't require advanced verbal skills and Social Sciences don't require about half of the kind of questions that are asked in the Quant section. Besides, the verbal section of the GRE is seriously flawed, when looked at the kind of linguistic/verbal skilled required for Graduate research in Humanities and Social Sciences. In effect, GRE as it exists today is a waste for everyone, precisely because it does not distinguish the different types of skills needed for different disciplines. This is why I am arguing for three different kinds of GREs - for STEM, Social Sciences and Humanities - that would be a more realistic assessment of the skills used by the Graduate candidates. It's not a revamp that ETS cannot achieve and it will give a lot of meaning to this test in the candidates' minds and also in admission process. Earlier, GRE did hold a prime place in Grad admissions and the schools admitted a lot of mediocre candidates in the process, who could get great scores on the GRE but didn't understad what Graduate research was all about. That is why GRE has lost its prominence now. We have come far away from that stage and we are not going back again. The solution is to revamp the GRE to realistically identify and test the skills in different disciplines, not to go back to the earlier system.

It's true that GRE is an expensive unnecessary annoyance. I have never quite understood its relevance. Candidates' verbal/linguistic/analytical skills are well tested by TOEFL/IELTS, writing sample and SOP, in addition to the previous GPA and also referred to in the LORs. If additional linguistic/verbal skills are to be gauged in a standardized test format, then all candidates - including the English speakers - can write the TOEFL/IELTS and these scores can show the language-related skills of the candidates. There is no need for additional verbal and writing skills to be tested on the GRE. Further, there is no reason why the candidates in non-Quant-intensive disciplines should suffer the GRE-Quant test. If this section is important for the candidates in Quant-intensive disciplines, ETS can make it available as a separate test for them, rather than making it mandatory for all candidates, regardless of whether it is important for their Graduate study or not, as is the case at the moment. The current General GRE also does not make the distinction between different kinds of skills needed for different Social Sciences and Humanities disciplines. For example, Social Sciences research requires data analysis based on graphs, tables and numerical values. However, they don't require advanced mathematical calculations used by the STEM researchers. In contrast, Humanities researchers almost never use any kind of quantitative data analysis. But their research involves an advanced level of reading comprehension and verbal-analytical skills. Social Sciences researchers also use these skills, but in lesser degree as compared to the Humanities researchers. STEM researchers don't need this kind of advanced verbal skills. So, if GRE has to be a requirement for Graduate admissions, there is a need to revamp the test and have 3 versions of it for three categories of candidates - there should be an 1) advanced Quant-intensive + simple verbal section GRE for STEM candidates, 2) a less Quant-intensive cum more advanced verbal GRE for Social Sciences candidates and 3) an advanced verbal GRE without Quant section for Humanities candidates - based on reading comprehension, innovative and critical writing (not the kind that exists now) and critiquing the arguments in a few given passages from the Humanities disciplines. If this kind of overall revamp is not possible, at least the Universities can ask for only the IELTS/TOEFL scores from all candidates regardless of their native language and the ETS can develop a Quant only test for the candidate who require the Quant ability. Different disciplines can have different minimum scores requirement on the TOEFL and IELTS, depending upon the level of language ability required. The form in which GRE exists now has no relevance and it requires an unnecessary investment of time, money and energy.

I am not from a Quant-intensive field. But I could get a lot of questions on the older GRE-Quant right without much advance practice. Now I find them very difficult on the new GRE and here I see people from Quant-intensive disciplines saying they find it difficult. My personal perception is that new GRE-Verbal has become somewhat easier than before, while Quant has become much tougher.

Does the pattern of the new GRE Quant questions mean the ETS wants to make it more difficult for the candidates in Quant-intensive disciplines to get through the Grad-School? (Are there any ETS people reading this?)

Try searching for Calcutta and Bombay.

The GRE administering centers in different places vary in their efficiency and professionalism. The place where I took the test was being managed by absolutely ill-mannered, rude and unprofessional people. But my experiences with the ETS itself have been commendable.

Although GRE is a painful test and I have never quite understood why it exists at all, ETS gives excellent service. I have always been greatly impressed by their efficiency. I can only commend the ETS for their quality service. I notice you are applying to the Univ of Nebraska. Is it the Lincoln Campus by any chance? Do you think it's leaving the AAU membership would affect its standing in the academia and the career prospects of its students in any way?

It's true that non-native speakers of English are expected to have higher GRE-Verbal and AWA scores than domestic candidates. That said, Management-Science is a quantitative-intensive field and hence, GRE-Quant will be more important here, although you'll be required to show that you can express your complex arguments coherently and clearly. If you have a strong writing sample and SOP - showing the ability to write and express well apart from other aspects - and if you can show awards, distinctions, recognition in English-related activities, I think your IELTS score of 7.0 should be able to pull you through the cut-off threshold. Whether it will help you through selection and funding will depend upon how strong your whole application package is, since your discipline will get a lot of applications from candidates having much higher GRE scores and perhaps equally strong applications. If you re-take the GRE, you have to make sure to keep both Verbal and Quant scores high. Your Quant score should not go down if you write the GRE again. So, another option is to send them a scanned copy of your IELTS scores and re-take the IELTS or TOEFL instead of the GRE - to show your current fluency in English. This will save you from the possibility of the lowering of your GRE-Quant in the 2nd round. If your entire application package is exceptional - in the top 2-5% category, then perhaps you should be able to get through with these GRE-scores. But in any event, you should send them a copy of your IELTS scores.

