Skills Investment Bursary Application: Fill & Download for Free

First of all, you need to know that there is no 100% scholarship for MS. As far as I know, the top universities such as Stanford, MIT, UC-Berkeley, UIUC, etc. hardly give any scholarships to master's students, let alone a 100% fee waiver. One mostly gets a 100% scholarship or fee waived off when he/she is carrying out his/her Phd. The main types of fee waivers that a master's student gets are fellowships and assistantships.Fellowships are those scholarships that waive off tuition fee to some extent such as by 40%-50% but even then one needs to invest money in the program. Such fellowships are often awarded through institutions and programs such as FulBright program for Indians, etc. Universities also offer fellowships but on very rare cases.The other type of scholarship is the assistantship which is more prevalent. This includes Research assistantships (RAs) and Teaching assistantships (TAs). RAs involve you working under some professor on his project. They are bestowed based on the will of the concerned professor and the availability of funds, to him, from the department.TAs involve you taking up undergrad classes (on subjects that you've already studied at undergrad level, even mastered them) or assisting the professor in errands such as assignment checking or evaluations.Both of the bursaries are on the will of the concerned professor and the department. For these two, you get monthly stipend which clearly waives off mostly your tuition fee to some extents.Now, coming to the question. GRE score has nothing to do with the bursaries that you avail. RAs depend upon your research carried out at undergrad level and the level at which you can resonate with the work of the professor. If you are compatible with the work of the professor and if he has funds then he might include you in his research group.TAs depend upon your teaching skills, if any, carried out at undergrad level, your fluency in English and your adroitness in the concerned subject. In fact, for getting TAs, there are interviews carried out by the concerned department.So, all in all, what really matters, for getting bursaries, is your profile. Also, many universities have funding deadlines for applications, so, make sure that you apply as soon as possible and do not miss those deadlines.Godspeed!

No, not at all. Canadian universities are generally public universities and therefore standards are maintained across the board. They also cost less to attend. The only American universities that could conceivably be judged as significantly better are the very expensive ivy-league universities in the States.That being said, American universities tend to much more market-driven and revolve a lot more around recreational pursuits and sports (including sports scholarships) so if that's your idea of "better" then that's where you'd want to attend. However, I've been reading some rather disturbing info. about the lax standards at some of them so make sure you are attending one with a great academic reputation because school can't all be about partying. Please take a look at some of the documentaries out there about the problem...P.S. I found an interesting article written by Ren Thomas. I agree with him, in Canada you pick your school according to the best program, not according to the best school. Ex. if you want to go into nursing, you research the best nursing programs in Canada.Ren ThomasM.A., Ph.D. (Planning)Does Canada have an Ivy League?There is a lot of debate out there about whether or not there are schools in Canada equivalent to the American Ivy League (Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Princeton, University of Pennsylvania, and Yale). I’m not sure why this is so important for people to know, but I do know that as a potential applicant for teaching positions at US universities, an Ivy-League education is considered the best. Even in Canada, loyalty to the old prestigious universities is not in the least diminished by Maclean’s annual rankings.As a Canadian, I don’t know anyone who did an undergraduate degree at an Ivy League school, so my first introduction to the concept was when my classmates in landscape architecture began applying for masters programs over a decade ago. Inevitably, they chose to apply to American Ivy League schools like Harvard and Cornell. Interestingly, their main reason was that “all the famous landscape architects went there.” (not surprising: Harvard was the first landscape architecture program in North America and the only one for many years). Having visited the Graduate School of Design and seen their students’ work around this time, we were surprised to find that our work was quite comparable to theirs; in some cases, better. One friend, who applied to and finished a Harvard Masters in Planning, said that the main advantage of the school was the alumni network, which would ensure he could find jobs anywhere. The Harvard degree also exposed him to very prominent experts and guest lecturers. Even more interesting, he is now living and working with many of our former classmates who did not invest in Ivy League educations. The same applies to a couple of our classmates who attended Cornell for the Masters in Architecture, and now work at architecture firms with others with “less prestigious” degrees.The thing is, Canadians know about the American Ivy League, but we don’t really get it. I mean, we get that they’re prestigious and expensive and old. But we’re hampered by the fact that universities in Canada are virtually all public institutions, and there are few expensive, elite blue-blood institutions in the country aside from elementary and secondary schools like Branksome Hall and Ashbury College. According to theCanadian Information Centre for International Credentials, there are 94 universities in Canada (83 with degree-granting status) belonging to the