ctcpx084

Yowzahhh...!

They don't carry that #1 ranking for nothing!

They say the average GRE is above 1200, so _maybe_ there will be a few students below the 1100 number given, but I don't know. Without knowing anything about Peabody or this program, I'd have to believe that anyone below a "1200" GRE would have to have exceptional experience, letters of recommendation, and of course a great statement of purpose. From your post, it sounds like you've got a few good letters, but your resume seems a little light to balance out the GRE score. Have you thought about taking the GRE again? You could take a prep course, or prepare on your own, while perhaps working another year or two. If you did better, you might be able to get closer to their stated numbers while bolstering your resume a little. Before you do that, I'd talk to the department and see what they have to say, and if you can find any Peabody people on here or elsewhere I'd get at them and see what they have to say. If I were going through the blargh application process again, I'd want to be as competitive as possible in as many areas as I could manage. The GRE sucks, and certainly wasn't the strength of my application, but ultimately I would have taken it again if I thought it would improve my chances at all. Again, I don't know (actually, I doubt) that they will use GRE as a simple cut to their admissions list, but your score is going stand out as is--and not for a good reason. Talk to them and see what they recommend! Anyway, back to summer reading...

This is taken right from Peabody's web site, located here. Application to the Ed.D. program can be made through the online application. Application fees are waived when you apply online. Check the Tuition and Financial Aid page and the Admissions Timelinefor additional information. For your application you will need the following: Personal statement Professional and personal recommendations Evidence of successful professional experience Undergraduate and graduate transcripts GRE scores Additional materials (e.g., portfolio or articles) Admission to the program depends upon several factors, including the quality of application materials, relevant and acceptable degree(s) from accredited institution(s), participant/program fit, competitive grades, and a combined verbal and quantitative GRE score of 1100 or higher. Achieving the minimum required score does not guarantee admission. The average GRE score of entering cohorts is above 1200.

The criteria are appropriate, but incomplete. There are items that wildviolet mentioned that are missing, and really need to be represented for this study to be really useful to people who are in your position. The effort made here is a starting point, not the end. Talking to students in programs, as well as practicing teachers who either came from successful programs or who have mentored teachers from successful (and I guess unsuccessful) programs would certainly be worthwhile in ascertaining the true value of the program. I agree that this report does not paint a complete picture of what a program might offer. However, it does shed some light on what happens in our schools and colleges of education, as long as you take their "data" in context and acknowledge that more important elements have been omitted this time around.

