Scholarship Spotlight: Jack R. Howard International Fellowships

Jack R. Howard International Fellowships
Columbia University

An endowment at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism honors the journalistic legacy of Jack R. Howard with fellowships to international journalists pursuing a master's degree. In Africa, Eastern Europe, Latin America, the Arab World, and the Far East, free press is just being born, and that makes it possible for the fellows to return home and be true journalistic pioneers in their countries. They serve as role models, mentors and educators to their colleagues. The Howard Fellows bring a richness of experience and a unique perspective to the journalism school and contribute tremendously to the overall experience of the entire student body.

The fellowships provide full room, board, tuition, and travel for the 10-month program, and fellows participate in special lecture and discussion programs on journalistic norms, cultural values, and the challenges they will face in their professional futures. There is a strong press freedom component built into the program, and fellows are introduced to a broad variety of institutions in New York, ranging from the Committee to Protect Journalists to U.N. and foundation officials with interests in their regions.

For information about the fellowships, contact Sree Sreenivasan, dean of student affairs, Graduate School of Journalism, Columbia University, at ss221@columbia.edu.

Scholarships for International Students and GlobalCampus Team Up to Help Students

Social networks can be very powerful for meeting new people, forming new relationships, and collaborating with like-minded individuals or groups. One group that I found and �liked� on Facebook, is GlobalCampus.

GlobalCampus is a social network connecting students with universities and institutions across the world. On GlobalCampus students get approached by institutions looking for their talent and notified of funding opportunities they qualify for. So students can simultaneously access a global range of opportunities without searching hundreds of websites, and universities can attract talent from around the globe without visiting every school. Signing-up to GlobalCampus is completely free! For more information, check them out at their website: http://globalcampus.com/ or their Facebook Page: http://on.fb.me/adNNQT

Recently, my friends at GlobalCampus and I have been talking about the difficulties international students face when communicating with professional people � when writing letters to scholarship providers, or simply when posting questions on websites or sending email messages.

SIS and GlobalCampus have teamed up in a joint effort to share information that will help international students learn a few of the basics in communication and effective professional letter writing � that is why �How to Communicate With Scholarship Providers, and Write Effective Professional Letters� was created and shared with you in both channels. Read it on the SIS blog site: http://bit.ly/aurSe7. We look forward to future collaboration to continue serving international students!

This teacher reacts to seeing "Waiting for Superman"

crossposted from Daily Kos for which it was first written

Friday schools across Maryland were closed, so I went to the first show at Noon.

On the way home I thought long and hard about what I would say.

No matter how I parse it, my reaction has two key points.

1. Davis Guggenheim feels guilty about not sending his kids to public schools, and the result is a film which basically trashes public schools, public school teachers, teachers unions, while unjustly glorifying Geoffrey Canada, Michelle Rhee, charters, Kipp, and union busting.

2. The film is intellectually dishonest, so much so it is laughable.

I will explain my reactions.

Guggenheim admits his sense of guilt. He talks about his admiration for teachers. He reminds us of his 1999 film "First Year" about dedicated teachers. He shows us video of driving past four public schools to take his child to a PRIVATE school (note, NOT a charter school). But we never are given any specifics. We are not even told if any of those is the public school his child would have attended. He uses his skill with films to have us infer that none of the four does a decent job of instructing kids, and that his child would have to attend one of them. But we are given NO data to support such an inference.

The film focuses on children trying to get into charter schools via lotteries. Yet at the end, in the text after all the emotion has been wrung out of the viewing audience, Guggenheim is at least honest enough to tell us that lotteries are not the answer. If they are not, why not show us schools that are? Why is not a single successful public school shown? Might that undermine the propaganda that is being put out to manipulate the viewer in a particular direction? Might that make the viewer less likely to text in support of the agenda that Guggenheim puts forth?

I said the film is intellectually dishonest. I will not go through all the examples I could cite: I do come to this "review" late, and many others have dissected the various problems with the film.

Let me cite several. Jay Mathews advocates for KIPP on the basis of the raise in the percentiles on reading scores. Yet that ignores a chunk of data. First, those being tested do not include all those who entered KIPP schools - at least a portion of KIPP schools have an unfortunate tendency to "counsel out" students who would not score well. Second, it is not yet clear that the gains in test scores that are reported persist further up the educational ladder when the students leave KIPP. Finally, the independent study (by Mathematica) that Kipp likes to cite says only 10% of KIPP schools perform better than the public schools from which they draw. That is actually a worse percentage than charter schools as a whole, as was seen in the CREDO study, where 17% of charter schools performed better but 37% performed worse.

