Dizzi
-
Posts
26 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Dizzi
-
-
Decaf, not trying to hijack the thread, but I'm looking for similar insight, so I thought I'd jump in and post my own situation. This is my first post ever, so hopefully I haven't gone against some commonly practiced etiquette.
I too am looking to apply to Ed.D. programs following this year. I would love to attend a school like Vanderbilt since I do not intend to leave k-12 education. The HGSE EdLD is really appealing too but I know that my chances would be slim to none. My goal is to one day be a high school principal or possibly the headmaster of a private independent or private Christian school. There will undoubtedly be other opportunities in Ed leadership with the changing landscape due to technology and other factors. More importantly, I just enjoy learning and being in the classroom. I have really gotten excited about studying education these past few years, and I would probably pursue a PhD if I wasn't newly married with a little one and another on the way.
I am moderately concerned that my having only attended a small liberal arts college (accredited) will limit my choices for programs.
- My undergraduate GPA was 3.0 (I did much better in my science and education classes than my core classes)
- I have a Broadfield Science Major w/ Minor in Secondary Ed.
- I played varsity intercollegiate basketball for 4 years.
- I will complete my M.Ed. degree this May with roughly a 3.97 or 3.85 GPA (same school as undergrad).
- I have taught for 4 years (3 in MS science and 1 HS Biology) at a private school and will be the HS assistant principal at my school this up coming year
- I coached JV basketball for 4 years and will coach the Varsity men's basketball team next year.
- My GRE was 1300 - 590 Verbal and 710 Quant ... I don't know that I could score much higher on it... 10-40 pionts at most if I really work on the verbal side.
- I would have great recommendations from my graduate professors, and from a friend of my who is the head of TFA in our city (Vandy grad and Stanford J.D.)
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.]
The advice the grad adviser in my department gave before I applied was to make sure my application communicated not just why I was a good candidate, but why the program and I were a good fit for each other.
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?
-
@Dizzi - Thanks for the input. I agree about the actual skills. With my Economics degree I learned STATA pretty well, and I've always been an advanced Excel user. Sometimes I think the current age/technology gap between employer and potential employee is too great. For example, I'm young enough to have used Excel/Word/PowerPoint/Internet regularly since Middle School, so using those programs is like second nature to me; some employers ask for specific examples and times where I have learned certain basic skills and it's hard for me to convey I have pretty much known how to use these programs for my entire life. Or maybe I just have a hard time explaining myself in interviews (that would explain why it took me so long to find a job...). I picked up SPSS and Business Objects in a few days at my current position. I love learning new computer programs and statistical packages.
I see what you're saying about the different types of methods used in different fields. I think I might have to spend more time really focusing on the career I would like and matching the needs of the career to a grad program. I think graduating into the horrible job market in 2010 has made me terrified of focusing on one specific career though, just in case things don't get better and I need to change career paths.
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...
-
A few questions for you, Dizzi -- why do you recommend "pure" policy programs over programs like urban ed, higher ed, etc? And is there any reason why econ of education or education & stats programs would be better than sociology of education?
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).
-
Just as an aside, ffr - the point of the GRE is that it's norm-referenced, so regardless of the score numbers, the percentile ranks are supposed to be comparable between revisions.
-
That's outstanding, for any field. I actually got the same score, but with the V/Q reversed.
As I've said elsewhere, though, I feel like the GRE is one of those things that can only hurt you; i.e., a bad score will hurt you, but a high score won't necessarily do anything special for you, at least at the most competitive schools. I was told the admissions committee had a hard time deciding whether or not to take me... :/ -
Sounds like they won't hurt you, but I'm not familiar with the new scales. What were your percentile ranks on each section?
-
I'll try to offer answers from my perspective - again, this is limited by my own experience:
1. If you're struggling in quantitative courses, that may not be a huge deal, considering your humanities background. I would think you could make a case for that in your statement of purpose. They seem to do a good job of identifying "smart" people - the head of my EdM program told me the SOP is the most important source for that, and ideally your grades and GRE would support that. In your case, if your GRE, SOP, and recommendations paint a favorable picture, but your current GPA is incongruous, it may raise some concerns, but I can't believe it would be a death knell.