While I understand where you're coming from, having taught in public schools as well, your stated claim potentially restricts the power of reform and the positive changes that it might bring to schools and kids. This doesn't mean that we have to tear down every facet of the system and start from scratch, but we need to be cognizant of the fact that our methods of teaching and schooling are at the very least underperforming, and they are in need of some serious, and maybe systemic, changes. Teacher education, standardized assessment, teacher's unions and representation, standards, school funding, "accountability", teacher evaluations, and a host of other issues have been and should be part of this conversation, to the point of being changed. Such a willingness to truly improve the system should mean that no aspect is sacred, and at the same time no aspect is evil or always bad. Our biases towards or against different people or programs or political and economic approaches, or even our fondness for how we were prepared, cannot dictate the course we chart towards reform. Methodologically, the NCTQ study has serious flaws, but their conclusion is true: teacher education is a logical area to improve. I don't understand how NCQT can claim that it can accurately gauge an interactive activity like teaching and teacher preparation merely by examining documents, booklets, and handouts. I've read just about the whole report, so I have a rudimentary understanding of their data collection, but I don't know what this really tells you. Without factoring in faculty and the quality of instruction, which would admittedly be difficult to collect and to evaluate given the amount of data and its subjectivity, one is really left with only a paper shell of a teacher education program. Also, the lack of focus on alternative certification programs, which I guess will be measured in subsequent reports, is disconcerting, as these programs are bringing an increasing number of educators into the classroom, and these programs vary tremendously from program to program. If you disregard the data they collected and how they analyzed it, instead looking only at the logic of their approach, the NCQT does have a point. Teacher education is a vital experience for pre-service teacher, so its effectiveness should be a key issue. Can you really tell me that teacher education is not contributing to the problems we have? Whether you think that the best students should fill the ranks of teachers or not, the reality is that there are some particularly uninspiring and limited people in our classrooms. I've worked with them--hell, maybe I was one of them my first year of teaching, and they seem to be an overwhelming majority in the schools I've worked. I worked with one teacher in New Mexico who had joined our staff after completing a degree at the state's "flagship university," and she did not know how to write a lesson plan. Her ability to manage a classroom was nil. Curriculum design? Forget it. I won't just point the finger, either. I went through alternative certification in New Mexico, and I was left woefully unprepared for the world I entered. "Special education", "inclusion", "differentiation", "co-teaching", etc should not be buzzwords. They should be tools and approaches, theoretical and yet practical, that the new teacher should be familiar with, if not well-versed in. The very basics of teaching, things like ye ole lesson planning, should be engrained in prospective teachers. What I've read in the report doesn't jive with parts of your post. The NCQT doesn't insist that "only the top students" be accepted to teaching programs; the recommendation is that a higher bar is set, and the specific suggestion (if I recall correctly) was a 3.2 GPA and 1120 SAT average, for the entire program. Those numbers do not necessarily mean much. I know a girl from my hometown who scored poorly on the SAT, yet she is fantastic with children. She ended up going to a second-choice school, majoring in elementary education, and she seems to be doing quite well in the classroom. I don't think the NCQT is saying people like her should be passed over simply because of a standardized test score, but generally speaking we should be looking to draw in talented individuals. Perhaps that is an ideal, one that is not properly incentivized at present. But our teacher education programs have went in the opposite direction; rather than allow qualifying candidates trickle in after meeting high standards, they have opened the floodgates and allowed virtually anyone to be a teacher. True, colleges of education can't make teaching attractive on their own, but that doesn't mean they have to use their programs as a cash cow, either. For sure, a closer look is needed at the items you mentioned: faculty, quality of field experiences, alternative programs, and other important criteria need to be weighed to make this kind of effort truly effective. What I see in the report does concern me, regardless of the foundation or person who inspired the study or what their motivation are. I'm headed to graduate school this fall, on a statement of purpose that addressed engagement in teacher education as arguably the biggest issue education and schooling faces in the US.

Whatever you decide on should include student teaching. Many alternative certification programs do not, and this makes the first year of many new teachers much more difficult than it has to be. I did alternative certification in New Mexico and had zero observation hours or student teaching. I vividly remember nearly soiling myself my first week when I realized in school we had learned practically nothing about lesson planning, curriculum development, instructional strategies, differentiation, etc. If I had it to do over again, I would certainly look to participate in a program that really focused on practical teaching and providing experiences that will help prepare me for the actual day-to-day job of a professional teacher. I wish I knew specific programs to recommend. I know I interviewed with the Teaching Residents at Teachers College last week, which appears to be awesome, but they focus on certifying special education and ELL teachers if I'm not mistaken.

The Washington Post indicated that the study focused on content taught in teacher education programs rather than instruction. They apparently examined syllabi, handbooks, etc from 500+ cooperating universities. I downloaded the report last night, but I didn't have a chance to read it yet (save for the first few pages). I'm going to try and take a closer look at it tonight.

dabuabdo: I've been out of the market for an M.Ed, MAT, or MA for a long time, but I wanted to add one suggestion. If you're looking to teach, I would give more weight to MAT programs than many MA/M.Ed programs. Based on people I've met and talked to in the past, I think the MAT programs do a much better job preparing people to teach. I know I did an M.Ed, which included initial certification, and we spent a hell of a lot of time on research methodology and very little on more practical matters. I'm happy that I had that experience now, as I'm heading back to graduate school, but six years ago this training wasn't too useful to me as I headed into the 7-12 classroom. My colleagues who had MATs didn't seem to share in this experience, and they seemed much more versatile than I was. Perhaps some of that comes down to personality and/or experience, but I feel like I've observed a definite trend among people who have a MAT (versus the other graduate degrees).

