Request For High School Transcripts Please Print: Fill & Download for Free

Many schools include student’s SAT and AP exam scores in the transcript. I’m not sure how the schools get these results from College Board. I think there might be some fine print somewhere, and when you check a box “I agree with terms and conditions” it means you agree to your school being notified about your results. Or is there a special box “Send the scores to my school”? I don’t know how it works, just my guess. If somebody knows the details, please feel free to share in the comments.For students who don’t want these scores to be included in the transcript, there should be a way to remove them. A student registers for SAT and pays the test fee, so SAT results belong to the student. The school is not involved in the test, and not all students take SAT, so this score is not a mandatory part of the school record.Since many colleges allow students to use Score Choice option for reporting their SAT scores, students should be able to remove the SAT scores from their school transcript. Otherwise, score choice option would make no sense at all.With AP exams, schools are more involved. Many high schools require their students to take AP exams for the AP courses they took at school, and even cover the exam fee, so these scores kind of become part of student’s school record. However, College Board allows students to cancel AP scores, which permanently removes this exam score from the AP record at College Board. If the College Board can delete the score on student’s request, what is the point of still having it on the school transcript?Talk to your guidance counselor about removing the SAT and AP exam scores from your transcript. If your nice and respectful request is rejected, then you will have to take it to the next level. Make an appointment with the school principal and come with your parent - or better yet with a family lawyer.

There is a Liberal bias in American Universities, and in some places, including many of the most prominent universities in the country, an extreme Left Wing bias. If you find this hard to believe, the first thing you need to accept is that college isn’t what it used to be 5 years ago.In a few cases, there is a fair explanation for why this could naturally happen. One is the nature of the conservative motivations for education from those on the left. For most conservatives, college is a time to gain skills necessary for employment. While most professors will admit that their conservative students perform just as well as their liberal counterparts and often better, many of the fields they enter into do not require more than a four year degree. Consider Business or Law Enforcement. With many liberals, the fields they are seeking are academic and require much more study. This, I have found, to be a perfectly logical and acceptable explanation for why more students of a liberal persuasion would pursue a life in academia and thereby shift the balance.My friend Ian McCullough, a liberal, also provides a few very good reasons in his answer for why such a liberal lean could naturally and with absolutely no malice or nefarious schemes to bias the system. There are others as well, but with credit to my friends on the left who acknowledge the liberal bias, this doesn’t go far enough to explain the real numbers being reported in the system, nor do they really acknowledge the gravity of the situation current college students are experiencing because of the extreme bias in the system.Samuel Abrams, a professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College, did a study in 2014 measuring back over the last 25 years to measure the dispersion of left leaning professors to those of the right. What he found was staggering. In colleges, liberals have always been more embraced, at least since Abrams began his study. Beginning in the mid 90’s, however, conservatives and especially moderates have been replaced by more extreme liberal biases.Figure 1. Ideological Positions of Faculty in American Colleges and Universities: 1989 – 2014. Data courtesy of the Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA, plotted by Sam Abrams.For certain parts of the country, this was far more pronounced. Abrams broke down the disparity geographically and saw that while liberals outnumbered their conservative counterparts throughout the nation in representation in institutions of higher learning, in places like the New England states, the disparity was as high as 28 to 1.28 to 1… Come on. There is simply no rational explanation for a 28 to 1 disparity that is innocent or lacking some major degree of intolerance to opposing points of view. Given that we are talking about the some of the world’s leading intellectual institutions, the level of intolerance that could have created a 28 to 1 disparity. Furthermore, given the outsized influence that these particular universities have over the educational system, it should bother people that they are so repressive towards differing points of view in their hiring practices.Another study Published in Econ Journal Watch, reviewed over 7,000 where they found that Democrats outnumber Republicans by nearly 12 to 1. Compare this to a 1968 study that put the Democrat-to-Republican contrast in history departments at 2.7 to 1. Furthermore, it broke it down by department, where economics was the most friendly