From Canada we constantly heard that the system was broken, and on the whole we were intended to draw the conclusion that public schools are not working. Yet even Eric Hanushek is quoted in the film as saying something quite different: that if we could replace the worst performing 5 to 10 % of teachers, our schools would be performing at the same level as Finland, the highest scoring nation in the world. Finland, however, has a far lower rate of children in poverty than does the US, and that difference accounts for much of the difference in performance. But Finland also has a 100% unionized teaching force, which seems relevant to mention if Finland is supposed to be the standard by which we judge our performance, especially when we are constantly bombarded with "facts" about how unions are the problem.

Consider - we are given comparative statistics for lifting of licenses for doctors and lawyers versus only 1 in 2,500 Illinois teachers losing their teaching certificates. But that totally ignores the large number of teachers who leave before they get tenure, many of whom are low performers. Why go to the expense of legally lifting a certificate when the person is no longer teaching? We lose almost half of teachers in the first 5 years. If only 1/2 of those are substandard teachers, then the rate of substandard teachers leaving is higher than the 5-10% Hanushek says is necessary to replace, and not only 1 in 2,500. And by the way, Hanushek never gives any evidence that the replacements would be any better.

That raises another interesting point. By his own admission in the film, Geoffrey Canada was NOT even a satisfactory teacher his first two years. He said he didn't begin to hit his stride until his 3rd year. Elsewhere, but not in the film, Michelle Rhee has acknowledged that she was a horrible teacher her first year and half. She came out of Teach for America. Both of these people, offered as models for what we should be doing about education, demonstrate something very well known - that as a nation we do a poor job of preparing our teachers and inducting them - bringing them into the classroom. Finland does so over several years with decreasing amounts of supervision and increasing levels of individual responsibility for the new teachers. Finland offers a model which works. Teach for America, by the words of Rhee and Canada, is not what we should depend upon. And if we were to summarily fire 5-10% of teachers only to replace them with additional novices, there is no evidence this will improve student performance.

Let me also note what I consider the most disturbing image in the film. It is used as a set-up to bash teachers. We see a teacher peeling back skulls and pouring knowledge into the heads of students. Later, as the words we hear are bashing unions and union rules, we again see the teacher pouring, only this time she - and it is a she - is pouring her "knowledge" onto the floor, somehow missing the open minds of the students.

This is a horrible model of education. It may work for drill and kill to raise test scores. It does not result in meaningful long-term learning or the development of an ability to continue learning independently. It may not be intellectually dishonest, but it is a distorted understanding of teaching and learning.

What is intellectually dishonest is what the film says about tenure. The film somewhat misrepresents the development of tenure in post-secondary institutions. It is totally wrong when it describes tenure for public school teachers as a life-time guarantee of a job. All tenure does is require due process according to contract rules mutually agreed to by unions and school boards. Note the two parts to this: due process, and mutually agreed to. The portion of the film with Jason Kamrad is used to imply that it is almost impossible to dismiss a tenured teacher. In fact it is not, rubber rooms not withstanding, if administrators follow the rules and document. This is no more difficult that convicting criminal wrongdoers in the justice system when the police and the prosecution follow the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Petty dictators and inexperienced leaders might not like following the rules. Michelle Rhee dismissed a batch of teachers ostensibly because the city could not afford them, but replaced some with people from Teach for America. When she got caught she talked about a handful who rightfully should have been dismissed (although that could easily have been done under proper procedures) while implying that all of the dismissed teachers had similar problems. That was not honest.

Her track record also is not as rosy as the film portrays, although on this I would refrain from accusing that portion of intellectual dishonesty, because the inconsistency of score performance became publicly apparent only after the film was in editing. Still, questions had been raised about the performance at the time Mayor Fenty and Chancellor Rhee were touting the scores as proof that their approach was working.

Perhaps the most intellectually dishonest portion of the film is the presentation of Geoffrey Canada. Let me be clear: I believe Canada is absolutely correct in providing what are known as wrap-around services, including medical and tutoring and family support. What the film implies is that Canada is obtaining better results applying the same or similar resources, and somehow if others would take his approach, which includes his insistence on no union and the ability to fire any teacher, all would be well.

