Natalia Aulchenko
Senior Advisor
EducationUSA Advising Center
American Councils for International Education ACTR/ACCELS
Pr.ak. Lavrentieva 17/2
Novosibirsk, Russia
Tel/Fax: 7-383-330-92-94
E-mail: natasha@ieie.nsc.ru
Website: http://actr.nsk.ru
Summary
In April 2006 I participated in the Professional
Advising Leadership program, which is designed for senior advisors from EducationUSA
network. These three weeks were the final stage of the whole process, which
started from proposal writing in September 2005 and continued with clarification
of my objectives on the nomination stage and during the Self-directed Orientation
tasks via e-mail two month before the program beginning.
The main goal of the program is to give advisers opportunity to make their own
research and with joint efforts to create information bank on different and
very actual topics prepared by advisors and for advisors.
Choosing the research topic I decided to start from the point, which is actual
for my center and region, though always remembered that results of my research
are supposed to be helpful for advising community all over the world.
Finally my research topic was titled “Graduate admission to the
social/behavioral sciences”, which become more and more popular
on the undergraduate level in my country. I experienced the need:
- to get more information on application procedure and requirements as well
as financial aid availability
- to realize the opportunities for Russian students to compete in these fields
like they successfully compete in hard/natural sciences.
During research part of the program I visited Graduate admissions, Departments
Deans’, International Affairs and Certificate programs offices of the
next universities:
Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh, Carnegie Mellon University,
Duquesne University
Illinois: University of Chicago, University of Illinois at Chicago,
Northwestern University.
Two other segments of the program – Washington Seminars (program orientation
and debriefing, Leadership seminar and State Department update) and NAGAP conference
became very logical beginning/end/networking parts of the trip.
In this report I would like to leave aside discussions about graduate admission
general procedure or description of each visit to the universities. I think
that the most useful will be to describe facts, opinions, procedures,
requirements that I found for myself new or familiar but working different ways
depending on the university/program. I hope this information will be good addition
to wonderful and helpful PAL reports on the close research topic of my colleagues
from Europe – Maria Paniakova, Slovak Republic and Celine Ouziel, France.
To make this information as useful as possible for the future PAL Fellows I
will also touch interesting organizational and communicative moments I have
faced during the visits.
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to all people from College Board,
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the State Department and Eurasia
Regional Educational Advisors coordinator, who participated in development and
organization of my program on every step and helped me to conduct my research
the most effective way.
I see the next steps in sharing experience with at least two groupsof people:
advisees – through raising quality of my services with opportunity to
refer to opinion of the people who set admission requirements and make admissions
decisions and my colleagues in the profession – through this report, Newsletter
article, conference sessions, ITPs, etc.
Universities visits
First of all I would like to list several reasons of my research topic choice:
Graduate admissions to the Social/behavioral sciences.
- The rise of interest and appearance of specialized higher education institutions/departments
teaching these disciplines on undergraduate level in Russia.
- Cuts in expenditure for the USG Fellowship programs connected with Russia.
- Great difference in numbers of students accepted to the hard/natural sciences
and social sciences according to the statistics of the Novosibirsk EAC.
- To get better understanding in which social/behavioral sciences Russian students
are able to compete in order to provide my clients with the most reliable and
actual information (for example, most graduate programs in psychology offer
only very competitive PhD programs with very high admission requirements).
Though I did have in mind the general direction
of my future research on the proposal stage, it took a lot of time and efforts
from me and program coordinators to justify my goals on the final step before
we started universities meetings arrangements.
After five days of meetings going one after another, my head was full with the
new very practical knowledge and understanding how graduate schools operate
on every step: from admission to the career services. I remember one very strong
feeling of those days: why I did not have such great experience 5-7 years ago?
What I am telling my students if information from my meetings shows that in
some cases things could go completely the opposite way? I was lucky to remember
in time very helpful words of Janine Farhat (PAL program coordinator): “Remember:
your visits are explorations, not just confirmations of existing knowledge or
familiar contacts. Be receptive to new possibilities – this is your chance
to open new doors!”. And I think that “new doors” means not
only personal contacts but also new ways of research and understanding of what
American Graduate School is.
The other fact I was very happy to realize that other nine nice women from my
group were collecting information on topics of their interest and if they are
also so excited as I am then all together we will bring a whole bunch of the
first hand information to the advisers’ collection of knowledge about
US education and related topics.
Feeling of diversity.
Diversity is one of the first terms we usually
use to describe American education. This five days series of meetings only in
one sector (Social/behavioral graduate admissions) allowed me to feel/experience
this diversity almost in all directions.
