For a guide to how the university rates in relation to other UK universities, please visit either the Times Good University Guide or the Guardian Education Guide 2009
Showing posts with label United Kingdom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United Kingdom. Show all posts
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Coventry University
Below is a paid video advertorial of Coventry University in the United Kingdom. Many of the local universities also offer twinning programmes with this university. Please note that this advertisement is not an endorsement of the university by the authors, but serves as a tool for you to make your own judgement.
For a guide to how the university rates in relation to other UK universities, please visit either the Times Good University Guide or the Guardian Education Guide 2009
Good luck!
For a guide to how the university rates in relation to other UK universities, please visit either the Times Good University Guide or the Guardian Education Guide 2009
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Changing Cardiff
Saw this excellent interview with Prof Sir Brian Smith, former VC of Cardiff University, in the education section of the Star last Sunday (Dec 16, 2007). One of our readers caught this interview as well. I'll reproduce it in full (for posterity, when the link expires) and then add some of my thoughts at the end.
By TAN SHIOW CHIN
educate@thestar.com.my
Prof Sir Brian Smith shares his strategies for restoring Cardiff University’s reputation as a research university.
FOR someone who does not like administration, it is ironic that Cardiff University (Cardiff) international ambassador and former vice-chancellor Prof Sir Brian Smith ended up heavily involved in research management.
He was first landed with it back when he was a Physical Chemistry lecturer at Oxford University.
“Every time people asked me to do an administrative job, I'd say: 'No, no, I'm doing my research'.
“So, in the end, they just said everybody has to do his, or her, bit.”
And that was how he was appointed to the university’s General Board – the body responsible for academic planning and development as well as finance and appointments.
“Then, to my surprise, I was elected chairman of the board, and that was how my administrative career started,” he shared, during a recent interview at the British Council.
Prof Smith headed the board for two years, from 1985 to 1987.
Later, he served as Master of St Catherine's College.
He was also the founding director of Isis Innovation, Oxford's intellectual property arm.
The experience gained from holding these two positions stood him in good stead when he was appointed vice-chancellor of Cardiff in 2001.
PROF SMITH: My theories worked because the people at Cardiff were ready for change and ready to change dramatically.
Strong leadership
At that time, Cardiff was a university in trouble. Due to government cutbacks in the late 1980s, the university had reached a stage when it was essentially bankrupt and on the verge of closing.
It eventually had to merge with the University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology, previously a polytechnic, and obtain a government loan to pull it through that rough patch.
“My predecessor, Sir Aubrey Dickinson, had five years to get the finances and the merger sorted out – a very difficult and technical job,” shared Prof Smith.
Once its financial standing was stabilised, then came the question of how to improve the university's research capabilities.
Said Prof Smith: “Cardiff offered a fantastic opportunity.
“Here was a university that had been through very difficult times; it was the perfect opportunity to try out my theories.
“And they worked because the people at Cardiff were ready for change and ready to change dramatically.”
The main problem faced by the university at that time was that it had not yet re-established itself as a research university.
According to Prof Smith, there are a number of factors involved in the move to regain a university's research strength.
“A very big factor is research staff.
“Because British universities have a great deal of autonomy and flexibility, we were able to go out and recruit.”
And that was how Prof Sir Martin Evans, one of this year's Nobel Prize in Medicine recipients, came to join the university.
“He came to a department that was not strong but actually managed to increase its number of publications in top journals 11-fold,” said Prof Smith.
Prof Evans, he added, was a stimulating presence as he could motivate not only the new people but also those people who had been there all the while.
“Although a lot of the publications were from new staff, half came from people who were already there.
“They became much more active and proactive under him.
“It is very much a leadership issue, I think. Star scientists and academics can transform the culture around them,” explained Prof Smith.
Shared vision
Asked how he managed to attract top people like Prof Evans to join him at Cardiff, Prof Smith said he believed what counted was not just a lucrative contract but the whole package.
“I don't think it's entirely about money. I feel that Prof Evans was equally attracted by the opportunity to unify the entire biology department and direct its vision,” he observed.
To encourage productivity, Prof Smith switched the promotion system from a quota-based system (where the total number of professorial positions in a faculty were pre-determined) to a performance-based one.
He even offered an attractive retirement package to faculty members who were not producing much research.
