Dizzi

Agree - I don't remember anyone from my Higher Ed Ed.M. program who actually had research experience. Ed.M./M.P.P programs tend to be more like "foot-in-the-door" programs, in my view; i.e., they're often meant to introduce you to the field.

Small liberal arts colleges don't have any advantage/disadvantage per se compared to large universities. Besides, if your undergrad was 4-5 years ago, it's not going to be very important, especially since you're finishing up an M.Ed. I'm sure your GPA in that program will help a lot. If you're pretty sure retaking the GRE is only going to add 40 points tops, it's definitely not worth it, in my opinion. I don't know the Vandy program well, but it sounds like it was designed for people like you - ed professionals who want additional training as prep for major school leadership positions. Don't count yourself out of the Harvard Ed.L.D., though, which was also designed for that. I don't think your GRE is going to hurt you - it's definitely not very low compared to admits, I believe. Interpersonal skills, temperament, and leadership ability are a lot more important for that program than for any other HGSE program. On paper, it looks like you've got those covered pretty well, esp. with your teacher -> asst. principal progression and your coaching experience. But they'll evaluate that based on your recs and your on-campus interview - the latter carries a lot of weight. Of course, your SOP is also going to be critically important. [This is all based on a brain dump from one of my recommenders, who has been on the Ed.L.D. admissions committee - he's pretty senior, but others might have a different perspective.] Great advice!

Hmm, hard to say since they haven't given out many details yet. Higher Ed is so popular that they must have ideas on how to accommodate it, though. I'd guess you would pick some area of higher ed and go with the program that suits it best. E.g., economics for policy/program evaluation, psychology for learning/teaching, or something like that. There's a description of the proposed programs here, if you haven't seen it: http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/03/new-harvard-education-doctoral-program

Waiting until next year seems like a good idea. That will give you a chance to enroll in a graduate-level course or two to build a relationship with a professor who can recommend you, and/or reconnect with your grad school profs. As edgirl said, they want (at least) one rec from someone who knows you academically, if at all possible. I wouldn't wait too long to figure out your career-goal story, though - it doesn't have to be totally precise or ironclad, but it's good if your recommenders can corroborate your story and give examples of your work that line up with it. That kind of thing really can't be faked, in my opinion. If you definitely are waiting until next year, you should be aware that Harvard is converting to PhD programs that officially orient themselves around a discipline (Sociology, Psychology, or Economics) rather than a specific subject area (Curriculum & Instruction, Higher Ed, Ed Policy & Leadership, etc.). I think it will still be good to have a subject area focus like urban language & literacy, but it will probably be worth it to talk about which discipline you'd want to apply to the subject (and maybe even get some intro courses under your belt before applying ). Finally, I generally advise that if you're not sure if you want/need a doctorate, then don't do it. It's a tough lifestyle, especially if you're used to making an actual salary; it's really not anything like undergrad or even a master's. If you're truly passionate and excited about what you're studying and have your eyes on some ultimate goal, it's worth it, but I can't imagine being able to make it through the grind otherwise. Not to be a downer, but it just seems like many people don't think seriously about that.

Well, in my opinion, your experience and grades look great. Unless you bomb the GRE, I don't think they'll be worried about your ability to handle the academics. What programs are you interested in, though? And why do you want an EdD/PhD? By far, I think the most important thing for you is going to be writing a Statement of Purpose that convinces them why they should admit you. That means showing them that a doctoral program is the next logical step in your career progression, and that it's something that you need in order to get where you want to go. If that's not pretty clear in your mind, it's not going to come across clearly in your SOP (and it will also make school a miserable experience for you). Also, I would recommend not focusing too strongly on Stanford and Harvard. Especially if you want to go into academia, the ed academic world isn't like the world-at-large where everyone thinks Stanford/Harvard/Yale/Princeton are the best at everything. Michigan, Vanderbilt, Penn, etc. are considered at or near the top in various education sub-fields, or so I'm told. Your profile says Harvard EdLD - are you enrolled in that now?

If you're a decent Stata programmer and are comfortable with the Office stuff, I think you're already a bit ahead of the game compared to most people entering these programs. I know that some people enter these types of programs with practically zero math background (that they can remember, anyway) beyond high school. Given your economics & econometrics background (which I assume includes at least multivariable calc?), I'd keep an eye out for programs that give you the flexibility to take more advanced quant courses than their typical first-years.

The hardest Ed.M. programs at HGSE had around a 25% admit rate as of a few years ago - I suppose whether or not that's "hard" is subjective. My best advice to you would be: Enjoy your junior year, and figure things out as you go along. HGSE and I'm sure many others prefer students who have some real-world professional experience. So I'd advise finding a job in the field you want after graduation (easier said than done these days, I know) and decide after that if you feel like the degree will help you. You don't want to tack on an extra ~$20-30k in debt for a degree that's going to be useless to you just a few years later.