Hi texasteacher, Regardless of one's "greatness" in terms of academics, which can be measured in different and sometimes conflicting ways, I think anyone who responds to you and says you can attend this university or that university for sure is blowing smoke to say the least. Graduate school admissions vary greatly by university, or even by department or program, so there are no absolutes. It seems like most grad schools use a holistic approach, choosing candidates who have a number of strengths (or perhaps strengths in certain highly regarded areas). That said, you're in control of a number of the creation of several variables, even if you aren't the one who is actually evaluating them. The masters from Teachers College certainly is a positive CV item, as is the teaching experience you mentioned. Your GRE score is also something within your power to change, and you may want to consider putting some time into GRE prep and retaking the test since you have the summer to do this before the application cranks into gear again. Again, how much the GRE weighs in to the admission decision varies greatly from program to program, but you can retake the GRE and use the best scores, so it's at least worth considering. The biggest things in my mind, and I suspect some of the readers might agree, are the more subjective elements of your applications, namely your statement of purpose and your fit with the programs to which you apply. Your statement is hugely important, as it should outline your experiences and your research/career goals. Departments will use this evaluate your fit with the program and the school, in a manner that is much more engaging than a silly GRE school or university GPA. If you can use your statement to demonstrate that your research interests match well with one or more faculty members affiliated with the program, I have to believe that this is going to carry more weight than the difference between a 2.5 and a 3.0 alone, just to name one arbitrary statistic. If "big time" is what you're after, I would recommend vetting a number of schools that meet your general criteria, and then applying to a number as well. In my own search this past year, I only applied to three schools, two of which were highly selective (University of Pennsylvania, Teachers College) and one that is far less so (University of New Mexico--I was admitted there previously five years ago). Given the chance to repeat the application--and the desire to put up with the waiting and everything!!--I would surely apply to additional schools to increase my chances of making something work out. As things stood, I was interested only in certain schools, and I was fortunate that something worked out for me. I wouldn't leave things as much to chance if I applied again. Rather than list schools "in your range," I think you should pick schools that YOU want to go to, that are a GOOD fit, and that encompass a range of different institutions--be it highly selective, moderately selective, and maybe even schools you like that are not selective. People here may give you their opinions, but few if any of them are admissions officers or affiliated with graduate departments and their admissions decisions, so what they say is only worth so much. It definitely isn't worth your interests and what you feel is a good fit.

Hey Calvin, welcome! Enjoy your visits here as you make them--I think this place simultaneously drives one nuts while firmly applying the straight-jacket so we don't float away during the application and decision processes. Welcome!

In terms of the writing score, I'm not sure what the value of that really is. The analytical writing prompts seemed to me to be no more than a silly timed exercise. How many times in your graduate studies, or whatever comes afterwards, will you have to write timed essays responding to a prompt? It seems far too artificial to hold serious weight unto itself. However, I'm sure it depends on the program. I also have to believe that your statement of purpose is going to receive more weight, or will receive more weight at most places; I can't speak for Harvard, as I never looked into their programs seriously.

For the record, incidentally--I have nothing against Teachers College or schools like it. Having been admitted there for an Ed.D., I know two things: 1. You don't need an Ivy league background to get into schools like this. 2. You might not get any funding whatsoever if you end up pursuing a Ph.D. or Ed.D. at a school like this. With those two things in mind, why go there for a masters?