However, in order for universities to be able to do that, Prof Smith said they need autonomy.
“The university has to be free to offer different contracts (to academics and scientists).
“And within the university, a lot of power needs to be devolved to the young people.
“It's all about having decisions taken at the lowest level practicable.
“That’s a major change,” he said.
Another important move Prof Smith instituted was to eliminate as much of the bureaucracy and structures as possible in the university.
Faculties were removed and the research and academic units dealt directly with the central administration.
“I can't describe how much paperwork that saved,” said Prof Smith, adding that the rules and regulations were also much simplified by that move.
He added that it was absolutely important that all the people in the university have a “very clear and single-minded vision”.
“Everybody (in the university) must know what the aim and mission is.
“They must also feel, in their own different ways, able to contribute to that,” he said.
Changes must also be instituted quickly, he added.
“I had about two years to make substantial changes before our first research assessment exercise (RAE).
“I think if you take a long time instituting change, things lose their momentum.
“You have to make changes when people feel the need for change.”
Due in large part to these strategies, Cardiff has risen from a ranking of 241 in the THES-QS World University Rankings in 2005 to 99 this year.
Prof Smith, however, also pointed out that saying something and doing it are quite different.
Citing autonomy as an example, he said: “Governments are very reluctant to give too much power to universities.
“University managers are also reluctant to surrender power in turn.
“The desire to hold on to power is something we have to struggle with both inside and outside universities.”
Some of the no-brainers in regards to how they apply to the Malaysian context. While it is a no-brainer to change to a performance based scheme which gives incentives for researchers to publish, giving autonomy to universities to 'reward' good researchers is easier said than done in the Malaysian context. Since all university lecturers and professors are civil servants, they are on a centrally fixed pay scale. There is less room to negotiate for pay increases or higher salaries, especially to attract outstanding talent to come to our public universities. UM, for example, cannot offer higher pay to attract outstanding talent from let's say NUS.
Similarly, it makes sense, financially at least, to reduce the levels of bureaucracy but this might run into the problem of individual departments wanting to maintain their own autonomy as well as their administrative staff. Hence, university autonomy for Prof Smith also comes with individual university centralization, from a bureaucratic standpoint at least.
Finally, he talks about how a university needs autonomy from other sources of powers including the government. Again, I think that long term, a university cannot be too closely tied to the government (because of government interference) but in the case of Malaysia, it looks like, at least in the short to medium term, the government, through the MOHE is driving changes in our public universities. While this might be a short term measure (without which our public universities might continue to languish in mediocrity), it is not a long term solution. Ultimately, our public universities need to be weaned off government interference and also government support.
I was a little disappointed that he didn't talk about funding since Cardiff is one of the universities which benefit financially from obtaining more and more foreign students (including Malaysian students), an option which is not immediately open to our public universities.
The changes proposed here are no brainers - performance, incentives, leadership and autonomy - most, if not all, of which are currently needed in large doses in our public universities.
By TAN SHIOW CHIN
educate@thestar.com.my
Prof Sir Brian Smith shares his strategies for restoring Cardiff University’s reputation as a research university.
FOR someone who does not like administration, it is ironic that Cardiff University (Cardiff) international ambassador and former vice-chancellor Prof Sir Brian Smith ended up heavily involved in research management.
He was first landed with it back when he was a Physical Chemistry lecturer at Oxford University.
“Every time people asked me to do an administrative job, I'd say: 'No, no, I'm doing my research'.
“So, in the end, they just said everybody has to do his, or her, bit.”
And that was how he was appointed to the university’s General Board – the body responsible for academic planning and development as well as finance and appointments.
“Then, to my surprise, I was elected chairman of the board, and that was how my administrative career started,” he shared, during a recent interview at the British Council.
Prof Smith headed the board for two years, from 1985 to 1987.
Later, he served as Master of St Catherine's College.
He was also the founding director of Isis Innovation, Oxford's intellectual property arm.
The experience gained from holding these two positions stood him in good stead when he was appointed vice-chancellor of Cardiff in 2001.
PROF SMITH: My theories worked because the people at Cardiff were ready for change and ready to change dramatically.
Strong leadership
At that time, Cardiff was a university in trouble. Due to government cutbacks in the late 1980s, the university had reached a stage when it was essentially bankrupt and on the verge of closing.