Association of Universities and Colleges in Canada. There are 27 private colleges, the vast majority being theological schools: when you take these out, there are only 6 left. Tuition costs at Canadian schools are much cheaper than American schools, although generally the older, larger schools cost a bit more and since tuition deregulation in the 1990s the professional programs can charge more than the standard tuition. They can also offer more funding, so it evens out: even Statistics Canada found that there has been little decrease in the proportion of lower-income students attending university now than before tuitions began their rapid ascent in the 1990s. So the Ivy League is a tradition we simply do not have here. Ditto those other prestigious American schools that are supposed to impress us. American students enrolled at Canadian schools often find their introductory conversations go a bit like this:Canadian: So you’re from Pennsylvania?American: Yes. I went to XXX School. (pause for reaction)Canadian: Oh yeah? (blank stare)American: (confused) It’s a really good school.Canadian: Ohhhh. (realizing the faux pas in not knowing the names and reputations of all 45670 American schools) Well that’s great. (unimpressed)That’s right, I said it: we don’t know your schools the way you don’t know our prime ministers. Or our provinces. Or our capital.That said, the four universities that many consider to be the “Canadian Ivys” are the University of Toronto, McGill University, Queens University, and the University of British Columbia. The only logic to this seems to be that they are old and therefore have ivy-covered buildings! These schools, because of their age, have extensive and well-known alumni who teach, do research, win Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals, and otherwise propagate the mythology of their being better schools than the rest. There is also something called the Group of Thirteen, which includes the above-mentioned schools plus the University of Alberta, University of Calgary, Dalhousie University, Université Laval, MacMaster University, Université Montréal, University of Ottawa, University of Waterloo, and University of Western Ontario. These schools meet informally twice a year to discuss joint research initiatives and between them hold 66% of Canada Research Chairs, which is proportional to the amount of research funding they bring in from SSHRC, NSERC, and CIHR. And if I’m going to be honest, these schools probably get more famous guest lecturers.But the Maclean’s rankings show a very different story: each school has very different strengths. The magazine divides Canadian universities into three categories: primarily undergraduate, comprehensive undergraduate, and medical doctoral universities. The schools are evaluated on a range of characteristics, including spending on student services and scholarships and bursaries, funding for libraries, faculty success in obtaining national research grants, and their reputation for being innovative. The top-ranked primarily undergraduate schools are Mount Allison and University of Northern British Columbia. The top-ranked comprehensive undergraduate schools are Simon Fraser and University of Victoria. And the top-ranked medical doctoral schools are McGill, Queens and Toronto. Some schools have highly-ranked business or teaching programs, others are strong in medicine or law. Indeed, some of these professional programs are known in their individual fields as “the best.” Some have a small student-to-teacher ratio, others have better resources or funding. And then there are the student favourites, typically small schools with a friendly atmosphere in a beautiful location, like Mount Allison.I attended two of the supposed “Canadian Ivys”: University of Toronto and University of British Columbia. I know only a handful of people at either of these universities who attended a private school before entering these seemingly august institutions (ie., these aren’t the elites of society). I don’t believe that these schools have better students, better teaching, or better facilities than other schools in the country: in some cases, Maclean’s shows they fail in all three areas. Graduates of these schools don’t seem to conduct themselves any differently, have access to better alumni networks, or get better jobs than graduates of other schools. While working as a landscape architect in England, for example, I ran into graduates from the universities of Guelph and Waterloo who were working for British municipalities; in Ottawa I met many government employees who were graduates of Université Laval, Carleton University, and the University of New Brunswick. I have yet to meet a Canadian who was impressed by the schools I attended, nor have I encountered any innate sense of superiority among graduates of these schools. Yet when I attend conferences, I frequently find myself having this conversation:American: Oh, you’re at UBC?Me: Yes.American: Oh, that’s a really good school. (impressed)Me: Is it? (seemingly amused, but actually quite curious)American: (confused) Well, yes.Me: Why would you say that?American: (stumped) I…hmm. (because I’ve heard of it)The relatively level playing field among Canadian universities is probably one reason why Canada has the largest proportion of university graduates among G7 countries and the highest percentage of university graduates in the workforce. Immigrants in Canada have particularly high levels of university attendance: 37% compared to 22% of the Canadian-born population. Among recent immigrants (those who entered the country less than two years ago) 48% of females and 56% of males had a university degree according to the 2006 Census. Women have outpaced men in university attendance since the late 1970s, and more lower-income people are attending university in Canada than ever before. These types of changes have led to much more diversity