Let's try the reality. As it happens, on this the New York Times has a recent piece that is quite appropriate, about which many have now commented. Titled Lauded Harlem Schools Have Their Own Problems, the piece appeared on October 12. In it we learn that the schools in Harlem Children's Village have per pupil expenditures of $16,000 in the classroom and thousands more outside the classroom. The average class size in the Promise Academy High school is about 15, with two licensed teachers per class. Stop right there, and think about the image of most urban schools: how often do you see as few as 20 students per class? How rarely are there two adults to deal with what is often 30 or more students?

Despite that, Canada's track record is spotty. In the film we hear about the commitment he makes to the parents, which in the Times piece is framed as "We start with children from birth and stay with them until they graduate." Perhaps we should read about the first cohort of Promise Academy I, which opened in 2004:

The school, which opened in 2004 in a gleaming new building on 125th Street, should have had a senior class by now, but the batch of students that started then, as sixth graders, was dismissed by the board en masse before reaching the ninth grade after it judged the students� performance too weak to found a high school on. Mr. Canada called the dismissal �a tragedy.�

Somehow dismissing an entire cohort does not bespeak a model that I would want to emulate. Nor does it demonstrate that Mr. Canada is the sparkling example the movie would have you believe. Allow me to quote what Walt Gardner posted about Promise Academy I in this blog at Education Week:

Even now, most of its seventh graders are still behind. Only 15 percent passed the state's English test. Their failure to perform resulted in the firing of several teachers and the reassignment of others. Although 38 percent of children in third through sixth grade passed the English test under the state's new guidelines, their performance placed them in the lower half of charter schools in the city and below the city's overall passing rate of 42 percent.

As a piece of propaganda pushing a flawed vision of education, "Waiting for Superman" is brilliant - it manipulates emotions, it takes facts out of context, it misrepresents much of the data it uses and is less than accurate in its portrayal of key figures, most especially in its portrayal of Canada.

I have not yet cited the biggest example of its intellectual dishonesty. That would be what is NOT in the film. There is not a single example of a successful traditional public school, whether in troubled neighborhoods - and they do exist - or in places like suburbs where many of our schools perform at levels as high as in any place in the world. Instead it allows Canada to paint with a broad brush, saying "the system is broken" and implying that ALL of American education is failing.

It is not. Even by the flawed measure of test scores, the current administration wants to target 5% of American schools. Not all schools are dropout factories.

Too many are. They are for the reasons they have often been - they teach other people;'s children, the children of the poor, those of color, those who do not speak English at home.

It does not have to be this way.

The film is wrong when it wants you to believe this is a new phenomenon. There was no idyllic time in inner city schools, certainly not in the 1970s, which is again an impression the films wants to give you. After all, it was because children of the poor were being systematically deprived of the right to an education that Lyndon Johnson pushed for and signed the first version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the mid 1960s. That had not magically changed things within the next five to ten years.

At the end of the film the text that appears on the screen says we know what to do, then offers the usual bromides of so-called reformers of more accountability, more assessment, higher standards, and the like. This has been the pattern at least since the Reagan administration. If this were the correct path, why a quarter century after A Nation At Risk are we hearing the same things, only more so?

Let's be clear. Raising the bar of 'standards' will do nothing to improve the educational performance of a child not achieving the current, apparently too-low standards. It may in fact merely increase the number of drop-outs.

If Geoffrey Canada can, with foundation money, provide all those wonderful trips for his students, plus teacher-student ratios in the classroom of better than 1-8, perhaps we might consider what we need to do to provide for the students in our regular public schools, who are often at a classroom ratio of better than 30-1, who do not have foundation and hedge-funds paying for their field trips. Canada has a spanking new building, modern, fully equipped. Many of our young people are in buildings more than half a century old, with leaking roofs, with no doors on bathroom stalls, sometimes with no toilet paper unless they bring it themselves. Just the difference in externals like this delivers a powerful message about which kids we really care about, and they know it.

If you knew nothing about American education except what you gleaned from watching "Waiting for Superman," you would have a totally distorted understanding both of the status of American public education and of what really makes a difference for young people. That inevitably distorts the public discourse on this important national issue. Of course, the intent of propaganda is to drive discussion in a pre-decided direction, whether or not that direction is either necessary or justified by the real facts on the ground.

The film is intellectually dishonest. Most of those who know about education, especially those who know the reality of what has worked and can be scaled up, have increasingly been speaking out and writing against the glorification of the film, and the vision it pushes, and those it attempts to lionize.