It eventually had to merge with the University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology, previously a polytechnic, and obtain a government loan to pull it through that rough patch.
“My predecessor, Sir Aubrey Dickinson, had five years to get the finances and the merger sorted out – a very difficult and technical job,” shared Prof Smith.
Once its financial standing was stabilised, then came the question of how to improve the university's research capabilities.
Said Prof Smith: “Cardiff offered a fantastic opportunity.
“Here was a university that had been through very difficult times; it was the perfect opportunity to try out my theories.
“And they worked because the people at Cardiff were ready for change and ready to change dramatically.”
The main problem faced by the university at that time was that it had not yet re-established itself as a research university.
According to Prof Smith, there are a number of factors involved in the move to regain a university's research strength.
“A very big factor is research staff.
“Because British universities have a great deal of autonomy and flexibility, we were able to go out and recruit.”
And that was how Prof Sir Martin Evans, one of this year's Nobel Prize in Medicine recipients, came to join the university.
“He came to a department that was not strong but actually managed to increase its number of publications in top journals 11-fold,” said Prof Smith.
Prof Evans, he added, was a stimulating presence as he could motivate not only the new people but also those people who had been there all the while.
“Although a lot of the publications were from new staff, half came from people who were already there.
“They became much more active and proactive under him.
“It is very much a leadership issue, I think. Star scientists and academics can transform the culture around them,” explained Prof Smith.
Shared vision
Asked how he managed to attract top people like Prof Evans to join him at Cardiff, Prof Smith said he believed what counted was not just a lucrative contract but the whole package.
“I don't think it's entirely about money. I feel that Prof Evans was equally attracted by the opportunity to unify the entire biology department and direct its vision,” he observed.
To encourage productivity, Prof Smith switched the promotion system from a quota-based system (where the total number of professorial positions in a faculty were pre-determined) to a performance-based one.
He even offered an attractive retirement package to faculty members who were not producing much research.
However, in order for universities to be able to do that, Prof Smith said they need autonomy.
“The university has to be free to offer different contracts (to academics and scientists).
“And within the university, a lot of power needs to be devolved to the young people.
“It's all about having decisions taken at the lowest level practicable.
“That’s a major change,” he said.
Another important move Prof Smith instituted was to eliminate as much of the bureaucracy and structures as possible in the university.
Faculties were removed and the research and academic units dealt directly with the central administration.
“I can't describe how much paperwork that saved,” said Prof Smith, adding that the rules and regulations were also much simplified by that move.
He added that it was absolutely important that all the people in the university have a “very clear and single-minded vision”.
“Everybody (in the university) must know what the aim and mission is.
“They must also feel, in their own different ways, able to contribute to that,” he said.
Changes must also be instituted quickly, he added.
“I had about two years to make substantial changes before our first research assessment exercise (RAE).
“I think if you take a long time instituting change, things lose their momentum.
“You have to make changes when people feel the need for change.”
Due in large part to these strategies, Cardiff has risen from a ranking of 241 in the THES-QS World University Rankings in 2005 to 99 this year.
Prof Smith, however, also pointed out that saying something and doing it are quite different.
Citing autonomy as an example, he said: “Governments are very reluctant to give too much power to universities.
“University managers are also reluctant to surrender power in turn.
“The desire to hold on to power is something we have to struggle with both inside and outside universities.”
Some of the no-brainers in regards to how they apply to the Malaysian context. While it is a no-brainer to change to a performance based scheme which gives incentives for researchers to publish, giving autonomy to universities to 'reward' good researchers is easier said than done in the Malaysian context. Since all university lecturers and professors are civil servants, they are on a centrally fixed pay scale. There is less room to negotiate for pay increases or higher salaries, especially to attract outstanding talent to come to our public universities. UM, for example, cannot offer higher pay to attract outstanding talent from let's say NUS.
Similarly, it makes sense, financially at least, to reduce the levels of bureaucracy but this might run into the problem of individual departments wanting to maintain their own autonomy as well as their administrative staff. Hence, university autonomy for Prof Smith also comes with individual university centralization, from a bureaucratic standpoint at least.