in Canadian universities. And there is considerable evidence that nurture, as opposed to nature, is the key to success in education: Malcolm Gladwell vividly illustrates this in Outliers.With only a handful (15) universities in Maclean’s medical doctoral category, Canadians often seek jobs in other countries; this is particularly true in academia. But we know that we will be judged by the school we went to, because that seems to be a common trend in the American university hiring process. A glance at the faculty directories of an Ivy League school reveals that virtually all of their faculty did their doctorate or post-doctorate work at an Ivy League school. Lou Marinoff, in a recent article in Inside Higher Ed outlined how his philosophy department, in City College at the City University of New York, narrowed down their search for a new faculty member from 627 applicants to 27 long-listed and 6 short-listed ones. A major criteria in the first step was holding a degree from “a good university.” As Marinoff writes, “Members of our department earned their Ph.D.s at Columbia, Harvard, Oxford, and University of London. Additionally, City College is known as the “Harvard of the Proletariat,” with distinguished alumni that include nine Nobel Laureates, more than any other public institution in America. Our faculty members are expected to live up to this legacy.” Of course publications, research, teaching, administrative service were up there too.I would love to say that this kind of academic snobbery does not exist in Canada, but it is pretty standard here to imitate Americans. Most of my friends in design professions hold Ivy League degrees in higher regard, and since my era at U of T’s School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, the school has been completely rebranded with graduates of Yale, Princeton and Harvard. Many Canadian faculty members are American, or educated in the US, and bring these ideas with them. I can definitely say that the “reputation” of the school seems to play a role in the admissions process at SCARP. The ridiculous thing about this is that our school (which is a graduate program only) accepts applications from undergraduates in any discipline. And according to Maclean’s, as well as my own experience, programs vary considerably from school to school. So using school “reputations” makes no sense: you would have to be a master of every undergraduate program in the country to know what a “good school” was for that particular program. It’s one thing for a medical school to compare B.Sc students from everywhere, or engineering programs to compare their B.Eng applicants; it’s quite another for a multidisciplinary program which draws its students from programs as diverse as Forestry, French, Geography, Architecture, and Canadian Studies. It’s part of the reason why our school uses such a complex application process, evaluating transcripts, a research statement, reference letters, and work experience equally.Interestingly, Marinoff’s philosophy department invited 6 candidates to their school for interviews. Here is his summary of their performance: “All the finalists were impeccably well versed in their subjects matter, but not all succeeded in establishing rapport with the students. One lectured remotely, as if from afar; another failed to engage them in dialogue; a third took insufficient account of whether the class was grasping the material. Some lectured clearly and evocatively, encouraged and fielded questions on the fly, bridged gaps in students’ understanding by providing additional context where necessary, and covered the material in the allotted time. The best finalists attracted a throng of students after the lecture, having whetted appetites for further learning. The top two bundled humor with their lectures or slides, which palpably enhanced the ambiance and helped establish rapport. “Edutainment” is an American neologism, after all.”When it comes right down to it, these candidates (CCNY hired the top two) succeeded not because of their Ivy League pedigrees, but because of their ability to engage students and cope with the classroom setting most effectively. Now, whether they gained these credentials as a result of their “superior” educations is a matter for debate: they were likely supported and mentored more than students at other schools, because their high tuition costs resulted in more resources (again, Outliers is relevant). I suspect these outstanding candidates worked hard at developing their skills and lecturing style, and had a real passion for teaching. Preferential selection of candidates based on their school’s reputations was really just a useful filter in this case, a way of decreasing the number of applicants to consider carefully, albeit one that probably eliminated many worthy candidates from lower income and minority backgrounds who couldn’t afford Ivy League educations.All this to say that I don’t believe there is a Canadian Ivy League, nor do I think we need one. It’s too bad that universities, professors, and students can’t get over these ideas of being “the best”, or producing the “best and the brightest” students. This relentless competition is even seen in what Richard Moll, in his 1985 book, called the “public Ivys”, eight American schools that were “successfully competing with the Ivy League schools in academic rigor… attracting superstar faculty and in competing for the best and brightest students of all races.” It’s even worse that the myth of the Canadian Ivy League is being relentlessly perpetuated by recruiters who travel all over the world with glossy brochures featuring the old ivy-clad buildings (international student tuitions are higher than those for Canadian citizens, so the schools encourage it). But the Canadian reality is a bit different, and there really is no reason a University of Alberta grad and a McGill grad should not be considered equally.