PhD Departments with the same names could have different requirements almost
in all items of application package. As a result sometimes these requirements
are different from those we usually explain our advisees generalizing the information.
For example:
Letters of reference – while majority looks for very informative
letters better from the people familiar with American educational system, some
want very brief papers, “just interpretation of what is said in the transcripts,
essay and other parts of application”.
Essay – while some ask to make this statement as less personal
as possible and to show understanding of last researches in the field and works
the faculty of particular department are involved in, others ask applicants
do not write too much and do not go into deep reasoning in order not to confuse
themselves, because they (in the admission committee) understand that students
who apply immediately after undergraduate program very often do not conduct
any serious research and this is understandable. The only thing they want applicant
to show them – how smart he/she is.
I have noticed big difference even in approaches to organization of our meetings.
Though almost all programs I have visited are highly competitive and annually
receive much more applications than they are able to admit, the level of their
interest in our meetings was very different. In one place people prepared presentation
of the university website assuming the situation that I do not have any idea
about it, while during the other meeting every other word I was told that all
information we are discussing here is actually available on the web site, so
“why are you asking”. The same with the information about Russia
and EducationUSA network – some people were very curious, asked many additional
questions, while other seemed to be indifferent. I do not want to say that this
is good or this is bad, but it is better to be prepared to any kind of reactions.
Offices with the same name like Office of International Affairs could provide
rather different services. In some places this office is very technical and
conducts all paper work with international students and exchange visitors, the
director him/herself will be ready to speak with you on all details of the documentation
process. The other office not only supports but initiates and conducts all international
activities of the university including visits of the universities chairs from
other countries, participation in academic exchanges like Fulbright program,
direct contacts between university and institutes of higher education from abroad.
It is more likely that director of such office will ask one of his assistants
to tell about formal documentation procedure for international students. Such
office is the best place to contact and to ask for help in organization of any
meetings with the university departments. Sometimes this difference is not obvious
from the information on the website and you should be ready to communicate on
both levels depending on the situation: international students documentation
process OR global policy of the school in the questions of international collaboration.
“New” regarding well-known issues.
Transcript. In most places I have visited
Diploma Addendum is more preferable than Transcript (Academic
Records). One admission office director expressed his opinion that those universities,
which still require Transcript (Academic Records) from Russian students, simply
are not notified about Russian credentials. The other suggests the students
to submit that paper, which gives higher GPA.
Teaching assistantships. In most cases they do not require teaching
experience because usually there are no teaching requirements during
the first year, students receive teaching assistants classes and learn “how
to teach” on this department. In some universities I have visited university
funding for the first year comes through Fellowships (not Assistantships). Beginning
with the second year of study, initially funded students in good academic standing
are awarded positions as Teaching Assistants, Teaching Fellows or Graduate Student
Researchers.
Match. Most of them do not require match between applicant
and faculty at the moment of documents submission and believe that it is impossible
without face-to-face contact. It is better to show match between applicant’s
background/interest and department’s research/mission.
Russian Magistr (Master) Degree as well as Candidate of Science (close to PhD)
degree will give advantage only during admission process but
not during the studies.
After two years on the PhD program without significant progress even if officially
Department makes enrollment only to the PhD program.it is possible to
get Master’s degree
PhD programs usually do not know the rate between American
and foreign students, in this sense they make blind admission. This mean that
they do not express interest to the students from any particular part of the
world, they just look for the best match with their department.
Most PhD programs make offer only to such amount of students, which university/department
are able to finance. The common opinion - people should not pay for
their PhD degree like they pay for the Master’s degree.
American PhD market in Social sciences is very competitive; nobody retires.
It becomes more and more popular to make post-doctoral research right after
PhD thesis defense without going to the job market; 15 years ago PhDs chose
post-doctoral positions only if they could not find position in the university.
Psychology, PhD programs. Four Psychology
Departments, which I have visited, have only PhD programs on the graduate level
(Master degree in Psychology is not competitive on the job market, usually such
positions could be also occupied by the people with different other degrees).
These programs are highly competitive; the Departments receive annually 10+
times more application than they are able to admit. Undergraduate psychology
education is not required though undergraduate transcript should include 3-4
psychology courses. Tests requirements: TOEFL – 600/250 and higher, GRE
General – 1200 total in Verbal and Quantitative sections, Psychology GRE
Subject is required for applicants to the Clinical programs and recommended
but not required for applicants to other programs. Psychology departments’
leaders consider that if to look for the match between the applicant and faculty
then better to do this through articles and scientific papers but not through
reading faculty profile on the website. This means that applicant first chose
the faculty and then university where this person works at this moment. Psychology
undergraduates who plan to apply to the PhD program usually start research work
on the last two years. Approx. 2/3 of graduate applicants come directly from
undergraduate programs, ¼ has some lab experience and ¼ come from
anywhere, including 40+ years old people changing their career.
