<p>Im currently an undergrad studying Bachelor of Urban Development in sunny Brisbane, Australia and graduating at the end of 2009 and want to do a Masters in Real Estate to gain more knowledge about the property industry but not in Australia as I feel the programs here are pretty poor. So far I have looked into pretty much all the colleges that offer the Real Estate masters in the US and personally think that Columbia or NYU have the best programs (leaning towards Columbia because its 1 year and NYU is 2). Not to mention living in New York would be a phenomenal experience. I have also looked into applications and my understanding is that I need a GPA of 3 (currently 2.89 under the US system we have a 7 point scale over here) and have a sufficient understanding of the English language to be eligible for a Masters program. It seems a lot of grad schools like to combine parts of an MBA program which is not what I want to do as I dont have the skill set or base knowledge so an MBA is useless at this stage but is an option in the future.</p>
<p>Has anyone had experience in a Masters in Real Estate program or has opinions of it and where is the best college to do such a program? Further, how difficult is it for international students to get into US grad schools and what should I be aiming for to give myself a fair chance of getting in. </p>
<p>Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.</p>
<p>Well, this isn’t much help but if you want to get into Columbia or NYU you should probably try to get your GPA over 3.5 if it is possible. At least if you are trying to get into any top college in the states that is the bare minimum. Now, I am not sure that this is the case in your field this is just in general.</p>
<p>If you haven’t tried these site check them out: The Chronicles of Higher Education forums, the grad cafe, and there is also another sight where it ranks schools according to your criteria - it is called PhD something (maybe .org).</p>
<p>Im assuming that the 3.5 is based on a 4 point scale? IF thats the case, it equates to about a 6.125/7 which is pretty bloody difficult to get, not to mention your college tuition will be paid in full by the Dean</p>
<p>Aus - Yes, 3.5 out of 4. Depending upon what field you are in (engineering/physics etc) it is pretty tough to maintain a 3.5+! Again maybe we grade differently over here. I know that in my son’s french classes he has profs from France and they grade him completely different than he is used to being graded. They do not grade you on how well you do - they grade you on how they think you should be doing based upon what you know. For instance, they think he is brilliant and he gets A’s on his papers & tests, but they think he should be doing even better so they give him B’s. Very frustrating for him!</p>
<p>Grades are pretty inflated here…I don’t know the source but there was an article reprinted in my school’s newspaper about a survey that showed a significant proportion of university students believe they should receive B’s just for finishing reading assignments and showing up to class. I was trained growing up that anything less than an A might as well be a failure. This is bull, of course, but you almost have to subscribe to this belief if you want to enter graduate studies at Columbia as an international student. The best programs naturally want the best students, which means 3.5+ here (and even 3.5 is considered on the weak side in some fields). They might be more forgiving of a different grading scale if your transcripts indicate you’re in the top 5% of your class (at my school, at least, the top 5% means 3.5, and the top 1% means 3.75).</p>
<p>^^^Scratch that. I think 3.5 is the top 10%, 3.75 is top 5%, and 4.0 is top 1%. My original misassumption was because I think my classmates really do distribute that way–A’s are darned difficult to get in organic and biochem etc.–but during my turns as a humanities major I could easily keep it higher and the overall trend is probably more generous.</p>
<p>Wow tkm - I was wondering where you went to school with your first post;] Your second post sounds better but still really interesting. I have one son who is a humanities major & the other a physics/math major. I think the reason it is easier to keep your GPA up in the humanities is not because it is easier, but because you turn in more work so if you are having a bad day you can correct it. The son in physics/math usually only has a homework grade that contributes to 10% of his grade and the rest is one midterm & one final. Yikes!</p>
<p>I didn’t mean to imply it was easier. Far from it–the reason I ran for shelter in the sciences is because it was such a darn headache (four hours of Kafka and Nietzsche every day will have an effect on a person). But even though the work itself is difficult, it is a lot easier to keep your grades up because the process is different. Huge chunks of my grades were based on what the professor thought of me: how well I participated in discussions, how insightful my papers appeared to be. In the sciences, I can’t just be smart, I have to be right to a T. I’ve received F’s on papers with “great content!” written on them because I put the statistics in what the AI considered the wrong section (which was, of course, what previous professors had considered ‘the right section’). Like mom’s son, most of my classes are graded by tests marked by people you will probably never meet in person. Most of the time there isn’t even a homework component; in organic chemistry, biochemistry, evolution, genetics, and molecular biology my entire grade was based on three tests and a final. Slip up once and you’re done.</p>
<p>Judging but what everyone has said thus far, and I dont mean to offend anyone when I say this, but the general grading and getting graded on factors other than exam/written material seems a bit of a joke. We get marked solely on academic performance. A few classes may give extra marks for attendance but very rare (this has happened once and was worth a total of 3% so barely ads to anything). I dont understand why students would get marked on anything other than academic performance. Im not sure about business, journalism etc. but anyone in the construction industry (engineers, construction managers, property) we frequently have institutions reviewing our semester’s content and students work and have the power to change the course work for future years. Referring to Mom2ofOH’s post, I can understand how frustrating this can be from what Ive just mentioned. Getting marked on ‘potential’ seems cruel and extremely harsh. Its something I cant wrap my head around. Furthermore ‘Homework’ finishes after high school because the College simply doesnt care if you pass of fail; its all up to the individual to put in as much or as little work to get the desired grade. Colleges should have a set standard whereby you get graded accordingly to academic performance and academic performance ONLY. </p>
<p>I guess thats why Im having trouble understanding the 3.5 GPA. Over here, a 3.5 equates to 6.125. Only a very select few achieve over a GPA 6 based purely on academics. The average is around the 4.5-5 mark. If I were marked on homework, participation, what the professors thought of me, no doubt Ill be a lot closer to the 6 mark than I already am.</p>
<p>Anyway, thats my 2 cents. Like I said, to grade they way such an institution like Columbia does really does my head in and seems very unfair</p>