“To each according to his need from each according to his ability”Strange way to start for someone asked to comment from the position of the right, no? Bear with me please. For me, the most important bell-weather of any society is how it looks after its poor: those who are unable to look after themselves.Where I differ from those on the left, is how this is to be done. I am totally allergic to government! For me, there are two major dimensions of how government should be measured. The first is its size, the second is its centralisation.In the UK, we spend 40% of our GDP on government. This is far too much. In many countries it is more, but that’s no excuse. 40% of what happens around us, is controlled by the government. Our society has become over-politicised and over-organised.The problem with this is that government tends to have a reverse Midas touch. What it does, it does not merely badly, but disastrously, inefficiently, wastefully and counter-productively.But the problem doesn’t stop there. When government does something, that thing becomes captured by a political interest group. It becomes politicised. Parties are then organised (in the public’s perception) around where they stand on that issue. The mainstream then starts to coalesce in the middle.Think about what this process does. Government spending is designed to solve a problem. But the way that spending is then politicised, ensures that the problem the spending was designed to solve, never goes away. It becomes entrenched. This has happened with welfare (among a wide range of other things).The left-wing justification for high welfare spending is that large transfer payments and high government spending creates a fairer, more just society. A society more at ease with itself. But it does the exact opposite. It creates a society of clients funded by a society of resentfuls, who can see their hard-earned cash being being frittered down the drain, chasing a problem that can never be solved. Political parties have an incentive to ensure that the problem to which they claim to have the solution, doesn’t ever get solved. Or at least, to convince people that it hasn’t. Witness the irrational rage that goes around when you start talking about a different solution. People get called evil.Most political parties have long since got out of the way of controlling industry (thank goodness) but there’s a far greater scope for it to get out of the way of other areas.Central government needs cutting by one half. A third of what’s cut then needs to be migrated to the local level. Total government should be no more than 2/3rds of what it is today, at the absolute max. I will talk more about the local dimension in a minute. But first, let’s consider how we can set about how to create a more just society without government being the main agent.What does a just society look like? Different people have different views, but I would argue that a just society is one in which the following conditions hold:Free markets. Free markets should be the norm. Any departure from free markets is an exception (there are good reasons to depart from free markets in some circumstances). However, free markets are the source of almost all of our national prosperity. It’s because of them, that most of us have a materially adequate standard of living. It’s because of them that we can afford excellent healthcare, education, transport, leisure, holidays… Free markets make us feel,… well,… free! That’s an incredible gift that needs defending to the hilt. Unfortunately, despite their spectacular success, free markets have few defenders, even in the Conservative party. The housing market, the labour market and regulation in general, all need a solid dose of free market to shake them upReward. Everyone should be rewarded no more than, and no less than, market fundamentals would dictate. There’s no gaming and no favours. Those at the top are constrained by a rigorous competition policy that is brutal on cartels and explicitly focuses on dynamic market entry by removing regulatory, physical and economic barriers to entry. This would be reinforced by transparency to ensure company directors cannot award themselves unjustifiable packages. Wages at the bottom are improved by a rigorous competition policy to ensure there are as many as possible alternative buyers; and by transferable skillsOpportunity. Everyone is afforded absolute maximum opportunity to make their way, to the best of their ability, through first class education and training, paid for by the State. This is the main area where levelling happens. There should be no doubt that anyone, with the right get-up-and-go, can enjoy a reasonable standard of livingTaxation. Taxation, whether for rich or poor, is bad or at best, a necessary evil. Taxing the poor is the worst, taxing the rich is still bad. This is fundamental to freedom. The State does not tell you how much money or wealth is the right amount. It is neutral between high and low incomes. Nobody who earns a lot should have any basis for feeling they’re being treated like a milk cowWelfare. Anyone who literally cannot make their way, is looked after by the State. This should have a narrow definition. The government (over time) needs to wean itself off pensions by promoting private pensions; nobody who can work should ever be better off on benefitsAll of these are difficult to achieve but since our prosperity depends on them, we should support politicians that defend them and attack those who fail to do so.But arguably the hardest of the lot is welfare. It’s not difficult to see why. Any central government policy is extremely blunt and its administration, impersonal and bureaucratic. This creates the problem that it’s impossible for any central system to avoid both false positives and