kingchupacabra

Hi --
 
I finished my Elliott school M.A. two years ago. I remember in a conversation with the admissions guy that they offer about 25% of students some "funding"--its really just a tuition discount. The highest standard award they will give is half-tuition. A tiny number of students, probably less than 10, receive a full tuition waiver. I believe most of those come from outside sources--my roommate got one and it came with a stipulation that he had to serve in the USG for five years after graduation.
 
You can, though, defray the cost of tuition by working. I knew a good number of students who were working full-time (usually they would slow down their degree to three years). Working part-time is quite normal, and all the classes at GW are in the evening so its easily accomplished. Much harder, though, to have a good social life! : /
 
GW was a great program, but reeeealllyyy expensive with cost of living factored in. I got into AU and GW, but AU's offer was much more generous. Honestly, if I did it over again I would have given that AU offer some more serious thought... its also a very good school for professional international affairs.
 
Feel free to contact me if you want any other thoughts on the Elliott School.

So which one are you leaning towards? I'm somehow attracted towards SIS(American) but I'm not sure of its reputation globally. Have you spoken to any students at any of these schools?

I am leaning towards Elliott because it's Asian Studies program is more established (SFS Asian Studies is only two years old) and to a lesser extent, trying a different school (which may be an old prejudice from when before schools collaborated).  Nonetheless, Georgetown MSFS does have the number 1 IR ranking and I am sure the Asian Studies program will improve fast.  Too be honest, I don't know much about American's reputation in Asian politics.  I asked SFS and Elliott for connections to current students, I haven't heard back yet; I will ask American as well.  I have an old professor I will reach out too as well.  Sounds like we have the same interests - let me know what you find out!

Right now I have Georgetown, George Washington, and American in the lead for their overall IR rankings and their presence in Washington, DC.  It has been harder for me to find information regarding their reputations for excellence in Asian politics / studies, and I wanted to ask your opinions.  I know this may vary regarding my plans--initially I plan on doing a terminal MA focusing on China (with a focus on either strategic thinking of Chinese policy-makers and elites; or alternatively on strategic relations between China and India).  After my MA, I would like to work at a think tank / NGO / or even a business in Asia if I am not already working for State.  I could see myself returning for a PhD after work experience.

I have also been told that it is a bad idea to do graduate school and undergrad at the same place.  I am not sure if this applies to SFS (No. 1 Master's IR), although George Washington's Asian Studies program is probably better - can anyone confirm or deny this?

Right now I have George Washington and American in the lead for their overall IR rankings and their presence in Washington, DC.  It has been harder for me to find information regarding their reputations for excellence in Asian politics / studies, and I wanted to ask your opinions.  I know this may vary regarding my plans--initially I plan on doing a terminal MA focusing on China (with a focus on either strategic thinking of Chinese policy-makers and elites; or alternatively on strategic relations between China and India).  After my MA, I would like to work at a think tank / NGO / or even a business in Asia if I am not already working for State.  I could see myself returning for a PhD after work experience.
 
Thank you!

GW (Asian Studies) Vs American (Int'l Affairs - Regional and Comparative) VS UCSD (Pacific International Affairs)  
Right now I have George Washington and American in the lead for their overall IR rankings and their presence in Washington, DC.  It has been harder for me to find information regarding their reputations for excellence in Asian politics / studies, and I wanted to ask your opinions.  I know this may vary regarding my plans--initially I plan on doing a terminal MA focusing on China (with a focus on either strategic thinking of Chinese policy-makers and elites; or alternatively on strategic relations between China and India).  After my MA, I would like to work at a think tank / NGO / or even a business in Asia if I am not already working for State.  I could see myself returning for a PhD after work experience.
 
Thank you!

Here are a few comparative hires at top schools in the recent past (chosen purely off the top of my head, not based on any commentary about these folks or anyone left off the list):
Prerna Singh (Princeton PhD, hired at Harvard) qual and quant work on India, comparisons across Indian states
Ana de la O (MIT PhD, hired at Yale) quant work on Mexico - natural experiments
Rafaela Dancygier (Yale PhD, hired at Princeton) quant (mostly) work on ethnic violence in Western Europe
Stanislav Markus (Harvard PhD, hired at Chicago) qualitative work on former Soviet Union
Daniela Campello (UCLA PhD, hired at Princeton) quant work, mostly on Latin America

My view is that knowledge of a region is necessary but not sufficient to get a job at a top school, but fancy methods aren't everything either - the people who get these jobs combine both: look at the job market wiki to see the people getting offers at Yale, Chicago, etc. and take a look at their work - you'll see the same pattern.

For an Asia-focused IR degree I'd look at SAIS, Columbia-SIPA, and as you mentioned UCSD-IRPS. All have great faculty and focuses on East Asia but are general enough to where you acquire more broad skills as well. I believe that IRPS is the only school with a specific focus on the pacific rim/East Asia though.