Finally, he talks about how a university needs autonomy from other sources of powers including the government. Again, I think that long term, a university cannot be too closely tied to the government (because of government interference) but in the case of Malaysia, it looks like, at least in the short to medium term, the government, through the MOHE is driving changes in our public universities. While this might be a short term measure (without which our public universities might continue to languish in mediocrity), it is not a long term solution. Ultimately, our public universities need to be weaned off government interference and also government support.
I was a little disappointed that he didn't talk about funding since Cardiff is one of the universities which benefit financially from obtaining more and more foreign students (including Malaysian students), an option which is not immediately open to our public universities.
The changes proposed here are no brainers - performance, incentives, leadership and autonomy - most, if not all, of which are currently needed in large doses in our public universities.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Talk on Oxbridge
Hey guys,
The first Descartes talk was held last Sunday, with Nathaniel Tan giving us his take on his experience at Harvard University. We attracted a small crowd, with Dr Goh Cheng Teik, the interviewer in Malaysia for undergraduate admission into the college making a surprise appearance. ;)
This coming Saturday, we'll be holding a talk, this time on two universities across the Atlantic in the United Kingdom, Oxford and Cambridge. The details are as follows:
A token fee of RM10 is collected to help defray the cost of the running DECC.
So please help spread the message around to interested parties. You can also reach me at tonypua(at)yahoo.com. ;) See you!
The first Descartes talk was held last Sunday, with Nathaniel Tan giving us his take on his experience at Harvard University. We attracted a small crowd, with Dr Goh Cheng Teik, the interviewer in Malaysia for undergraduate admission into the college making a surprise appearance. ;)
This coming Saturday, we'll be holding a talk, this time on two universities across the Atlantic in the United Kingdom, Oxford and Cambridge. The details are as follows:
Topic: Life & Experiences @ Oxford & Cambridge UniversitiesSpeakers:
Date: 31st March (Sat)
Time: 4.00 pm
Venue: DECC, 55-1 Jalan SS21/1A, Damasara Utama (Uptown), 47400 Petaling Jaya
Allen NgWe hope to attract a bigger crowd to establish the Descartes series of talks. Future talks currently being planned include the ASEAN Scholarship, application to top US universities, workshop on writing university application essays, picking the right courses etc.
Allen was the president of the Cambridge University Malaysia Society in 2001. He is currently work as a practising Economist with Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM), having completed his degree in Economics on the BNM Scholarship. Prior to that, he completed his 'A' Levels with Taylors College.
Allen originates from Ipoh and is contemplating crossing the bridge with a MPhil degree in Economics from Oxford University.
Tony Pua (that's me)
Tony graduated from Oxford University with a degree in Philosophy, Politics & Economics in 1991 with a scholarship from MTC Foundation. Prior to that, he had his secondary education at Raffles Institution and Raffles Junior College in Singapore under the ASEAN Scholarship.
He worked in a multinational consulting company for almost 2 years before venturing out to set up his own company in 1997. He listed the company in the Singapore Exchange in 2001 before divesting his stake in the company in early 2007 to focus solely on socio-political community work.
Read also my earlier write ups on application and my personal experiences at Oxford.
A token fee of RM10 is collected to help defray the cost of the running DECC.
So please help spread the message around to interested parties. You can also reach me at tonypua(at)yahoo.com. ;) See you!
Monday, March 26, 2007
UK vs US: A Different Perspective
I wrote a while back on the general perception of United Kingdom vs United States universities. It attracted a fair bit of interest and a lot of comments. Tilia Wong, who's studying at San Jose State University, with a prior stint at a Australian university, wrote in to express her differing views from my post(s). She has kindly permitted me to reproduce her letter here, and share her views with our readers. ;)
"I was reading your blog titled United Kingdom vs. United States dated the 24th of April 2006 and I feel rather compelled to write to you about it. I started looking for blog posts on this topic after my father had a conversation with some of his friends where they passed some rather derogatory remarks concerning the American education system. At this point, I should state that I am a junior at San Jose State University studying civil engineering.
In your blog post, you wrote that you thought a UK degree was more specialised and a US one is more generalised. Well, I have not studied in the UK, but I did do one year of civil engineering in Australia whose system, I understand, is very similar to the British one. I studied in Australia for year and then I found that I did not enjoy life there and decided to transfer to the United States. I redid many of the same courses and therefore I think that I am fully equipped to make a comparison of the two.