to conservatives, at a ratio of only 4.5 liberal professors to every conservative. Another study resulted in only 7% to 11% of faculty members in social sciences and humanities are Republicans, according to surveys. At the extreme, the Econ Journal Watch found that History departments, where the leanings of your old High School teachers were long gone, had liberals outnumber conservatives by a 33 1/2-to-1 ratio. It was even shown within these departments that it was easier to find a Marxist than a Republican. Perhaps now it makes sense that mention of the Gulag Archipelago, Christian genocide in the Soviet Union, artificial famines in China under Mao, or why Communism killed over 100,000,000 people in the 20th century never seemed to make the syllabus, but man… those Americans with their economic imperialism and long history of oppression. Wow. Thank goodness for higher learning.This brings to mind the quote from one of the fathers of Conservative theory, something no one learns about in college, Edmund Burke.Honestly, how many people had no clue who originally said that, and honestly, how many people calling themselves educated have no clue who this man is? Chances are, you didn’t learn about him in college and if you know, you found it out on your own. That should be the first indicator that there is something wrong with this imbalance due to that bias.Some of the excuses being levied for this is that the college experience simply makes conservatives or moderates liberals, as if the institutional process civilizes them from their barbaric or neanderthal ways. Wow, is that arrogant. That certainly doesn’t explain the Burke thing, though. Others, that the filtering process for universities (their costly expense) filters out the poor and the uneducated, which is presumably where most conservatives hail from. Given how radically contradictory this is to the notion that conservatives are all rich and greedy, only interested in maintaining the status quo, I wonder how apologists can possibly rationalize the two competing views. A better (while still incorrect) explanation offered by the New York Times was that Conservatism has simply changed and that no one could bear it any longer, or at least, that it became intolerable to the academic environment.Again, this excuse fails a logical test. If such an evolution took place, then we would have seen some measurable change in the broader culture, but at the same time that the universities became stark and suddenly more left wing, the nation stayed exactly the same, as shown by this graph depicting the ideological positions of America.What the evidence shows is that while the United States has remained remarkably ideologically consistent, the universities have become extremely left/leaning, radically and disturbingly so in the New England states and particularly in the social sciences. So there really isn’t a good reason for 28 to 1. For that sort of dispearity to exist, much more powerful and far more far more complex reasons must exist for than the often levied and extraordinary condescending “because smart people are liberal,” and many of them, aren’t innocent or even accidental.Frankly, there was a few rational reasons for a left leaning influence in the universities, but that has compounded itself many times with those left leaning voices pulling more like themselves in and pushing out all the others on an institutional level. Specifically, the problem with the left wing, let’s call it what it is, radicalization of the universities is that draws from selection biases in the way professors are brought in to teach the “liberal” arts, humanities, and social sciences. Not all, but a fair enough proportion of the professors did not gain their credibility from their early academic fields, but through activism. Look, say whatever you like about activists and the need for them, but they don’t produce unbiased people willing to accept critical analysis that may invalidate the cause they’ve championed for years. Often, after whatever gains are made, they have few employment options beyond pursuing fields in politics or becoming professors of social sciences.A problem with people going into science fields who have an agenda? They don’t produce quality science. A scientist works toward discovery, with no real goal in mind other than to discover what is unknown. They aren’t there to prove a point. These activists turned professors, however, build careers around continuing their advocacy, whether intentionally or not. Rather than a simple quest for discovery and education, they are institutionally encouraged to be fixated on researching topics related to their personal connections to the issues. This has been called by one professor of Psychology, John Ruscio “me-search”. The problem here is that, rather than simply teaching what is needed to understand a fundamental course, or in discovering new relevant truths, courses become grounds for activists turned professors to continue their original work, often at the cost of the actual science in those fields.An example? Women’s studies. When you’ve built your work around decades of theory predicated on the narrative that women are institutionally repressed by society and source as proof for this evidence such as the “Wage Gap”, you really don’t want to deal with arguments that invalidate that data point central to your theory. However, when