Education school acceptance rates...wtf??

[kismetcapitan]

when one looks at schools, rankings (which are admittedly largely arbitrary - since when is a news magazine the leading authority on ranking one school over another??), and acceptance rates, there's a linear correlation. This is true for undergrad admissions, and it holds true as well for grad schools - the higher the school's reputation, the lower the acceptance rates.

WITH, the glaring exception of masters education programs. The Ivies and other top programs seem to center around 55~60%. But then take U Michigan, with a great program, and they accept 87%....far more than Michigan State, and go down the list further to Ohio State, and you start seeing acceptance rates in the 40-ish percents, while U Penn took 77% in 2008.

I've tried to correlate GRE scores, as that's the only metric available to me, but it still doesn't present a clear picture, as all education schools in the top 30 or so don't vary too much. This is extremely confusing. Top schools have low acceptance rates. Schools down the list have ever-increasing acceptance rates. Fits conventional wisdom, and the numbers support this.

The only metric I can't see are what kind of students are applying. Does everyone throw in a Hail Mary app to Harvard, for example? And of course there are yields, which are not published for graduate admissions.

But these are factors that affect all schools. For example, in undergraduate admissions, if Harvard had yield rates more along the lines of say, Northwestern or Tufts, then they'd have to bump their acceptance rates to nearly 20% or more to insure they can fill their freshman class. For law and business schools, most people I know apply to at least ten schools. Since a person can only attend one program, yields become a significant factor.

So why are education schools so statistically anomalous?

[siamesecat]

I've noticed this to! And...I have no idea what the answer is, but perhaps it is because education programs do not seem as hung up on GRE scores (maybe GPA too) and seem to have more emphasis on your experience working with children. Because someone who has extensive volunteer experience in a school or being a camp counselor with a 3.4 gpa and say an 1100 GRE would probably do better in the education world than someone with no experience working with the population they seek to work with but has flying colors with the GRE.

Working in education for me warrants needing to KNOW you like working with children, or students in general depending on the age group you seek to work with (and having the experience working with them to back it up), and not as much on GRE/GPA as most other fields do. That being said, it also seems that a lot of high ranked schools may be ranked highly as an overall graduate school, but their education department may not be. One school I know of is very, very highly thought of and regarded in the education field but is probably never even heard of by people who live outside the state (so they are VERY competitive to get in...but in contrast, one of the most recognizable schools in the country right down the road is actually much less competitive). Just a thought for the explanation as I've noticed what you're saying from applying and researching the field.

[The_Hanged_Man]

The unfortunate reality is that many M.Ed. programs are cash cows for universities. Thus, they try to admit as many warm tuition paying bodies into seats as reasonably possible. Also, a good portion of teachers are required to take a M.Ed. to maintain their certification or to get a bump on the pay scale. As a result many programs are of dubious quality, although there are many notable exceptions who still maintain high standards as well.

[coyabean]

The unfortunate reality is that many M.Ed. programs are cash cows for universities. Thus, they try to admit as many warm tuition paying bodies into seats as reasonably possible. Also, a good portion of teachers are required to take a M.Ed. to maintain their certification or to get a bump on the pay scale. As a result many programs are of dubious quality, although there are many notable exceptions who still maintain high standards as well.

Unfortunately, this.

One should consider Arthur Levine's 2005 report on the quality of education programs: http://www.edschools.org/reports_leaders.htm.

Excerpt:

These degree programs, he declares, range from “inadequate to appalling.” They teach courses irrelevant to the needs of school administrators in an era of tumultuous change. They pursue a “race to the bottom” by lowering standards to lure new students, he charges.

And, in collusion with state officials and local school systems, they feed a suspect economy that rewards salary bumps to teachers and administrators for getting fast-track doctorates whether the degree is rigorous and useful or not. Despite all this, he says, many schools and their leaders “continue to deny problems and resist improvement.”

Anytime "free" money is involved you have lax standards and corruption. Many administrators and teachers use tuition reimbursement to enroll and the programs are happy to take them and the check. This bothers me for many reasons probably not appropriate here, but I will say that I considered this in my graduate school plans.

[red_crayons]

The only metric I can't see are what kind of students are applying. Does everyone throw in a Hail Mary app to Harvard, for example? And of course there are yields, which are not published for graduate admissions.

Yes, probably. Or, it's like that at my very competitive undergrad, if you're in math or life sciences. The list goes: grad school, Teach for America, Peace Corps, Masters of Education.

[kismetcapitan]

what exactly do you mean by list? Do mean 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th choice of what to do after graduation?

[red_crayons]

what exactly do you mean by list? Do mean 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th choice of what to do after graduation?

Yes, absolutely.

I forgot to mention that if you apply to medical school, the options are: medical school, move back in with parents and consider self a failure.

You'll notice "government work", "industry" and "work in a different field" aren't on there. There as a lot of pressure to do things in a certain way at my undergrad.

[kismetcapitan]

That has been my exact argument as to why I have put off grad school for so long. If I'm already successfully teaching, have my teaching methodology down pat, with 12+ years of experience in the classroom, just how much would a masters help me? This degree is going to cost me, in terms of tuition, living expenses, living expenses for my wife and baby who will stay behind in Korea, and lost income...close to $200,000 if my school shuts down without me there.

I only applied to one specific program at one school, and my intent is not teacher training, but rather, in research. I'll be able to cross register at the Kennedy School (and I've already picked out a few potential classes), and probably at some of the others if it fits into a cohesive academic goal. Given the things I want to study and research, I suspect I'll be able to find it at Harvard, if not directly through the Ed School, then by cross-registering at the other grad schools with the course germane to what my ultimate purpose is.

It is a shame that the best and brightest avoid teaching like the plague (except those who want to become professors, and even then, teaching is secondary to your research). It does come down to money - we put in as much time and preparation as most lawyers, yet there's an obvious disparity in income. But teaching is in my blood <sigh>. I don't have a choice, unless I choose a job that I hate, just for the money. Been there, done that.

[.two.snaps.up.]

I may have some insight on UPenn's acceptance rate. UPenn is currently partnered with Teach For America's Mid-Atlantic region, meaning that all corps members who are not getting their certification in special education (those teachers go to Chestnut Hill College) are enrolled at the GSE in order to recieve their master's or certification over the two years they are in TFA. What that boils down to is that once you are accepted to TFA and are placed in Philadelphia or Camden (and Wilmington, I'll bet, though that's a new site and I'm not familiar with it), you are automatically going to UPenn and your application is a mere formality. That probably pumps the acceptance rate up, but I would imagine it also has something to do with what several other posters mentioned - graduate education programs just aren't that competitive. I think UPenn is a fine school and I'm told their TFA/GSE classes are improving in rigor, but I honestly learned more in the classroom and in books that I bought myself than I did in my entire two years in the program.

[jeanne]

Many MEd's are a joke - and I'm saying this as somebody who paid lots of money to get one. I went to a program that is well thought of in the Chicago area. I didn't take the GRE but the Miller Analogy Test. And even if I failed that, I still would be accepted to the program and be in good standing as long as I kept a C average. I didn't have any SOP or LOR's.

My final project for the class? I had to show my professor that I "grew as an individual." I played a solo on my clarinet. Other people showed off moves from their Latin dance class. We read books such as Middlesex and My Sister's Keeper and didn't crack open the textbooks at all (which we were required to buy.)

I think when you look at PhD programs you're going to find a difference between areas. If somebody's going into a practical area - like educational leadership - then you'll probably get a lot of programs similar to the masters. People just want to get done. If you're going into a research area - like educational psychology - then you'll probably get more substantial programs.