Nerdling

I'm one of the aforementioned Peace Corps volunteers in Africa, but I find myself more and more interested in security-related issues. Lately I've been trying to figure out how to (or if I even need to) transition my apparent focus in that direction. I love what I'm doing now (export-focused business development) but it's definitely a shorter-term thing for me. I'm not alone, either. A couple of my good friends here are considering the same field. But, to be fair, there are a lot of volunteers considering careers in international development, too. I want to echo what others have said here. Don't -- don't -- join the Peace Corps/AmeriCorps/Teach for America just for the perceived resume boost. You'll most likely be miserable, and will cheat a community out of someone who really wants to be there, and really wants to contribute. Like anyone else in these organizations, I certainly hope my experience will be looked favorably upon when I apply to grad school. However, I could easily see Peace Corps experience (specifically referencing international development programs) becoming the go-to post-grad experience to get before grad school as I-DEV continues to gain popularity, especially if the economy continues to suck. If that were the case, the relative (and decreasing) novelty of PC service would weigh much less in an admission committee's decision. The leg-up in the admissions process that alumni from these programs may get, though, is that all three are specifically short-term, non-career jobs. In that sense, it's a good example of the "demonstrated commitment to service/leadership" (whatever that means) that so many grad programs say they look for. That being said, spending a couple of years in the Peace Corps/AmeriCorps/Teach for America is a fantastic experience and a huge opportunity for personal growth, if nothing else. I'd like to think (perhaps naively) that counts for something, right?

That's what I'm looking for. I want to hear the non-objective rationale for pursuing this degree type.

I've been asking myself lately if an MPP/MPA/MALD/whatever degree is worth pursuing, as far as professional preparation is concerned. I am thoroughly interested in the subject matter, no doubt, but does this degree type give you adequate preparation to be an effective employee (be it nonprofit, government, private sector, etc)? Are these programs' curricula rigorous enough, or is there still going to be a steep learning curve when you get into an actual position? I realize that there's a learning curve with all professions, but it seems like with other professional programs (law, business, etc) you get much more specific, job-oriented training. If all one accomplishes with an MPP is to build a reservoir of IR-themed knowledge, that's great in and of itself, albeit a pretty expensive way of doing it. Could this be accomplished by auditing a few related classes while pursuing a more "traditional" (for lack of a better word) professional degree? At the end of the day, a professional degree program needs to outfit a recent graduate with a marketable skill set. Do IR MA-type degrees accomplish this in a meaningful way?

This is my main concern. I really like the curricula of just about all of the MPA/MPP programs I've looked at, but even at 2 years they don't seem to be too terribly in-depth. For that reason, a PhD would be preferable, but if I'm not planning on going directly into academia, is the relative leg up I'd get with a doctorate over a master's worth the additional coursework and dissertation writing I'd have to do en route? Out of curiosity, was this at a policy school program or a more traditional program? And, if you don't mind sharing, what were/are your job-related goals?

That makes sense, and is pretty close to what I've been able to put together. Any idea how that difference translates into job prospects, ie jobs in government, think tanks, or some other non-teaching setting, versus a traditional PhD?

Hi, all. I've been perusing this site for some time now (thanks to everyone for their input), and it's been a pretty terrific resource. I have a quick question regarding PhD programs at the big policy schools (HKS, SAIS, WWS, Fletcher, etc). I didn't see much on this topic, but forgive me if it's been addressed before. How do these PhD programs differ from their traditional political science-international relations program counterparts? Off the cuff, it seems like the policy school programs are significantly more interdisciplinary and not as quantitatively focused (maybe?) whereas the traditional arts and sciences political science programs more rigorously focus on a much narrower treatment of the subject. I realize this isn't the deepest appraisal of the two types of programs, but am I seeing things relatively clearly? Assuming the above (and please correct me if I'm wrong), how would each degree fare in terms of job prospects? For traditional tenure track professorships, I couldn't imagine you could do better than a political science-IR PhD. But, for someone like myself (and others who've posted on these boards) who's more interested in working within the public sector (be it government, think tank or whatever, working on policy), would the more interdisciplinary degree be a better approach? The schools I mentioned above talk a bit on their websites about PhD job placement, and most say that a higher percentage of their graduates take jobs outside of traditional academia compared to more academic programs, but this seems anecdotal at best. For the sake of clarity, I'm wondering what the potential differences wouldbe between a PhD from WWS as opposed to a PhD from Princeton's politics department, for example. Are there any noteworthy differences in skillsets? Professional preparation? Anyone have any insight?