I think the reason my 3.6 was a problem was i) my EdM program was not supposed to be challenging, and ii) my GRE was very high. The bottom line was that I was expected to get better grades than I did. I was told they were concerned that I wasn't very "engaged" during my EdM program, which to some extent was true. My SOP and recommendations apparently convinced them that I would work harder during my EdD (which so far has also turned out to be true
).2. My impression is that your undergrad GPA carries less weight the farther away you are from undergrad. In my case, I know it barely mattered at all. On the other hand, one person in my cohort came straight from undergrad (I think she's the only one out of the 28 of us), and I imagine undergrad GPA was very important in her case. Your GRE is nothing to worry about at all - probably in the upper half of admits, if not the top quartile - but everything I've heard tells me that the GRE alone is not enough to make a big difference.
3. Fall 2013 is the last EdD cohort they will be admitting. After that, everything will transition to the new PhD program, which is joint with GSAS. My guess is that a lot of people will hold off on applying for a year in order to have a shot at the PhD program, thus increasing the overall admit rate. Of course, that would mean that the following year would be unusually selective. I don't know which programs are more/less selective than others, unfortunately.
4. I'd think Human Development and Education or Culture, Communities, and Education; I can't think of any other program that sounds like it would align with your interests.
5. Considering it's very heavily tilted toward education, I don't think your work experience is thin. When they say the average is 5, that includes people who have done other stuff; there are people who did things like IT, software, and even lawyering for several years before moving into education. I think your TFA and Breakthrough Collaborative experience would be big pluses, too.
One other thing: Some people apply for the EdD, but they're told the admissions committee recommends an EdM first (there's an option to check "consider me for EdM programs if I'm not admitted to the EdD"). If that happens, it could be a great opportunity to show them what you're capable of. I know at least two people who went that route.
-
Well, I'm a first-year EdD at HGSE, but I'm only one person, so that severely limits my sample size. I do have some insight on the doctoral admissions process, though, as I have good relationships with some of the senior professors in my program; he and others were able to tell me a bit about the process (after I got in). I also did an EdM here a few years ago.
First, to give you an impression regarding relative selectivity, the Master's programs at the Kennedy School generally have admit rates around 20-30%, while we were told this past year's EdD cohort faced an admit rate of around 6%. However, the rate varies by program, and there are some reasons to believe that the Fall 2013 admit rate will be somewhat higher.
Second, your actual GPA doesn't matter so much if you've been taking difficult courses. We are generally required to maintain some GPA minimum throughout our career, but some upper-level EdDs I've talked to have told me that they will waive that requirement for difficult courses (generally at GSAS). From an admissions perspective, if your GPA isn't great, but it's mostly because you've been taking very hard courses, it may not be as big a deal as you think. You might have an advantage there, since the HGSE faculty are generally very familiar with the courses at HKS (the hard ones, at least).
One major thing they look for - or at least, multiple faculty have told me this - is a demonstrated commitment to education. One of the big things they want to avoid is accepting people who are really just interested in some discipline like Psychology or Economics and view the EdD as a "back door" to studying that discipline. From what I can tell, they're very good at weeding those people out. I think your work experience would cover that for you.
Regarding research interests, you should definitely identify something and make sure it's not totally out of left field compared to what faculty are doing, but it definitely doesn't have to align closely with any particular faculty member. From what I've been told by the HGSE professors who wrote me recommendations, at some schools of Ed, a large proportion of funding comes from individual professors' grants, meaning that you really need a faculty "sponsor" you're expected to stick with. At HGSE, that money comes from a common pool, so we are free to switch advisors or get new ones. I've learned a lot from mine, and I'm working on a research project with him, but his research area has very little to do with what I identified in my application (or what I want to do overall).
From what you've told us about your record, it looks like your GRE scores are very good, but your Master's GPA is not so hot. That would probably cause a bit of concern; the knee-jerk interpretations would be either a) you're not very engaged with your academic work, or
you "lucked out" on your GRE, neither of which are especially favorable. Is there a chance you could up your GPA a bit, or if not, can you make the case that your coursework has been unusually difficult? For comparison's sake, I had a 3.6 from my EdM, and that apparently raised a red flag with them - although the EdM is a lot less selective (and easier, typically) than the MPP/MPA, and my GRE was higher (1570 combined). -
I should clarify that last part - the Economics department doesn't offer a terminal MA, but Econ PhDs can get an MA in Economics in passing. EdD students can get an EdM-in-passing, too, but I think we have to take additional EdD courses to make up for it.