The subjects taken during the course of the degree are highly similar. However, when you compare the content of the subject, the American degree is actually more in depth than the Australian one. I will compare the first year subjects since I did them in both countries and therefore can make a fairer assesment. In Australia, I did two semesters of math which was a mix of calculus, matrices and so on. In America, I did 3 semesters of calculus, one of differential equations and another of linear algebra. In Australia, I did one semester of Engineering Mechanics which consisted of statics and dynamics. In America, the subjects were split up with one semester dedicated to each. The American semester is about 16 weeks long and the Australian semester has about 13 weeks worth of lecture. Please feel free to draw your own conclusions from these figures.
Your blog post also stated that one does not have to decide which specialisation until the second year in America. Basically, the system does not FORCE you to declare a major until you feel like it. However, if you do not have a clear major in mind from the very beginning and follow a strict program, you will not graduate in four years. It is no different from going to the UK, declaring one major and then switching to another. In the US, you just call the first major undeclared and you are free to take a myriad of subjects to figure out what you want to do. However, if you do so, most of the courses will not go towards your degree and some people take seven years to graduate. Its not as if you are free to bum around, take 2 years of art history courses and then decide to major in accounting later. You will pay the price if you do that.
You stated that your friend Kian Ming "did it right" by doing undergrad in UK and postgrad in the US. I do not think there is any "right" way of doing it. Some people have very good memories and can cram for final exams that are worth 70% of your grade. Others, prefer doing research, working on projects, and accumulating knowledge slowly over the semester. Both systems have their merits and to say that doing undergrad in UK is the right way is somewhat derogatory.
Personally, I felt stifled and cooped up in Australia. Coming to America has exposes you to new technology, a level of diversity that is incomparable, and an opportunity to learn things you would normally never even dream of reading about. I am a civil engineer but the American general education system has taught me political science, public speaking techniques, writing techniques, art history, yoga, salsa, and kinesiology to name a few. On top of that, I do believe that I have a strong grounding in civil engineering.
If American universities provided such a poor and shallow education on the specific major since it is not as in depth, then how does America beat so many nations on every level? Because of America's good postgraduate programs? The majority does not do postgraduate studies.
Now that I have spoken my piece on American universities, I would like to comment on university rankings.
I do have to make the observation that you tend to focus on and place great weight on top ranking universities. I do agree that attending a top ranking university carries with it great prestige and an enhanced university experience. However, your blog is probably read by a lot of people and statistically speaking, most of them should be average both in academic results and financial might. If your aim is to advise people on the best course to take, a lot of the paths you have suggested are out of the question for 95% of the population.
I realise that you have placed a note at the bottom of most of your posts that you realise that national rankings may be inaccurate. However, I would like to cite you an example using my university demonstrating exactly how irrelevant university rankings can be. San Jose State University is not highly ranked on the overall national scale. However, it is ranked 10th in the nation for undergraduate engineering and 5th for industrial and computer engineering. It is only ranked 41st of the universities in the West for the overall ranking. It is not fair to judge a university graduate's degree based on the national overall ranking alone. Perhaps it would be more beneficial to the public if you would educate them by pointing out the potential for large disparities between the national ranking and the specific course ranking.
Another example of national overall university rankings having very little to do with the calibre of the student (at least in the United States) is this. San Jose State University is surrounded by high ranking, ivy league powerhouses. Stanford, and Santa Clara Unversity are less than twenty minutes drive away. In a 5 hour driving radius, you can find USC, UCLA, and UC Berkeley just to name a few. All of these are higher ranked than San Jose State University. However, San Jose State supplies the highest number of graduates in the world to Silicon Valley with companies like Intel, Yahoo, Google, Ebay, Cisco and so on. Why are these companies choosing lower ranked university graduates over the ivy league ones if national ranking really tells a person so much about how good their graduate is? It cannot be from the lack of applications from other unversity graduates. A recent survey stated that Silicon Valley pays out the highest median income in the United States. Yet a university ranked 41st in the West is trouncing other universities in terms of employment in Silicon Valley.
Well, these are my opinions on the American education system and university rankings. I hope that you will give them some thought."