And Davis Guggenheim? He admits his sense of guilt. On that he is at least partially honest. What he has done in this film should not, however, allow him to feel as if he has expiated his sense of guilt, for this film has done real damage to the public discourse over education, and made it harder to get to the kinds of real reform necessary so that none of our children are left in failing schools. I long for such a day that all experience fully the right, the opportunity to learn. That will not happen by busting unions, propagating charters, all the while we ignore the increasing economic disparity, and the unfortunate reappearance of racism. Couple this with the attitude of some of an unwillingness to pay for public services for which they do not personally benefit and you will see an increase in the number of students who are not well served by our public schools - we will damage many that are currently working.

As bad as it may be now, things like "Waiting for Superman" merely make it harder to move towards the changes we truly need. I fear that will be its legacy, and that would truly be tragic.

New Book: Social Class, Social Action, and Education: The Failure of Progressive Democracy

Shameless self-plug. My first book just came out. You can read the introduction here. Find it here.

Middle-class progressives in the early 20th Century wanted to transform a corrupt and chaotic industrial America into an "authentic" democracy. But they were led astray by their privilege. Focused on enhancing the voices of individuals, generations of progressives remained blind to the rich culture of "democratic solidarity" infusing labor unions and organizing in poor communities. This book traces the problematic evolution of progressive democracy in America, focusing on schools as a key site of progressive practice. At the same time, it examines alternative strategies for developing more empowering approaches to democratic education and collective action.

"Anyone interested in the history of educational reform and the link between progressive education and other social movements should read this book. In his analysis of progressive education Schutz combines a philosopher's sensitivity for contradictions with a historian's understanding of the way these contradictions worked out in the real world. The result is a highly readable, theoretically penetrating treatment of the possibilities and limitations of Dewey's educational philosophy and the progressive education movement. Schutz brings his analysis up to date, showing how progressive education's limitations as a reform movement were addressed in practice by the strategies of community organizers and Civil Rights leaders."--Walter Feinberg, Charles Hardie Professor, Emeritus of Educational Philosophy, The University of Illinois-Champaign/Urbana

"This is an important and much needed addition to the existing literature on Dewey and Progressivism and the future/fate of Progressivism in the new millennium. The author's interdisciplinary approach is highly effective and one of the book's many strong points. Indeed, it is especially appropriate in discussing Dewey (who wrote very broadly and was widely read) and the first part of the twentieth century."--David Granger, Professor of Education, SUNY-Geneseo

"The link Schutz makes from little known schools of early Progressivism to Sixties alternative education is fascinating. He is excellent at revealing the forbears of what is seen as new and radical."--Heidi Swarts, Assistant Professor of Politics and International Studies, Rutgers University-Newark

A Bunker Mentality Among Inner-City Chicago Youth

Miller McCune reports on a study by Mario Small about Chicago youth, arguing that the violence of these neighborhoods destroys trust on a very basic level. Youth have "associates" not friends.

What does this do to any even minimal hope for collective empowerment in these areas?

[See Small's website for links to a range of other really important work.]

Small said they were floored when they found that a kind of �bunker mentality� held sway at both schools, even to the point that the children, both boys and girls, routinely tested their peers and were conducting �background checks� to see whether they could be trusted, cross-checking their dependability with classmates and watching them for months and years.

�It sounded like a warlike situation,� Small said. �I really don�t want to sensationalize this. But, frankly, it is so pervasive among our interviewees and so powerful that I don�t think the analogy is inappropriate. Violence is pervasive in the poorest neighborhoods of Chicago. There are lots of pretty serious beatings, and the 13- and 14-year-olds are already starting to become victims. At this age, the children are still learning how to negotiate their neighborhoods on their own.�

One girl said she invited a classmate to a party and staged a fight with someone else to see if the classmate would intervene to defend her. Another girl, a seventh-grader, said she planted false gossip with people she was �watching� in order to test them. If she heard the gossip going around, then she knew those people were not her true friends.

You �start knowing you don�t need many friends,� a 15-year-old said. �You have friends but don�t let them in too close, unless you�ve been with them forever. Somebody you just met two years ago, nn-mm, don�t let them in too close��

How to Communicate With Scholarship Providers, and Write Effective Professional Letters

�hey u got a scholarship 4 me?� Not likely! If you want to be taken seriously by scholarship committees, you must communicate in an effective, professional manner. Even if you are simply sending an inquiry by email, or posting to a website or social network, the basics are essential � proper grammar, capitalization, punctuation and complete sentences.