I was also in IR before my program, and based on the hires we made during that time, I'd say actual tangible skills are more important than any degree. Having experience producing analyses and presentations with Excel, PowerPoint, some major statistical package, and some data management skills (like SQL) were the biggest factors for us. That said, about a third or maybe a half of our folks had an Ed.M. in Higher Education. I actually think that had a lot to do with our applicant pool, though. In defense of a more "general" stats program, "statistics" isn't really the same across all fields, since different methods are prevalent in different industries. Psychometricians might do a lot of principal components and factor analysis, for example, while it's pretty rare to find economists doing that - instrumental variables and regression discontinuity seem to be in vogue these days in economics, and it's hard to imagine finding that in many branches of Psych. It seems like biostatisticians and I guess sociologists have methods that aren't widely used elsewhere, too. But each method carries its own particular inference problems, model assumptions, etc. A more general program should give you a more solid theoretical foundation than any specific discipline, which should help you to understand and employ methods you've never used before. Additionally, a good stats master's program usually requires at least some coursework where you apply methods to real-world problems. Of course, the tradeoff is that you'll be less familiar with the "substantive" problems of any specific field. Just food for thought...

I suggested starting off looking at policy programs because they tend to be flexible in terms of subject areas, and it doesn't sound like you have a burning passion for any particular subject area. Of course, if I'm wrong, you probably should look at subject-specific programs, too. There are some great sociology of ed. programs, too. The econ & stats programs are obviously more focused on quantitative analysis, but if you'd prefer to go a more qualitative route, sociology is pretty popular, from what I understand. Both are pretty important in the ed research world.

If it's a "scam," then I don't really see what they're getting out of it. Unless they're getting kickbacks from the airlines, hotels, etc.

No, you're pretty much correct, at least at schools that offer both an Ed.D. and a Ph.D. in Education. Harvard claims its Ed.D. is intended to be equivalent to a Ph.D. in Education at other schools, and they have a new Ed.L.D. (Doctor of Education Leadership) intended for practitioners. But even they are getting rid of the Ed.D. in favor of a Ph.D. soon. My general advice is that if you're not sure if you should enter a doctoral program, don't. You will not succeed, no matter how smart you are, if you are not strongly focused and able to constantly remind yourself of why you are here. And the lifestyle, even for those of us who are fortunate enough to have funding, is difficult, especially if you're used to a "real" income. That said, my professional background sounds similar to yours, except that I may have had more research experience, and my career goals are similar to what you described. I also have zero teaching experience. I would suggest taking a year or two after your MPA to work in policy research and decide if what you would get from a doctorate is necessary to get you where you want to go. It's hard to really assess that without actually working in the field for a while. As for programs, try looking at "pure" policy programs or programs that combine some sort of discipline with education - that should be a good place to start. Penn has a number of policy programs, Michigan has policy programs and a dual-degree Education/Statistics program, Harvard has QPAE, and Columbia and Stanford both have Economics of Education programs that sound like they might interest you. In most cases, they tend to focus on methods and approaches to research/evaluation, rather than any specific subject area, like higher ed/urban ed/etc.

Every score from within the past 5 (?) years is sent. To the OP: Your scores should be fine for the Ed.M. at HGSE. It depends a little on which program you pick, but with your grades backing you up, you should be good. Just make sure the rest of your app is strong, including recommendations and your statement.

I'm planning on going (back) into policy analysis after I graduate. It's very hard to get a senior-level position in the field without a doctorate (for good reason, I think).

I would say that your stats position you well for almost anything, so the key will be if you can tie your experience to your doctoral goals and if your recommendations are good. Unfortunately, most of us who are enrolled only have experience with one of the "tracks" you mentioned, so we won't have as much perspective as you would probably like. I will say that research is an important part of any doctoral program, and being able to intelligently process (if not conduct your own) research is something that all doctoral graduates are expected to do, regardless of subject area. So the "research" aspect will apply no matter what area you study. A number of schools (Columbia, Stanford, and Michigan, at least) offer programs through their GSEs that do require discipline-specific training, so you might want to look into those. At Harvard, the only program that requires "pure" disciplinary coursework is QPAE, although you can choose which discipline to pursue (people have chosen Economics, Sociology, Psychology, and I think even Linguistics in the past). The other programs are very flexible, though, so you can do disciplinary (i.e., GSAS) coursework in those, as well. However, Harvard will be replacing their EdDs with three PhD programs (roughly focused on Psych, Sociology, or Economics) in Fall 2014, which will definitely require pure disciplinary work for everyone. Based on my interactions with GSAS students studying "pure" disciplines, their departments have students with a very wide range of substantive interest areas. On the one hand, that means you can almost certainly study education within one of those departments. On the other hand, you likely won't meet a lot of other people in the department who are also studying education. To me, that seems like a bad thing; I've learned a lot from my cohort-mates so far, and I think it's tremendously valuable to be able to exchange ideas with peers.

The EdD cohort is pretty small (28 last fall), and the final decisions are made by the full doctoral faculty, not just the program-specific faculty. So all of the faculty on the committee basically know the "story" behind every admit. I happened to know a few of those faculty members, who filled me in after I enrolled (though they were mum during the process, of course).