Most Psychology Departments provide graduate education in the following areas
of study: cognitive psychology, developmental psychology, cognitive neuroscience,
social/personality/health psychology and clinical psychology. All PhD programs
are very research oriented, even clinical programs. In course work only 10%
are devoted to the history of psychology studies, 90% of curriculum is given
to the last 30 years researches in the US. The strongest classes are established
on the professional journals articled but not books, which are considered out
of date even at the day of their publication.
19th Annual NAGAP conference, April 23-26, Las Vegas
This event had all pluses of the “small” conference, which I consider very valuable: the number of sessions allows you to attend almost every one you are interested in, participants’ faces become familiar to the end of the first day, all events take place on the same level in one hotel and what is the most important – such conferences, like Regional NAFSAs, get together many admission people whom you will never meet on the National NAFSA forum. For many of them this is the first/only chance to meet educational advisor from abroad and I noticed that many first-comers from US universities admission offices were surprised that there is somebody on the other end of the process, who promotes US education and helps international students on every step. I am sure that this knowledge brings a significant input into their professionalism.Among dozens of conference sessions I have chosen those, which meet my advisees interests most of all:
Setting and using iBT scores
As my office runs one of the iBT TOEFL test centers in Russia and I regularly
conduct presentations about significant changes in the test structure it was
extremely valuable for me to know what is going on the side of the test scores
recipients. In this session representatives from three universities discussed
the process they have used to set their TOEFL iBT score requirements and describe
their experience of receiving and using TOEFL iBT score for the first time.
After session questions also gave a chance to get acquainted with a very nice
woman Eileen Tyson, Assistant Director, Client Relations, TOEFL Program, ETS.
While on the conference, Eileen used every opportunity to introduce educational
advisors to American universities reps and to encourage them to visit our sessions.
The revised GRE General Test –
Coming in Fall 2007
During the session GRE Program staff discussed the goals of the effort to make
changes in the test, which include: increasing the validity of the test, providing
faculty with better information on applicant’s performance, addressing
security concerns and making better use of technology. Information about the
changes planned for each of the three sections was provided. The session also
included information on test administration changes, changes to the Verbal and
Quantitative score scales, and how to become a testing center what is very actual
for my center.
Quick – Easy – Valuable
– Electronic Letters of Recommendation
The general premise is – paper, free-form letters of recommendation do
not always provide the best data for evaluating the suitability of an applicant
for graduate school. Approximately 18 months ago, Georgia Institute of Technology
instituted a system of electronic (online) letters of reference, which has provided
excellent data to its departments by offering a very comprehensive overview
of the recommender’s experience with and view of the applicant. Additionally,
the departments can use this data, accessible in text format, to do keyword
searches and other data searchers to help with their assessment of the applicant’s
suitability for specific graduate programs as well making recommendations for
specific areas of concentration for graduate study. The presentation gave an
overview of the development, implementation, and impact of electronic letters
of recommendation on the graduate admissions process. On the side of the student
the process could be briefly described as following: after applicant submits
electronic application form where he/she gives the list of potential referees,
these people will receive a request from the university to submit electronically
the letter of reference for this applicant. The letter should be sent from the
professors corporative e-mail box and only in English, no native languages.
I assumed that some students would experience difficulties if their scientific
supervisors do not use English language or Internet actively, but the answer
to my concerns was very definite: no paper anymore.
There were also many sessions devoted to admission strategies and instruments.
As I understood the number one question is effective using of technology on
every step of the process starting from the web site (Session “Transforming
Your Website from a Reactive Vanity to a Proactive Marketing Vehicle”)
and finishing with a web-based application that handles the entire application,
evaluation, selection, admissions, and orientation process in the University
of Arizona College of Pharmacy.
NAGAP conference also was a great chance to present EducationUSA network and my region Eurasia. Two sessions I participated in: “ International Admissions Resources: Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States” and “Recruiting Abroad – A Conversation with EducationUSA Advisors” attracted totally 50+ people. The primary interest was in educational systems schemes, trends and reasons in students flows from this or that country, Bologna process and CIS countries participation in it, financial aid opportunities, which could be searched inside our countries and advising centers activities, which could help admission offices to recruit international students and evaluate applications.
The scale of the event gave an excellent opportunity to see how this non-profit professional association operates, plans, spends membership fees, searches for sponsors and prepare reports. I was really amazed with the amount of work, which is done by volunteers.