I think it really depends on what kind of university you want to work in when you leave. If the goal is to get a job in small state schools, even larger state schools with an OK reputation, I don't see why a degree from Syracuse wouldn't be competitive as long as you do well there. I wouldn't go to Teachers College for a masters @ $1300/credit either way.

w4nd3rlu5t: If you're receiving scholarship funds, you'll DEFINITELY receive an awards letter from the financial aid office. This will detail not just your scholarship funds, but also any and all federal loans you qualify for. Their web site indicates that they will be sending awards letters twice per week, so you should receive one very soon!

ay761: For what it's worth, and piggybacking off of ASzofer's remarks here, I'm also not certain that thesis experience is essential for PhD admission, either. I earned my master's at what I would describe as a bottom rung state school; at the time, I was interested more in earning teaching certification than doing research or publishing or anything of the sort. The program included an internship, which was a semester teaching (teaching, not student teaching). There was no thesis component. The only written part, outside of the various writing assignment for my courses, was a comprehensive examination. Granted, I'd be lying if I said I was an average writer, but producing an actual thesis is not mandatory for many programs. Your other concerns I can't speak to as much. I didn't pursue the kind of master's programs you are looking at, so it's really out of my element!

Hey, here's a different sort of question. I'm looking more into job opportunities in NYC, as it will be necessary for me to work at least through the start of my program. Being in China, it's rather difficult to get hired sight-unseen, so there probably aren't good odds. Even so, I was thinking of accepting their offer and paying the deposit in order to buy me time. If I fail to find a job, I don't receive funding, or for whatever reason decide I just don't want to foot the entire bill, is there any consequence to not attending other than losing the $300 deposit?

不用谢。：）

Actually, I just got one after I posted here--loans, loans, loans, and nothing else. I don't get it.

Anyone receive an award letter this evening...?

I wish you luck with whatever you end up pursuing, johns672. Special education is certainly in need of capable, caring educators.

Same to you, Tanglewood! I'm glad you got word--this does seem to be the week where things FINALLY shook loose at TC for a great many people.

Yea, I totally agree, but that seems to be the situation. I exchanged an email or two with a professor in Curriculum and Teaching prior to applying, and he mentioned funding a little bit. In his note, he lamented the fact that they offered so little in aid, and mentioned they offered some scholarships and very few assistantships. It's really really really 非常非常非常 hard to imagine that they'd make you pony up for a significant percentage of the tuition, and then all your living expenses, when they are charging people nearly $1,300/credit. You have to believe that they have LOADS of money laying around somewhere. I guess the reality is that it's a business first and foremost. I told my girlfriend straight up: I'm not going $100,000+ into debt to do this. If they can help a little, I'd like to do it. If it comes to me footing the entire bill, I just can't do it. I'm a school teacher, after all.

Believe me, I share your concerns, and I too will be weighing this over the next few weeks. From what I've read, full tuition remission isn't offered there. Some assistantships include tuition remission/points and a stipend, though I can't imagine that stipend being very much if it is offered with the position. It's a difficult balance to strike, as you have to pay the bills and everything, but you don't want to work to the point where you don't have time to study and to do what you need to do to be successful in your program. I could try and strike up a full-time teaching job in the area, and the moment I do that my available time is pretty much crapped on. Gotta pay the bills, though!

johns672: A lot of this depends on the state you work in and its rules regarding licensure. In all public schools I am aware of, special education requires a license, which generally requires x-number of credits (or a specific sequence of credits) in special education. Graduate school isn't mandatory to work in this field, assuming one has education/special education experience as an undergraduate, but I think in your situation you might need to seriously consider it. Not having a special education background will not prevent you from getting into all programs. Many universities have what they call alternative certification programs, which are often tied to master's degrees in special education, which allow people such as yourself (having no formal special education background) to get the training and complete the requirements for some sort of alternative or provisional teaching license. Although I didn't do alternative certification in special education, my original license was from a similar type of program. As soon as I was accepted to the program, I was eligible to apply for an internship license, and therefore work; however, I had to complete my program within three years, as the internship license was only good for this duration and was non-renewable. To work as a speech and language pathologist, there may be different requirements that I am unfamiliar with. However, if you plan to pursue positions as an entry-level special education teacher, a license will more than likely be necessary, which probably entails more schooling.