-
Well, if the HGSE Dean told him he was an idiot I guess that settles it, right? :-/
I guess so! Apparently the rest of the faculty stopped paying attention to the guy after that. (She didn't actually say that - just made it clear that the guy knew basically nothing about education history or even how to separate correlation from causation, I think.)
-
No problem - I'll check in from time to time if there's anything more to share. I think some other Harvard Ed.D.s are also on this board.
Thanks Dizzi, I have another question about the tentative concentrations: what if someone wants to focus on higher education? My only concern with this approach is it may shut out those whose interests are more higher education-oriented (K-12 is already a huge and popular discipline).
Again, as I understand it, the specifics really haven't been nailed down yet at all. I think that's a good question. For example, we have current students who study education history, and at least one who specifically studies higher ed history - I'm not sure where that would fit in the new scheme. I think - and this is just my personal view - that they want the new Ph.D. to be more discipline-focused. The current Ed.D. in QPAE is a bit like that, but the other programs have very wide-open requirements, so even if you're in Higher Ed, you could end up taking very few courses that have anything to do with higher ed. I think they want to tighten up those requirements at the disciplinary level and let folks choose their subject area after acquiring some basic disciplinary expertise.
Will the PhD program also require someone who has an education master's degree to earn credits towards an MA in psychology/sociology/economics (like the Social Policy program)?Hmm...interesting question. If I had to guess, I'd think that they would just create a Master's-in-passing in whatever Education-related program you're in - that's how it works with most FAS departments, and it's also how it works at HGSE. It would really surprise me if they made everyone get an MA in the program's related discipline. Some departments (like Economics) don't actually offer a terminal MA [Edit: I'm sorry, I totally miscounted - a full "regular" AM would only use up half of your normal doctoral courses. Also, I'm not sure I'm answering your question - are you asking if the new concentrations will require X courses that are "purely" in the Psych/Sociol/Econ departments? If so, then I'm certain the answer is Yes.]
-
If it's not something for your major it must be okay, right? I'm strongly considering taking undergraduate language classes while going for musicology. I imagine that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world?
I think my school actually requires foreign languages for musicology (German, Latin, French, etc. depending on what you're studying). If you've never taken them before, you've basically got no choice but to enroll in undergrad-level courses. I'm not sure if the music department actually grants credit for the intro-level courses, but it would surprise me a little if they didn't.
Definitely depends on the school, and also on the program and field. Some graduate programs don't formally require, say, multivariable calculus, but multivariable calculus is required for courses that the programs do require. So you basically have to take it, but whether or not it counts as credit depends on the program.
At my university, some courses are listed as undergrad, some "undergrad & grad," and some grad-level. In my particular school/program, if you want to get credit for an undergrad-only course, you need a written statement from the professor detailing extra, "grad-level" work you need to do. But I know that this doesn't apply to all programs at all schools at the university.
Meanwhile, some of the courses I'm in are listed as "undergrad & grad," about 90% of the students are undergrads, and there's no extra work required for graduate credit. Screwy, eh?
-
I agree, it is ridiculous to blame ed schools for the failings of public education. He should have just pointed out that they did little to nothing to stem the decline.
My colleague's wife was at that meeting. The HGSE Dean essentially told him he was an idiot. Also, he's an English professor, i.e. someone with no connection to the proposed program (or the GSE in general).
Durrell, what is the source for your claim? I have never heard of Harvard ending its Ed.D program. Their Ed.D is the equivalent of a Ph.D (research-based) whereas the Ed.L.D. is the practice-based degree.
The Ed.D. at Harvard is currently the equivalent of a Ph.D. program, since there's no other (research) doctoral degree in Education at Harvard. The new Ph.D. will be replacing the Ed.D., but it's highly unlikely that they're going to just give Ph.D.s to all current Ed.D. students if they happen to graduate after 2013-14.
Beginning to apply to Higher Ed programs
in Education Forums
Posted
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.