false negatives at the same time.A generous welfare system creates false positives; people who could survive without welfare but choose not to. This is just about the most corrosive, socially divisive feature that any society can have, and it is endemic in our country. The concept of generations of families where nobody has worked is unbearable; yet it is what Labour governments have bequeathed to us. Serial benefit dependency really is Labour’s legacy – and it needs rooting out like the plague! However, the problem is:An austere welfare system creates false negatives; people who cannot survive without welfare and get refused it! This, equally, is a blight on our society – the fact that there are people, who in extreme, die because they are denied the support they need, either by the bureaucracy or by policy. It too has become endemic in our country. It’s what Conservative governments have bequeathed to us. Extreme poverty really is the Conservatives’ legacy – and it needs rooting out like the plague! That’s why the system needs to be radically redesigned. But how?By the localisation of government. The localisation of government can be defined in multiple ways. I offer here a few thoughts on how it might be used to provide better, more targeted and efficient management of welfare, healthcare and education. Local government must raise the funds, locally, to meet all needs in its area. Let’s say there’s a fantastic private school in the area. Local government can decide the right approach to education is to spend part of its money on bursaries for that school.The great thing about local government is, when done right, it allows far greater accountability; accountability for those spending and those receiving. Net contributors are happy because they are invested and accountable to the local community. Net recipients are also accountable and don’t want to be seen as free-riding on the system.There’s nothing doctrinaire about who does what. Local government just wants the cheapest way to secure the right result. If it’s a private provider, great; if it’s a charity, great. If it’s an endowment from a billionaire, fantastic.Local government would then have the discretion to further break itself down further towards the very local level. Each community of (say) 2,000-3,000 people has a community office. All applications for welfare go through that route.You’re a single mother with very specific circumstances. You need far more help than is normally provided by central government. Central government is so broad brush that it can only decide whether to increase funding for all such people, or none of them. But in your situation, you go to the local community officer, who decides what you need are housing, education and an income. His job is to find you all three.Childcare, that great bane of the working family, is organised by the local community, at 1/3rd of the cost. You no longer get a situation where only families with high earning potential can have both parents work.If organised like that, the allocation of resources can be micro-targeted. You no longer get the problem that central government policy is ill targeted to suit the needs of the thousandth divisible target. No false positives, no false negatives.It is only through a localisation of government that, in my opinion, we can create a society in which “to each according to his need from each according to his ability” really holds true.(We might even see a greater willingness to pay into local communities than we see willingness to pay tax today. I'm one of the few people lucky enough to earn enough to pay tax at 45%. I resent paying almost half my income to the Treasury not because of the amount but because it is spent so appallingly badly).BrexitThe European Union has been a blight on our economy. I won’t repeat myself here, because I’ve written ad nauseam on this topic. However, some pieces for further reading that express this in more detail, are given at the end of this answer.The main impact of our EU membership is how it has changed how business is regulated. It allows our economic activity to be dominated by corporatism and big money interests, and against the “little guy” who wants to enter the market and make a living. It prevents competition, prevents new entry and provides a charter for static, stodgy economy. (This is part of the reason why the EU has performed so poorly).Yes, there are risks and yes, we risk a decline in our standard of living in the short to medium term after Brexit, but we need to reform our role in the modern, global world. It’s not about influence; Britain is a medium power and will be for some time to come. Indeed, as we’ve seen, influence is not essential to success.No, it’s not about rejecting Europe and (in my vision) has nothing to do with immigration. It’s not a declaration of hostility towards the continent. It’s about moving from being a bad tenant to a good neighbour. This point needs making again and again because at the moment, the continentals don’t believe it. They do see Brexit as a hostile act.My vision for a post-Brexit world is to focus on creating a dynamic, competitive economy, that is globally open and free trading, friendly towards its neighbours and cooperates with them on all areas of common interest.In more detail:Barnaby Lane's answer to What did the EU do wrong to drive the UK away? Is the EU really a bloated bureaucracy?Barnaby Lane's answer to Did you (or would you) vote Remain or vote Leave in the EU Referendum?Barnaby Lane's answer to Have you ever been adversely affected by an EU regulation?Barnaby Lane's answer to How could Brexit be beneficial for Britain economically? How would you conduct it if you had the power, e.g., free trade with the commonwealth etc.?Thanks for A2A Richard Hayman-Joyce