"I was reading your blog titled United Kingdom vs. United States dated the 24th of April 2006 and I feel rather compelled to write to you about it. I started looking for blog posts on this topic after my father had a conversation with some of his friends where they passed some rather derogatory remarks concerning the American education system. At this point, I should state that I am a junior at San Jose State University studying civil engineering.
In your blog post, you wrote that you thought a UK degree was more specialised and a US one is more generalised. Well, I have not studied in the UK, but I did do one year of civil engineering in Australia whose system, I understand, is very similar to the British one. I studied in Australia for year and then I found that I did not enjoy life there and decided to transfer to the United States. I redid many of the same courses and therefore I think that I am fully equipped to make a comparison of the two.
The subjects taken during the course of the degree are highly similar. However, when you compare the content of the subject, the American degree is actually more in depth than the Australian one. I will compare the first year subjects since I did them in both countries and therefore can make a fairer assesment. In Australia, I did two semesters of math which was a mix of calculus, matrices and so on. In America, I did 3 semesters of calculus, one of differential equations and another of linear algebra. In Australia, I did one semester of Engineering Mechanics which consisted of statics and dynamics. In America, the subjects were split up with one semester dedicated to each. The American semester is about 16 weeks long and the Australian semester has about 13 weeks worth of lecture. Please feel free to draw your own conclusions from these figures.
Your blog post also stated that one does not have to decide which specialisation until the second year in America. Basically, the system does not FORCE you to declare a major until you feel like it. However, if you do not have a clear major in mind from the very beginning and follow a strict program, you will not graduate in four years. It is no different from going to the UK, declaring one major and then switching to another. In the US, you just call the first major undeclared and you are free to take a myriad of subjects to figure out what you want to do. However, if you do so, most of the courses will not go towards your degree and some people take seven years to graduate. Its not as if you are free to bum around, take 2 years of art history courses and then decide to major in accounting later. You will pay the price if you do that.
You stated that your friend Kian Ming "did it right" by doing undergrad in UK and postgrad in the US. I do not think there is any "right" way of doing it. Some people have very good memories and can cram for final exams that are worth 70% of your grade. Others, prefer doing research, working on projects, and accumulating knowledge slowly over the semester. Both systems have their merits and to say that doing undergrad in UK is the right way is somewhat derogatory.
Personally, I felt stifled and cooped up in Australia. Coming to America has exposes you to new technology, a level of diversity that is incomparable, and an opportunity to learn things you would normally never even dream of reading about. I am a civil engineer but the American general education system has taught me political science, public speaking techniques, writing techniques, art history, yoga, salsa, and kinesiology to name a few. On top of that, I do believe that I have a strong grounding in civil engineering.
If American universities provided such a poor and shallow education on the specific major since it is not as in depth, then how does America beat so many nations on every level? Because of America's good postgraduate programs? The majority does not do postgraduate studies.
Now that I have spoken my piece on American universities, I would like to comment on university rankings.
I do have to make the observation that you tend to focus on and place great weight on top ranking universities. I do agree that attending a top ranking university carries with it great prestige and an enhanced university experience. However, your blog is probably read by a lot of people and statistically speaking, most of them should be average both in academic results and financial might. If your aim is to advise people on the best course to take, a lot of the paths you have suggested are out of the question for 95% of the population.
I realise that you have placed a note at the bottom of most of your posts that you realise that national rankings may be inaccurate. However, I would like to cite you an example using my university demonstrating exactly how irrelevant university rankings can be. San Jose State University is not highly ranked on the overall national scale. However, it is ranked 10th in the nation for undergraduate engineering and 5th for industrial and computer engineering. It is only ranked 41st of the universities in the West for the overall ranking. It is not fair to judge a university graduate's degree based on the national overall ranking alone. Perhaps it would be more beneficial to the public if you would educate them by pointing out the potential for large disparities between the national ranking and the specific course ranking.