evidence turns up showing that simply taking the difference between the averages of all women and all men may not be a quality metric with which judge the entirety of American culture to be systemically sexist, we aren’t presented with that argument in the curriculum. Furthermore, saying that factors such as the number of women who choose to leave work to start families as compared to men across the society, the amount of time taken off by women, the fewer average hours worked by women, or the relative unwillingness of women to take on dangerous (and more often higher paying) jobs, or even simply the argument that men are more likely to ask for more money, aren’t taught either. Continuing on, when evidence such that the freer a society gets for women, as defined by the feminists themselves, such as we see in the nordic and other parts of Europe, we see more gender based delineation in the types of work that women choose to take on than those societies which are deemed less free for women, meaning that the freer women are to make their own choices, the more the supposed wage gap increases due to the jobs they choose. All this considered, it becomes clear that whatever wage gap that exists is due far more to the choices and freedoms these women have, than some systemic repression of a tyrannical patriarchy. In fact, when factoring for these choices, the wage gap narrows to almost nothing, and in fact, reverses in many liberal cities for young women without children. This argument really sucks if you’ve built a career proving the Patriarchy, so it’s little wonder that it isn’t thoroughly explored more by students of these professors.And it’s very difficult for professors to adapt to new information when they were not brought into the education via the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, but as activists who continue to believe they fighting for a cause. That’s why these arguments don’t appear in campuses open discussion. Instead, they are labeled “sexist” or that they are “creating a hostile environment for students” where they don’t feel “safe”, and any professor who does allows such discussion might find themselves in a punitive meeting with their school’s ethics and diversity officer.That isn’t hyperbolic, as a similar case to this example took place in Canada last month. At Wilfrid Laurier University, a teaching assistant Lindsay Shepherd was branded as “transphobic” and scolded by her supervising professor, Nathan Rambukkana, during a meeting with the Ethics and Diversity Officer of Wilfrid Laurier following the supposed complaint from a student. Her crime? Showing a video of a debate taken from Canadian public television featuring one Canadian professor of Psychology, Dr. Jordan Peterson. Her true crime, however, wasn’t in showing the video, but failing to do so “critically”, making it known that she and the university don’t support his views. That is to say, her job was specifically to not be neutral, which was what she thought her job was supposed to be. During the reprimand, which her supervising professor communicated to her as a simple meeting, the university officials informed her that the video was “problematic” because Dr. Jordan Peterson was a “key member of the Alt-Right” and that he uses the website Patreon “made by the Alt-Right to fund hate speech”, and that by showing a video representing him neutrally she was “fostering an atmosphere of transphobia on the campus.” The reprimand even compared what she did to “neutrally playing a speech by Hitler.”I can say this. I’ve followed Dr. Peterson very closely over the last year, and watched a lot of his videos. I’ve also written extensively on the Alt-Right, specifically in creating a book aimed at educating readers on understanding and dismantling their movement. That he would be compared to the Alt-Right is patently absurd. Then to say that representing one of his videos is the same as “neutrally playing a speech by Hitler,” is the sort of accusation which should see heads roll during more rational times. As an additional note, I’ve also used patreon for four years and can say that they have intentionally banned violators such as this campus tribunal has indicated, with most of their creators being creators of music videos and comics. Hardly the pipeline to hate speech described by the “campus diversity officer”. What Peterson is rather famous for is his fight against Canada’s recent Bill C-16, which mandates compelled speech for professors according to the guidelines of extreme left wing narrative board of inquiry over Canada’s education system.What seems clear is that, like at many other campuses, (see Duke LaCrosse Team) judgement was cast down based on the complaint of a single individual who was offended and when that offense met with a far left Progressive narrative of the campus,was acted upon without any investigation other than what the professor had heard through a very biased grapevine, and used to create a repressive, even fearful atmosphere for people who did nothing wrong.What seems equally questionable is the creep of the Humanities into the hard Sciences. By this, I’m referring to Feminist Biology, which isn’t the biology of women, but a program at the University of Wisconsin where the field is viewed through the lens of feminism and the female perspective. To quote one professor, it exists because “in