Washington seminars
Washington part of the program included two segments – three days in the
beginning of the program and two days on our way back. Such program format together
with endlessly helpful Modules of Self-directed Orientation via e-mail with
Debbie Hefferon before the program allowed me to plunge into very intensive
research and conference part of the program and to emerge at the end both smoothly
and with maximum effect.
PAL Fellows orientation helped us to formulate and to repeat
one more time our goals of participation in this program and what was the most
important – to find ways to keep track that we are really meeting our
personal and program goals. I would like to say that later while on the research
stage of my trip I found these discussions and advices extremely useful. I hardly
could survive without my journal notes and self-reflection having some day meetings
with 10+ people.
Department of State Day sessions updated us on current programs
in our regions, programs for alumni and website news. Very interactive session
“Trends in International Students Mobility” facilitated by Fanta
Aw from American University gave us opportunity to communicate with international
students from Pakistan, Turkey, Gambia, South Korea, India and China, to ask
questions about challenges on the way to the university in the US, US universities
experience and their future plans after graduation. Students mentioned several
concerns about education in the US, which exist in their countries: is the US
university safe environment, disconnection with native country, cultural issues
regarding the ability to prove finance (money – private information).
Students also gave their view on how they would market US education: to study
the group of advisees, to describe opportunities of US education and how it
could be used back at home, to present influencing people/alumni of that nation
who has this experience, to meet with students – personal contacts are
very valuable, to work with perceptions.
Leadership seminar systematized the ideas all of us have had
about leadership and leader before and encouraged us to think over what is to
be a leader in our profession honestly assessing our strengths and weaknesses.
I think that in the work with Myers Briggs Type Indicator the most interesting
thing for me was that my personal view on the natural way I am doing things
matched the results of the test, though in first case I had chance to analyze
my usual behavior and answering the test questions the reaction was more spontaneous.
I am very grateful to Debbie Hefferon for establishing very friendly and fruitful
seminar’s atmosphere and for her efforts to make each of us to believe
in our leadership potential.
PAL Trip debriefing on our way back encouraged us to start
systematization of the information we have collected on the stage when we remember
not only the new facts, but also our first reaction on these facts and ideas
how it could influence our students. I think that this is the difference between
reading information from other people and having your personal experience. And
the second extremely valuable moment for me was the opportunity to listen for
nine more PAL experience reflections – very emotional and enthusiastic.
Next-steps
I am happy that topic of my research allows me to use the knowledge I have received
from the first day after returning back home both in group sessions and individual
consultations. I have also tried to summarize the most important information
in June issue of Regional Advisers Newsletter. Currently I and two advisers
from this year PAL group are in the process of proposal preparation for participation
in the next year NAFSA conference. The session goal is to give Overseas Educational
Advisors full picture of admission procedure to Graduate and Professional (business
and medicine) schools including first-hand information we have got during research
segments of the program. The Eurasian Regional Conference in March will also
give me a chance to share the PAL experience with my colleagues. In the coming
academic year I am going to make series of outreaches to social/behavioral departments
of Novosibirsk universities and create a new folder for the EAC on graduate
Psychology education in the US on the basis of the materials and information
I have collected during the visits. I also see the results of the program in
the way I am searching for universities admission requirements now. Very often
the details are available in the comments to well-known list of documents. Face
to face communication with the people who create these requirements and explanation
of their motivation helps me to pay more attention even to small nuances and
what is the most important to encourage students to act the same way.
My suggestions to the future PAL Fellows:
While writing proposal and setting your research goals you should imagine that
you are leaving to the US in a month but not in half a year. This will help
you to realize that your great plans should transform into real meetings and
visits and you have only five-seven days. It will also be very helpful for you
on the proposal stage to find out what universities/organizations you would
like to visit to achieve goals of your research. You should not put it to the
last minute waiting if you become a Fellow or not.
As I understand now it could be very useful if I contacted a mentor (PAL alumni)
starting the proposal stage. And the same with some elements from Self-direct
orientation – like big and small questions to use during the meeting in
the US – could encourage writing proposal more precisely.
My personal experience showed that it is better to strictly control the number
of meetings and duration of each meeting. Nothing good in the situation when
you stay without a lunch or look at your watch every 5 minutes because your
meetings go every 30 minutes. You are also simply tired of talking in English
if it is not your native language.
Choosing the universities and planning visits you should think if big name schools
would really give you the experience you are looking for. For example, in my
case many Departments were overloaded with PhD applications, most of which are
perfectly prepared, and my interlocutors seemed to be not so interested in our
communication and my services. Since we do not plan to recruit for this or that
particular school, we are searching for as much information as possible on the
topic, I would suggest choosing such universities, which have enough experience
with graduate applications and at the same time could find our network services
really helpful for them.