Another example of national overall university rankings having very little to do with the calibre of the student (at least in the United States) is this. San Jose State University is surrounded by high ranking, ivy league powerhouses. Stanford, and Santa Clara Unversity are less than twenty minutes drive away. In a 5 hour driving radius, you can find USC, UCLA, and UC Berkeley just to name a few. All of these are higher ranked than San Jose State University. However, San Jose State supplies the highest number of graduates in the world to Silicon Valley with companies like Intel, Yahoo, Google, Ebay, Cisco and so on. Why are these companies choosing lower ranked university graduates over the ivy league ones if national ranking really tells a person so much about how good their graduate is? It cannot be from the lack of applications from other unversity graduates. A recent survey stated that Silicon Valley pays out the highest median income in the United States. Yet a university ranked 41st in the West is trouncing other universities in terms of employment in Silicon Valley.
Well, these are my opinions on the American education system and university rankings. I hope that you will give them some thought."
Thursday, March 22, 2007
PhD scholarships University of Sheffield
Got this from a friend who's doing his PhD in Geography in Sheffield. It's rare that a UK university is this generous (with fees and stipend) for non-UK/EU students. I'd encourage those who are thinking of doing a PhD in these related fields to look into this scholarship. Details below:
THE UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD
DEPARTMENT OF TOWN AND REGIONAL PLANNING
POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH STUDENTSHIPS AND AWARDS
For September 2007
Applications are invited from suitably qualified candidates wishing to study in one or more of the following areas:
· Society, space and power
· Postcolonial studies and the global South
· Urban and regional studies
· Spatial policy analysis and governance
· Property market analysis and housing studies
· Planning, theory and practice
· Comparative European studies in planning and regional governance
The Department is England’s highest-rated Planning Department (5a in the last RAE; 23/24 in the Teaching Quality Assessment) and fosters a lively research culture in its postgraduate Research School.
For more information about the Department visit: www.sheffield.ac.uk/trp
University of Sheffield Studentships
There is also the opportunity for UK, EU and international candidates to apply for
University Studentships which offer tuition fees at the UK/EU rate, a maintenance
grant of between £6,300-£12,300 per annum, and a Research Training Support Grant.
This scheme will offer both one-year and three-year maintenance awards to new
postgraduate students.
Further details can be found at: www.shef.ac.uk/pgresearch/studentships
Applications for admission should be made before 30 March and applications for the Studentships should be made to the Department by 2 May 2007
University of Sheffield Fee Scholarships
A limited number of University Fee Scholarships are also available which cover
UK/EU tuition fees or part international tuition fees.
See www.shef.ac.uk/pgresearch/staff/studentships/bursaries
Further information
For an informal discussion about research interests and topics, contact Dr. Margo
Huxley (M.Huxley@sheffield.ac.uk Tel: 0114 222 6929).
For general information about application procedures, contact Keely Robinson
(K.Robinson@sheffield.ac.uk Tel: 0114 222 6180)
THE UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD
DEPARTMENT OF TOWN AND REGIONAL PLANNING
POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH STUDENTSHIPS AND AWARDS
For September 2007
Applications are invited from suitably qualified candidates wishing to study in one or more of the following areas:
· Society, space and power
· Postcolonial studies and the global South
· Urban and regional studies
· Spatial policy analysis and governance
· Property market analysis and housing studies
· Planning, theory and practice
· Comparative European studies in planning and regional governance
The Department is England’s highest-rated Planning Department (5a in the last RAE; 23/24 in the Teaching Quality Assessment) and fosters a lively research culture in its postgraduate Research School.
For more information about the Department visit: www.sheffield.ac.uk/trp
University of Sheffield Studentships
There is also the opportunity for UK, EU and international candidates to apply for
University Studentships which offer tuition fees at the UK/EU rate, a maintenance
grant of between £6,300-£12,300 per annum, and a Research Training Support Grant.
This scheme will offer both one-year and three-year maintenance awards to new
postgraduate students.
Further details can be found at: www.shef.ac.uk/pgresearch/studentships
Applications for admission should be made before 30 March and applications for the Studentships should be made to the Department by 2 May 2007
University of Sheffield Fee Scholarships
A limited number of University Fee Scholarships are also available which cover
UK/EU tuition fees or part international tuition fees.
See www.shef.ac.uk/pgresearch/staff/studentships/bursaries
Further information
For an informal discussion about research interests and topics, contact Dr. Margo
Huxley (M.Huxley@sheffield.ac.uk Tel: 0114 222 6929).
For general information about application procedures, contact Keely Robinson
(K.Robinson@sheffield.ac.uk Tel: 0114 222 6180)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)