order to do science well, we can’t ignore the ideas and research of people who just so happen to not be male,” though there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that men need to be censored from the field, given that women have far surpassed men at earning Biology degrees and saying that they aren’t respected in the field ignores how many of them are being given Nobel Prizes for their contributions. Historically, men dominate the sciences, but if any quality Biology program is teaching current Biology, then I don’t see how they would be guilty of teaching about only men. Given also that such a program would specifically filter out the “ideas and research of people who happen to be male”, are not these feminist biology student being denied the foundational work of the first scientists in the field that the world of later male or female scientists are built on? The logic of the class is what it is, but what is perhaps most troubling is that this program wasn’t governed by the Biology Department of Wisconsin University, but under the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies. To say nothing else, I should think that hard scientists would find that concerning.This creep can be felt in other ways to students, where more and more of their bloated transcripts are being filled with courses outside their chosen fields to “gain a deeper appreciation in the Humanities”, which is itself becoming more radicalized. Perhaps a little emphasis in economics could have explained the consequences of their rising student loan debt due to these additional classes and given them an appreciation for how hard paying it off will be if you only ever paid attention in humanities courses.Moving on, conservatives also note the problems inherent in the system by way of how professors and graduate students are promoted and advance in their careers, by means of peer-review publications. The process of peer review is fraught with controversy from scientists questioning if the system is valid for the progress of scientific discovery and acceptability, from bias to outright censorship. It can range from committees made of department heads giving the ten ton hammer to articles and manuscripts they find objectionable on any number of issues to the simple process of a journal editor sending an article to a few friends to see if they like it, where two thumbs up mean it gets published and a rejection sends the piece to the Void of Lost and Forgotten Knowledge.There are many unhappy with the system of peer review, so does this process result in censorship for or a lack of advancement for conservatives specifically? According to numerous professors, yes it does.The following was submitted by a conservative professor, Matthew Woessner, whose main work argues against the notion of that conservative views are repressed in the colleges, but here, he must contend the peer-review process, coupled with the extreme diversity problem among educators, makes it difficult for conservatives to find opportunities for advancement.The more pernicious problem occurs when right-leaning scholars submit their work for blind review with prestigious publishers or in peer-reviewed journals. Even if we presume that most journal referees are sincerely trying to judge a work based on its scholarly merits rather than its social or political implications, a jury pool dominated by left-leaning scholars will almost certainly subject right-leaning papers to greater scrutiny, highlighting their methodological shortcomings and challenging their overall conclusions. If the academic universe were evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, the unconscious tendency to challenge dissenting viewpoints would hamper the publication of conservative and liberal work at roughly the same rate. However, with a vast majority of academics falling on the left side of the political spectrum, this is an issue that, in all probability, tends to hamper the publication of conservative-leaning ideas. Thus, professors whose political instincts are right of center must either focus on non-ideological scholarly questions or endure a special degree of scrutiny as they seek to secure publication of their ideas.Richard Vatz, professor of rhetoric and communication at Towson University was less forgiving.For many decades, there has been a stunning — and manifestly appalling — general prejudice against conservatives in higher education, evidenced by curtailments on their academic freedom and freedom of speech.It is difficult for conservatives to get hired, and once hired, it is difficult for them to get promotion and tenure — particularly in the humanities and social sciences, wherein liberal orthodoxy rules.This has resulted in fewer conservatives finding their way into academe as a profession, which liberals disingenuously claim is the result of universities having limited economic attraction for those on the right, not as a result of unfair practices.He continued in a follow-up to his original piece published in The Chronicle of Higher Education - Anti-Conservative Bias in Academe is Real.Furthermore, over the past five years, outright repression of conservative views has increased to the point of direct hostility against professors and students who harbor them. A book Passing on the Right documented the growing tension and fear many conservatives have in academia. It