We have touched these questions on our debriefing and I am happy that it was
a very fruitful discussion; Janine, Debbie and Dorothy were very open for our
ideas and I am sure that with common efforts this training will be improving
from year to year.
Resources
Dave G. Mumby. Graduate School. Winning Strategies for Getting in With or Without
Excellent Grades.
P. Keith-Spiagel, M. W.Wiederman. The Complete Guide to Graduate School Admission.
M. Castelluci. Getting into Graduate School.
D. Bloom, J. Karp, N. Cohen. PhD Process: A Student’s Guide to Graduate
School in the Sciences.
American Psychology Association. Graduate Study in Psychology.
The Princeton Review. Paying for Graduate School Without Going Broke
American Council on Education. American Universities and Colleges
www.educationusa.state.gov
www.petersons.com/educationusa
www.gradview.com
www.princetonreview.com
Particular University’s web sites – most full and updated application
information
I would like to use this opportunity to thank
the US State Department and College Board for this excellent professional development
training. My special thanks go to Janine Farhat, Debbie Hefferon, Allison Hawley,
who helped me on every step to make my project as real to put it into the practice
as possible.
And the last but not least is my sincere gratitude to all people whose time,
professionalism and advice made this program a remarkable experience, which
is very valuable for my future professional life:
Washington, D.C.
Janine Farhat, Associate Director for Special Projects, Office of International
Education, The College Board
Carol Brythe, Interim Director, Office of International Education, The College
Board
Debbie Hefferon, Faculty Consultant to the PAL Program
Dorothy Mora, Program Officer for East Asia/Pacific, Bureau of Educational &
Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State
Henry Scott, Program Officer for Eurasia and South America, Bureau of Educational
& Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State
Pennsylvania
University of Pittsburgh
GSPIA – Graduate School of Public and International Affairs:
Elizabeth Brounsdorf Assistant Director, Office of Student Services
John Mendeloff, Director, Public and Urban Affairs
Martin Staniland, Director, International Affairs and International Development
Michele Garrity, Director, Master of Public Policy and Management
Michael Brenner, PhD Program Coordinator
Economics Department, PhD program
Jean-Francois Richard, University Professor of Economics, Department Chairman
John Duffy, Professor, Admissions Chair
Psychology Department, PhD program
Irene Hanson Frieze, Professor of Psychology, Women’s Studies and Business
Administration
Anna D. Halechko, Assistant Chair
Cynthia Lausberg, Director, Office of Undergraduate Advising
University Center for International Studies
(UCIS)
William Brustein, Director
Center of Russian and Eastern European studies, Certificate programs
Robert Donnorummo, Associate Director & graduate program adviser
Gina Peirce, Assistant Director
Office of International Admissions
Timothy S. Thompson, Associate Director
George F. Kacenga, Assistant Director of International Admissions
Carnegie Mellon University
Heinz School of Public Policy and Management,
Master’s programs
Dave Eber, Admissions office
Janet Cohen, Chief Operating Officer
Dan Martin, Associate Dean, Heinz Programs
Betty Casale, Financial Aid Office
Martin Black, Career Services
Psychology Department, PhD program
Anna Fisher, Assistant Professor
Michael Scheier, Department’s Dean
Dick Hayes, Admissions
Erin Donahoe, Admissions
Duquesne University
Jean Hunter, Chair, History Department, Master’s program
Joseph Yenerall, Chair, Social and Public Policy Department, Master’s
program
Daniel Burston, Chair, Psychology Department, PhD program
Joe DeCrosta, Director, Office of International Programs
Illinois
University of Chicago
Division of Social Sciences, PhD programs
Lois Stein, Dean of Students
Patrick Hall, Associate Dean
Timothy Blackman, Associate Dean
International Affairs Office
Tamara Felden, Director
University of Illinois at Chicago
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, PhD
programs
Marya Schechtman, Associate Dean
Jennifer Ashton, Associate Dean
Office of International Affairs
Allan W. Lerner, Deputy Associate Chancellor
Northwestern University
Departments of Economics, PhD programs
Mercedes Thomas, Graduate Admissions Coordinator
Department of Psychology, PhD programs
Dan McAdams, Director of Graduate Students
Florence Sales, Graduate Admissions Coordinator
International Office
Elizabeth Matthews, Associate Director
19th Annual NAGAP Conference, Las Vegas
Ann Koenig, AACRAO, Southwestern Regional Director, Credential Evaluation Services
Eileen Tyson, ETS, Associate Director, Client Relations
July, 2006