Many other schools have classes on East Asia/China as well although it might not be as strong of a focus of the school. I believe the University of Washington also has a strong focus on East Asia being another west coast school. My understanding was that their program was more either the MPA or a masters in China Studies, etc. not a combination of area studies and functional studies in one degree like the others though. Someone out there correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm starting this thread as a chance to help others learn from my mistake(s), and I hope others will be generous with their lessons learned as well.

I JUST thought to look at my transcripts, and realized that two of the classes in which I did the most work in my area of study do not reflect that on the transcript!! They just say "ENGL _____, Literature and Culture" and ENGL ____, British Literature. I didn't even think to talk about the work I did in these classes in my SOP, I focused on my thesis, my conference activity, and what I want to do for my dissertation -so, while I'm sure my professor's letter of recommendation discusses it to some degree, essentially I applied for medieval literature with only one course actually labeled as such on my transcript. My SOP focused very heavily on what I wanted to do in a doctoral program, while (now I see very clearly) only nominally, superficially, expressing why I was qualified to do it. WOW. No WONDER some of the programs I applied to didn't even consider me as a serious applicant!!

So - from my experience, check what your transcript says about the classes you took/the titles they are filed under, and make sure you discuss in detail for about a paragraph the pertinent coursework you did - texts read, etc. etc.

And boy, do I feel dumb!! But at least now I can see where to go in my next round of apps!!

Anyone else got some good, specific pointers?

There seem to be a lot of threads asking the same thing popping up lately and I figured it might make sense to make an overall guide thread and then those who feel their answers still haven’t been adequately answered can post below for an idea of what their chances are. Here is a brief rundown of factors affecting your likelihood of getting into top-tier and well respected programs. If you fall below par in any one of these factors you can bump it up by being stellar in one of the others. I'll add to this if others point out other things I've left out.

School requirements:
Your first stop should be the school admissions website – this will tell you what prerequisites you need, give you an idea of GRE and GPA requirements and what work experience is expected (if any)

GPA:
From what I’ve seen/read over the years any GPA over 3.4 and you should be competitive. That’s not to say if your GPA is lower than 3.4 you’ll have no chance, but if you have a GPA above 3.4 you should be in good shape.

GRE score:
GRE scores seem to be most important for schools with demanding quantitative programs and for securing the top financial aid. Most schools will state the average GRE scores for their incoming classes on their website – use these to see how competitive you are. By and large you should be competitive if you score over 650 on verbal and quantitative and over 4.0 on the AWA. For the top schools over 700 seems to be closer to the mark.

Work experience:
For most programs it will be expected that you have at least 1-2 years of relevant experience in your field. This can be lowered a little if you have other pseudo-relevant work experience (management in the for-profit sector etc.) but you should have shown some level of professional interest in the area you hope to study at grad school. Applicants coming straight out of undergrad may find it very hard to get into the programs aimed more at junior/mid-career professionals such as Johns Hopkins SAIS and Princeton’s WWS.

Language skills:
For a lot of programs being able to speak a second language is a must, while for others it is just a very good selling point. If you can show experience working in a foreign language this will show adaptability and will endear schools looking to enrol a diverse group of applicants.

Quantitative requirements:
A lot of schools will want you to show experience in micro/macroeconomics and some maths/statistics courses. You can fullfil these through undergrad classes or by taking courses at a community college/diploma program.

Overseas experience (work, study and teaching):
Work overseas and study abroad are also viewed extremely favourably by admissions committees and if you have taught English abroad, worked in the Peace Corps or otherwise gained experience living in a developing country this will really strengthen your application. It also shows you to be a go-getter, and that you can bring this outside experience to grad school study.

Statement of Purpose:
This is where it all comes together. This is your chance to impress the admission committee and show how your personal 'arc' has brought you to this point - being the perfect addition to their grad school. This more than any other part of your application will determine how admit committees view you as an applicant and it's also one of the only application variables that's completely under your control. Having a cohesive narrative that brings together life experience, past academic history and professional experience is a must. It also gives you a great chance to showcase your writing style - so make sure no grammar/spelling mistakes make it into your final revision.

Great list of SOP pitfalls

If your profile matches at least 3 or 4 of the criteria listed above then you are competitive to apply to an MPA/MPP/IR program.

What is most important about any grad school application is showing fit – that is how your profile matches the speciality of that school and its program. If you can’t articulate compelling reasons why you are a good match for them and vice versa, question whether you should be applying to that program.


A note on applying to top schools:

It is worth noting that nobody here can tell you what your chances of getting into a top program (Harvard, Princeton, Georgetown etc.) because getting into a top program requires a certain amount of luck as well as a great profile. Some people get offers from Harvard with a 2.9 GPA, but also happen to have singlehandedly retaken an allied command post in the Korengal valley. It’s down to who reads your application and what they happen to be looking for with the current application cycle.

Spend time improving the elements of your application that you can (GRE, work experience, languages) and don’t waste time freaking out about the things you can’t change (GPA).

If you’ve read all of the above and really still can’t tell if your application is competitive, post your profile below.