notes that belief in campus discrimination against conservatives is widespread: 81% of conservative professors say they feel it, and even 30% of liberal professors agree that conservatives face a hostile ideological workplace. The book also lists numerous accounts brought forward to show that this radicalizing process is getting worse and having expressed impacts on the careers of conservative professors and the orthodoxy being pushed to students. Among the examples given were a professor accused of training his students to be Nazis after defending the post-9/11 War on Terror where his door was covered with swastikas, a Jewish historian calling for political diversity on a panel on reparations being called a racist and a Nazi by his colleagues, the ostracism of one professor who accepted a job in the Bush administration by colleagues, and even pro-life sentiment at a Catholic college being viewed as “shocking” and “venomous.”Continuing on, the book details requests for academics seeking to do research on topics controversial or challenging to left -wing narratives, such as reverse discrimination against whites and/or men facing rejection for explicitly political reasons with reaction such as: “The findings could set Affirmative Action back 20 years if it came out that women were asked to interview more often for managerial positions than men with a stronger vitae.” If all this weren’t enough, the book also notes one study finding sociologists were willing to give preferential treatment in offering a job to a communist over a Republican.Altogether, this process seems to have the impact of further increasing the disparity between right and left on college campuses. Most importantly, in recent year, this disparity has manifest as outright intolerance of conservative views and students by extremists allowed to rise through the academic system unchallenged. Noteworthy examples include those gathered by Sankar Srinivasan whereby A professor called students ‘future dead cops.’, another writing reports that Having 'white nuclear family' promotes white supremacy, or when Drexel was forced to suspend a professor after hateful tweets following the Las Vegas shooting. His exact words were “All I want for Christmas is a White Genocide” and “It’s the white supremacist patriarchy, stupid.” An important note, Drexel didn’t suspend him as a form of disciplinary action but because “he was receiving threats,” and that “his and the student’s safety was their top priority.”I’ll make an opinion statement here, Drexel would make a clearer statement that their student’s safety mattered if they fired the professor calling for a majority of them to be murdered. Again, that’s just my opinion.Then, of course, we have the professor who let her class protest Trump instead of taking the final exam and the one who offered extra credit to students who protest against President Trump. No bias here, folks. More recently, there was the masked professor in California who attacked pro-Trump protests with a bike lock (Former professor suspected in Berkeley bike-lock attack enters plea in Oakland court). Wonder what his classes were like. And just this last month, a student newspaper which published the article 'Your [white] DNA is an abomination'.“When I think of all the white people I have ever encountered - whether they’ve been professors, peers, lovers, friend, police officers, et cetera - there is perhaps only a dozen I would consider ‘decent,’” student author Rudy Martinez writes in the University Star.Without much biological explanation, Martinez informs white readers, “You were not born white. You became white… You don’t give a damn.” Later in his rant, he calls the police “fascist foot soldiers” and says a “white supremacist inhabits the White House.”How a student at a major American university, in Texas no less, could come to such conclusions as rational and acceptable to print is the real heart of the matter.Liberals in higher education are so over represented, and conservative voices so marginalized in both hiring and promotion practices, that the theories, ideas, and norms of an ever more left-leaning academia are completely and totally unchecked by dissenting arguments. It is, in fact, reaching a tipping point to the where the very idea of criticism toward these theories and ideas is itself being outlawed on campuses. With the propagation of campus speech codes, to censur both student and professor curriculum, the encouragement of campus courts falsely accusing students of all manner of criminal and non-criminal acts that destroy their future prospects of a career, the acceptance of safe-space mentalities to free students from critical thought and ideas that challenge their orthodoxy, the dogmatic enforcement of political correctness in lectures by campus “ethics and diversity” officers, the banning of conservative lecturers paid for by student donation from entering the campus, and finally the outright tolerance of hate speech such as saying that all Republicans are Nazis and that white DNA is an abomination, liberal schools have lost the right to call themselves institutions of higher learning.They have for too long accepted processes which encourage an ever present left-word shift, to the point that there was no one left to be critical of their ever more apparent radicalization.In the best case scenario, the environment of college