The ETS posted this table in 2011 to give an approximate idea of what the new GRE scores mean in terms of percentiles as compared to the old GRE scores. This was because at that time no one had any idea about the new GRE scores. Since then, many have reported lowering of their percentiles to about 4-5% following the fresh testing data available. So, 53 percentile should most likely go down to about 48-49 percentile. The applicant can see in the GRE account the exact percentile. If we see this against a good TOEFL score of 101, it reflects about average GRE score when corroborated against TOEFL, which is not good for English Literature. If the applicant has 5.5 on the GRE-writing and excellent application package otherwise, s/he may make the cut off, but to be on the safer side for selection and funding, I'd suggest a re-take of GRE if possible. This is because English Literature happens to be an extremely competitive discipline and also an English/Language-intensive one. The TOEFL score of 101 suggests that a re-take is likely to significantly increase the GRE-Verbal and writing scores. But of course, there are some schools that don't regard the GRE scores at all and ask for them only by way of an administrative requirement. The applicant can research the school websites and find such schools to apply to them if the deadline has not yet passed.

For English Literature, you'll need much higher Verbal and Writing scores on the GRE - at least 158/170 Verbal and 4.0 on the writing. Quantitative score on the GRE should not matter for English Literature applications. It's true that your TOEFL score is good, but there is a limit upto which TOEFL score can counter-balance the GRE verbal and writing scores, especially when you are applying for a discipline such as English literature. If you have a high writing score on the GRE - such as 5.5 - and an extraordinary writing sample, SOP, awards won for writing in English, exceptional LORs etc, then GRE-Verbal may get counter-balanced by all these other factors and TOEFL scores. In absence of all this, I would suggest a re-take of the GRE with more preparation. If time allows, you may try to write the GRE again and apply to some schools with later deadlines in Feb or March. These scores stand at Verbal - 53% and Quant - 7% (See link - http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/concordance_information.pdf)

Don't lose hope. For all you know, you may still get in somewhere.

Please read my comment above again. I am trying to tell you that it is your wrong assumption that most Indian students go only for research in Life Sciences or for an MBA - in fact it's not true - they go for a whole lot of disciplines and not only for research or MBA. And as pointed out above by Renwod90, it doesn't help to explain your cause of why you want to study what you want to study. It's a good idea to read some of the examples linked above by selecttext. Perhaps a sentence highlighting how you came into Biotech-Management combination and how it relates to your past training would be better. As for showing you are different, the combination of Biotech-Management itself is a unique combination. Here, you should explain why you want to study this combination and how it will help you in your future career, since it's a unique, interdisciplinary combination. Instead of beginning with an erroneous assumption about what others are doing, it's better to focus on why you are doing what you are doing. So, beginning with something like "Biotechnology and Management may appear as a unique combination, but...." would be more in order, but not as the opening sentence. Saying you want to go for MS instead of research just to be different doesn't make sense.

It won't. They are receiving applications from Indian candidates in every possible discipline under the Sun - so With Research in Life Sciences and MBA seeming to be the only popular options amongst the Graduate applicants in India doesn't work. It is better to relate your proposed field of study to what you have done before and how it will help you in your future career.

For your discipline the GRE verbal and writing scores will be important. Your Verbal score is fine, but the writing score is the problem here. But if you are submitting TOEFL/IELTS scores that are high and if your writing sample is really good, it may offset the writing score on the GRE. About your chances, your application package appears strong, but ultimately what matters is how many candidates have applied and where you stand in the competition. Age should not be a problem.

That's great advice - to do talk circuits in the last year of PhD at places where the potential referees and selection committee members are placed. It's true that many disciplines don't have this practice and they should have it. And the order of priorities listed above is as it should be in an ideal situation - and as it is in many countries. But the higher education in the US runs on the skewed notion that a candidate from an elite school is the best no matter how much s/he knows the subject and no matter whether s/he has published enough or is capable of publishing - and I have seen quite a few from the elite schools, who have not much published and are not capable of publishing high-quality research work. This is not to say that such mediocre people don't exist in other schools, but the sad situation of the US higher education is that these mediocre products of elite schools are keeping the good talent out of the job market merely on the strength of the elite stamps on their degrees and the networks of their advisers. The rising unemployment in the academia is related to not only the reduction in jobs, but also to the fact of rising number of mediocre products from the elite schools who are keeping the talented ones out of jobs because the American selection committees go by the stamps on the degrees, not by the level of knowledge, research and the academic potential of the candidates. And in many cases they prefer to have the mediocre ones from prestigious schools without any significant research record as adjuncts rather than a good researcher from anywhere as TT - it saves money.

I feel everyone should read this thread, but if you don't have time, read at least the last 2-3 pages. The last response is something I hadn't expected at all - http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,89131.msg2405808.html#msg2405808

While the above may be true to a fair extent, a lot depends upon where you are getting your Graduate degree from - how the program is ranked in your particular specialization - and also on how well you are able to network with the potential members of selection committees in your field. If you feel you can network well and if you are in a well-ranked program, you have a fair chance of getting selected - provided you get some peer-reviewed publications and also produce some fine samples of dramatic pieces for a few well-acclaimed performances while you are getting a PhD. Of course, you also need to have some teaching experience at least on a part-time basis while doing a PhD. If you can do all this while researching on your dissertation, you should be able to get even a TT in a good institution. It's a good idea to keep on producing dramatic pieces while doing PhD, so that you will always have the option to go into the performance world while you wait to get an academic job.