With a few general rules, some good tips from scholarship committees, and help from family, friends, or teachers, you can learn to write effective professional letters � and increase your chances of winning a scholarship!

Before you write the letter:

1. Take the time to think about your skills and strengths, other than what might be included in a resume. Write them down, describe them, and list examples. Here are qualities committees may look for, beyond financial need:


• Knowledge of chosen field, carefulness of work
• Motivation, enthusiasm, seriousness of purpose
• Creativity, originality, ingenuity of problem solving
• Ability to plan and carry out research, organization
• Ability to express thought in speech and writing
• Maturity, emotional stability, ability to withstand stress and face challenges
• Leadership skills
• Self-reliance, initiative, independence, adaptability
• Responsibility
• Ability to work well with others
• Growth potential, desire to achieve, dedication to goals

2. First and foremost, make sure you are eligible for the scholarship, meet the necessary criteria, and can meet the deadline for submitting all necessary paperwork.


3. Do your research. Locate the details that will help you write an effective, personalized letter. What is the scholarship for? Who is funding the scholarship? Determine what the scholarship committee is looking for in an applicant so you can include it in the cover letter. For example, if the committee values community service, then you might want to include any volunteer services or activities you�ve been involved in.


4. Find out if the scholarship committee consists of the board of an organization, a group of people or educators, or a single person. Find out the specific person to whom you can address the scholarship cover letter. Search the scholarship documents, web site or call the committee and ask to whom you can address the cover letter to make it more personal.


5. Find samples of scholarship letters in books or on the web � but just for ideas, inspiration, and structure. Do not simply change the wording to reflect your own information � it will be easily recognizable as a standard, sample letter. You want your letter to be unique, and your own.
   

Writing the letter:

Format:

• Any formal business letter format is acceptable.
• Make sure to use an easy-to-read font when typing your letter.
• In the top, right hand corner put your name and contact details.
• One line below and left aligned, type the name and address of the person (or organization) you are addressing.
• One or two lines below, either left or right aligned, add the date. The following formats are acceptable: October 10, 2010; or Paris, 10th October 2010. The place of writing can also be included, but is not necessary.
• Two lines below, begin the letter with Dear and then the title of the person as applicable (Mr., Ms., Mrs., Dr., or Professor), then the surname, making sure it is spelled correctly. If you do not have the name of the person to whom you are writing, �Dear Sir or Madam� or �To Whom it May Concern� are acceptable.
• Two lines below, add the content of your letter.
• Two lines below the last paragraph, add the closing, such as �Sincerely�.
• Four lines below the closing, add your name in type, and your hand-written signature above.

In General:

• If both a cover letter and essay are required, then the cover letter should be a small, tight introduction to the personal essay. If a cover letter, personal essay, and resume are required then the cover letter introduces you, the purpose for sending the packet of information you�re sending, and gives a brief overview of what to expect in the resume.


• If you cannot include your resume with the cover letter or essay, which is rare, you may need to include important information from your resume in the letter. If this is the case, divide the information into specific areas, like you would in a resume � such as education, awards, work experience, and goals. Be sure to include areas such as volunteer work or other information that fit with the goals of the scholarship.


• Make an outline of your letter. This will help maintain your focus as you write. You'll need to open with a greeting, transition to your main point, then to your next point and then provide a conclusion.


• Choice of words is important. Achieve a balance between bragging and modesty. Avoid exaggerations and clich�s but do not down play your worth.


• Be personable � be yourself. Remember that real people read your letter. Be respectful and courteous but use normal language, not flowery, overly formal wording that you would never use when speaking.


• Once you've written your letter, go back and do an initial edit. Read it and find the spots that sound awkward, don't make sense or don't fit. Spend some time editing, improving the language and flow, and correcting your spelling, grammar and punctuation. Avoid wordiness. Be clear and concise.


• Take a break even if it is just an hour or two, and focus on something else. Read and edit your letter again after your break. It can often be difficult to proof-read your own material; have a friend, family member, or teacher read it through � they may see some places that need to be polished.


• It is simple errors with grammar, punctuation, and spelling that will remove you from the competition much more quickly than, for example, listing too few club activities. Make sure your letter is professional and compelling!
  

Content:

• Start with a strong organizing thesis statement or umbrella statement at the beginning in order to introduce the key points that make you a good applicant for the scholarship.