campuses is producing a generation of students who are completely unaware of views which contradict mainline Progressive ideology, making them weaker thinkers incapable of dealing with conflicting views, having never experienced their own views challenged in the institution specifically created to do so. This hurts liberal students far more, as the conservative students must grapple with being challenged with every lecture, and those who remain steadfast are empowered with the rationale for their beliefs honest critical analysis offers them, but which is denied to their liberal students. In the worst case, the colleges are evolving into toxic grounds for free thought and becoming a bedrock of poorly vetting theory which borders now on orthodoxy, one which is taken as fact without criticism, and is being used to prop up hateful movements under the guise of their own victimhood.All that to say, well done young lady.Thank you for reading. If you liked this answer, please upvote and follow The War Elephant. If you want to help me make more content like this, please visit my Patreon Support Page to learn how. All donations greatly appreciated!

Admission requirements into a suitable Master's degree outside of your country varies from programme to programme, but also there are notable similarities, whether you are considering the USA, China, Germany or anywhere around the globe where the fees are cheap and affordable.The reason institutions request for an application fee receipt, photos, and ID copies is pretty obvious. The institution most importantly wants to be able to recognize you and accept your application once it comes through. However, other common requirements may determine if you will get accepted or not to the degree you are applying to.That is because there are a lot of elements that can positively or negatively influence the decision of the institutions in questions, which don't appear in the list of admission requirements.In order to help you get into a Master's admission commission's mind, we will take each important document and give you important insight into what universities expect when they ask for it.If you are not sure where you want to study abroad? Here are a few universities to get you started right now:University of Portsmouth, UKThe University of Western AustraliaRoyal Roads University, CanadaJames Madison Univerity, USAISM University of Management, LithuaniaEMAS Business School, RussiaCheck out even more international Masters from 76,366 over the world.So please find below the main documents international universities want from applicants during the application process:Copies of diplomas from your previous studiesIn your Master's application to a university abroad you will be required to add certified copies of your previous graduation diplomas, translated properly into English. While most Master's applications only require a Bachelor's diploma, some programmes might go as far as asking for a high school graduation diploma.Universities require these documents as solid proof that you attended and graduated from previous cycles of education in order to qualify to a graduate programme.However, these certificates usually contain data about the educational institution you attended, your Grade Point Average (GPA), final grades, or Bachelor's thesis.The university admission board will take into account the reputation of the university where you graduated from, but also what your GPA and final exam marks say about you.If you have good final exam/thesis grades, they will see for sure that you took your studies seriously and you are capable of excelling academically. But don't worry, if you do not have high grades, you will not be disqualified. There are many other ways in which you can win over the commission: volunteering activities, a strong motivation, and good references also count a lot.Academic Transcripts from your Bachelor's studiesAcademic transcripts give the university full details about the courses and modules you studied at undergraduate level and the grades you received. Universities expect these transcripts to be official copies and not screenshots or printed pages.Academic transcripts are important because seeing what courses you took can help universities decide if you have the necessary background and skills for the Master's you are applying to.At the same time, they can see at which subjects you performed better and which subjects are "weak spots" you need to improve on. That is why it is important that you have bigger grades at the undergraduate courses that are most relevant for the Master's programme you chose.Let's take an example. Say you graduated from a Political Science Bachelor's and you want to study a Master's in International Relations. The application commission will be more interested if you followed any International Relations courses such as International Law or European Studies rather than on courses like Domestic Politics.So, if you have lower course grades at the latter, it will probably not impact your application as much as lower grades in International policy-related courses.Proof of language proficiencyWhen applying to a degree abroad, chances are that you will study in English or another popular foreign language (German, French, etc.). For this reason, universities need to know that language will not be a barrier in your studies; that you are able to understand