• Focus on a few main points. Stress the qualities and areas of expertise that make you a good candidate for the scholarship. To do this, refer to the qualifications listed with the scholarship. So, for example, if the committee considers financial need when deciding upon the candidates, make a point of your financial need but not in a tacky way, or in a self-pitying manner. Instead, refer to the financial need in a way that indicates the good that would come of receiving the scholarship.


• Write the body of the cover letter with a sense of gratitude for the opportunity the scholarship will give you. Then make a case of how this scholarship will enable you to help your fellow man and the community as a whole.


• Use specific examples to support what you say about yourself. For example, don't just say, "I am a leader," and expect the reader to believe you. Provide at least one specific example from your life that demonstrates your leadership skills. This is your evidence, and it gives your entire letter credibility.


• If you can, connect your goals to the ideals and purpose of the scholarship committee or organization.


• Close the scholarship cover letter with a forward looking and enthusiastic statement that thanks the committee, organization or person for their time and consideration in reviewing your scholarship application. It's always useful to add a sentence praising the work or the mission of the funding organization as well.

Bottom Line:

Effective, professional communication skills are not simply an asset � they are a necessity!

Fellowship Spotlight: AAUW International Fellowships; $18,000 - $30,000

Fellowships for 2011-2012 Academic Year:
Master's/Professional Fellowship: $18,000
Doctorate Fellowship: $20,000
Postdoctoral Fellowship: $30,000

Applications available: Aug. 1�Dec. 1, 2010

Application deadline: Dec. 1, 2010

Criteria/eligibility:
Fellowship year: July 1, 2011�June 30, 2012
International Fellowships are awarded for full-time study or research in the United States to women who are not United States citizens or permanent residents. Both graduate and postgraduate study at accredited institutions are supported. Several fellowships are available for study outside of the U.S.

For more information:
Questions about applications must be directed to the Iowa City office. Please do not contact the AAUW office in Washington, D.C., or local branches for application information.

Please call 319/337-1716 ext. 60,
e-mail aauw@act.org,
or write to the customer service center at

AAUW
Dept. 60301
ACT Drive
Iowa City, IA 52243-4030

Request a Brochure: http://www.act.org/aauw/brochurerequest.html

Order copies of the AAUW fellowships brochure that includes general descriptions for each fellowship program at http://www.act.org/aauw/brochurerequest.html.

Scholarship Spotlight: Kathleen S. Anderson Award for Shorebird Research

Amount of grant: $ 1,000

Deadline: December 1st of each year

Description and eligibility:
The purpose of this award is to encourage significant avian research in areas of interest to Kathleen Anderson and Manomet, and to help promising biologists in their work. Requests for support of ecological and behavioral studies of birds, especially research furthering bird conservation, will be considered (e.g. endangered or endemic species, population viability, effects of land uses, habitat requirements, migration ecology, feeding ecology, species interactions, etc.).

Proposed projects must take place in the Americas. We encourage proposals from citizens/residents of countries south of the U.S. A total of $1000 will be awarded annually, either to one person or divided among two recipients.

Any person, of any age, beginning a career in biology is eligible. Enrollment in an academic program is desirable, but not required.
Grade level: undergraduate

Field of study: Veterinary and Animal Sciences; Biology

For more information: http://www.shorebirdworld.org/template.php?c=9&g=5#kathleen

Scholarship Spotlight: Microsoft Technical Scholarships

Scholarships: General Scholarships, Woman�s Scholarships, Minority Scholarships, and Scholarships for Students with Disabilities.

Deadline: February 1, 2011

Eligibility: To be eligible, you must be enrolled full time in a Bachelor�s degree program at a 4-year college or university in the United States, Canada, or Mexico at the time you submit the application. Plus, you must be making satisfactory progress toward an undergraduate degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related technical discipline such as electrical engineering, math, or physics�and that you demonstrate an interest in computer science. Because the scholarship is merit based, you must maintain a 3.0 cumulative grade point average out of a possible 4.0, or a 4.0 cumulative grade point average out of a possible 5.0. International students are eligible.

How to Apply: You must include the following five items in your application:

• Resume
• Transcript
• Answers to essay questions
• Letter of referral
• Printed Confirmation Page from Online Application to the Microsoft Internship Program
• Application Deadline: 1 Feb 2011

Microsoft selects final candidates based on the following criteria:

• Eligibility
• Quality of application
• Displayed interest in the software industry
• Commitment to leadership
• Financial need

For more information: https://careers.microsoft.com/careers/en/us/collegescholarship.aspx