and use that language at an academic level.For English-taught Master's universities will typically require official language certificates such as TOEFL, IELTS, C1 Advanced, etc. When they demand a specific score, it means they really expect you to have that score. The higher the score, the more they will be convinced that you master English skills.There is also the case when universities will not demand a language certificate as long as your Bachelor's was English-taught. In this case, they will pay attention to any English-language courses found in your transcript of records, such as "Academic English".Motivation letter or Statement of PurposeMany students are confused about the requirement of including a statement of purpose, or motivation letter in their application. A motivation letter and a statement of purpose are very similar, but they are not the same thingHowever, both documents should be focused on your background and reasons for applying for a particular degree. Typically, they should be clearly structured and well-written, but not very long (don't tell the university your life story). Try to limit it to 1-2 pages.Here is what most universities expect you to include in a motivation letter/statement of purpose:Why you want to undertake that specific programme at their university, and how you have learned about the programme.What interests you about the programme's content, and what makes it the best study option for you.What particular factor convinced you to pick that programme (reputation, professors, employment options, etc.)How your previous studies match the Master's you want to pursue. If they don't match you should argue why you want to change subject areas.What career you are aiming for after graduation and how this degree fits your plan.While a statement of purpose and a motivation letter are similar there's a subtle difference between them.With a motivation letter, universities expect you to focus more on how their programme relates to your background and your professional plans. They might also want you to state which is the course or specialization you want to focus on during your Master's.With a statement of purpose, universities expect you to talk about who you are, what has influenced and inspired your academic and professional journey so far, your interests and your professional goals. In other words, it is a much more personal document and your chance to shine in your application.Reference lettersReference letters let others speak for you. Typically, they are considered additional evidence of your ability that you'll successfully complete the Master's you are applying to.If you are only required to submit letters from professors, then these letters will focus on your academic skills and achievements. If you are required or allowed to submit a reference letter from an employer, universities expect that letter to reflect the skills related to your Master's.For example, if you are applying for a Computer Science degree, it is more valuable to have a reference letter from your supervisor in a tech company who knows you well rather than a reference letter from an employer where you worked in customer service, for instance.Do well to ask for the reference letters well in advance so that they reach the university on time.Project description or portfolioA project description or a portfolio is required only for very specialised programmes, like a Master of Research or a Master of Science type of degree.Portfolios are required in applications for Masters in the Arts, Design and Architecture Subject areas. Please note that universities do expect this portfolio to reflect your experience, and, yes, your talent in the chosen field of study. They will also look at your clients and the type of projects you execute through them.A project description is required when you are applying to a programme that will end with a research thesis. This project description should include:What are you going to research and why;What is the current state of research on that topic;How you are going to conduct your research;What findings you expect and how your research adds to the existent body of knowledge.Curriculum VitaeThe CV is basically your business card. Universities are not interested in a detailed description of all your jobs and extracurricular activities, although you should definitely include them. They want to see how the experience matches or shows your interest in the programme you are interested in.That said, please focus on including in your CV published properly written academic papers, and work (paid or unpaid) in academic groups, relevant think-thanks, etc.To contextualize this, if you are applying to a Psychology degree, you will impress the commission if you have undertaken a bunch of internships at hospitals, or if you have published any study in a peer-reviewed magazine.At the same time, please note that if you are applying for a more professional or a STEM Master's, you should include relevant work experience in your field. For example, if you are applying for a Finance Master's, it would be great if you have worked in a bank or any other financial institution.Now that you’ve completed everything, you can prepare a thorough application to your Master's degree and increases your chances of getting accepted to your dream university abroad.Source:What Documents Will You Need to Study Abroad?