adaptations

I generally agree with the previous post. Focus on getting your math score up to the high 700s and keep working on the verbal to see if you can gain a little extra ground there. I think your scores are such that you have a chance, but it sounds to me like you can strengthen them, which will certainly help your chances.

I took Princeton Review's course. I found it beneficial as a means of structuring my studying, laying out a clear strategy, etc. My opinion on courses like theirs and Kaplan's is that they don't provide anything too ground breaking, or that isn't already written in their books, but they are really good for helping test takers get motivated and organized for the test. My disclaimer is that after taking PR's course, I taught for Kaplan. I think I slightly preferred R's overall approach, but think they both do a good job.

I did a masters in IR at U of Chicago (CIR) and I would guess my cohort had a median age around 25. I don't think older students were at a disadvantage during the program or after. They certainly weren't black sheep, as we all still studied together, hung out together, etc. Regarding career options, there may be a challenge if you are using the masters to help switch careers, and you still have expectations of a high salary and senior position. But that problem is present if you are switching careers with or without the masters. I am not aware of any employers frowning on you getting masters a little later in life.

My gut reaction is that if you are confident you can do better on the verbal (break 600), I would retake the test. You may still have a shot at those programs with your current score, but the verbal score will not be a strength on your application and should be improved if you can. My thought process is, you want to do everything you can to minimize any weaknesses in your application, and this is an area where there is certainly room for improvement. Because I don't know the admissions profiles of each of those schools, I can't speak to how a 540 will be viewed, but my guess is that it is bellow average.

I'll try to respond to a few of your questions. First, schools do not just award money based on GRE/GPA. To my knowledge they look at the overall strength of their applicants, which will be evaluated differently at each school depending on what they are looking for. As to the difference between part time and full time programs, that seems like something you have to figure out for yourself. If you are purely looking to have the credential of having a masters, perhaps name of school and type of program doesn't matter so much. Given that some jobs give you a pay raise for a degree, regardless of where it came from, that may be something to consider. That said, if you are looking to really learn new skills, build stronger credentials, and strive for a notably different track than you are currently on, the specifics of the program and name of school will probably matter more.

Unfortunately, I don't know the landscape of masters programs that well, so I'm not sure I can help you find the right program. As for the GPA question, I don't think I would highlight the 3.1 vs. 2.7, unless the application specifically asks for "in major" GPA. I could be wrong on this, but I am not sure the difference between 3.1 and 2.7 is really worth highlighting.

I know the feeling. This is my third round of grad school applications. I have to admit, I am pretty excited to get started

First - don't panic! Without knowing your test prep strategy, it is hard to offer specific advice. Identify the specific question types that give you the greatest trouble (Kaplan's software automatically does this), and focus your efforts in that area. You certainly need to know all of your basic equations, geometry, etc. so they are second nature and you don't waste time or make silly mistakes on the test. You've already improved a lot, and with three weeks to go, there's no reason your score can't go higher - just study smart and really focus on the areas where you have the most to gain.

I found I worked out more when I was in grad school than when I have a regular job. For me, hitting the gym was the perfect way to release stress and a great time to think about whatever paper I was writing at the time (when on the bike or treadmill). I also would hit the gym, just as I was about to fall asleep at the library - nothing like exercise to wake you up and get another hour or two of studying in before sleeping. Oh - to the OP who wants a quick, and great workout - I suggest erging (the rowing machines).

University of Chicago - Committee on International Relations. Some funding available.

I don't think you can generalize too much e as to whether a job in either of the fields will require you to be number crunching. I'm a policy analyst, and although I have done my fair share of survey construction and data analysis, it is the minority of what I do. Having the skills to do that kind of work is very marketable, but there are certainly lots of jobs that will have very little or no quantitative analysis. This applies to both "public policy" jobs, which covers a vast range of jobs, and IR, which is also a huge field. In each field you could find a job that is nearly all quantitative or a job that has no or very little quant work.

As I gear up for a fresh round of applications, I just reviewed my GRE score report and was surprised by how much the percentile can change over time. When I took the test in 2007, I scored 690V (96%), 770Q (88%), and 5.0AW (73%). Over three years later, my scores are obviously still the same, but the percentiles are now V-97%, Q-87%, and AW-84%. I was particularly surprised by the 11% change in the AW score. Anyway, I just thought it was interesting to track, and is a good reason to re-check your score report before you self-report older scores/percentiles.

The previous posters all provided sound advice, and I agree that you are a strong candidate. I would also add that given your career goals an MPP or Masters in IR could work well for you. I did U of Chicago's CIR program, which I really enjoyed, and had success (along with many of my classmates) getting a policy oriented job in DC. That said, the MPP (at least at Harris) had more of a focus on research methods and quant, which can be a big asset if you are looking for work at a think tank style place. Best of luck!

I can't tell you where to apply, but I wouldn't be so stressed about the relevance of your work experience to MPP programs. You're looking to get your MPP so you can get the job you really want in the future, not because you already have it. I would bet that you can come up with a few key things you've done in your current and past positions that will be somewhat relevant on your resume (topic research, writing basic reports, multi-tasking in a high pressure environment, etc.). I wouldn't advise you to seek out a new job, just to become a stronger applicant. Instead, focus on getting good GRE scores, securing letters of rec. from people who you know will do a good job, and write a strong statement. The admissions committee isn't going to punish you for having a largely administrative job - most people aren't writing policy or saving the world in their first three years after finishing college, so don't sweat it. Good luck.

My intuition is that you'll have a good chance to get into at least a couple programs. Some are more heavily quant than others, so depending on your undergrad courses in math and your professional experience, that will increase or decrease your likelihood at specific schools. Overall, your GPA is solid, GRE scores are good, which essentially means your essays and LORs will make or break it. Assuming the statement and LORs are strong, I'd be expecting some acceptances.

I agree with the previous posts. Adcoms won't look at the applications until after the deadline, and your new project sounds like a much stronger writing sample than something you did as a sophomore. Good luck.

My impression is that the military experience is definitely relevant and worth including. I am not sure that the personal/life experience can be included in the same way (ie. on your resume), but it can certainly be included in your essay(s). Anything that further demonstrates your knowledge, interest, and commitment to the program and subject matter will be beneficial - you just might have to finesse how you include it in your application.

Are you fishing for compliments? Great job on the GRE! Congratulations, and good luck on the applications.

As someone who currently works as a policy analyst on health care issues, I am relatively familiar with the discussion of MPH vs. MPP. Quite honestly, I think either degree can go a long way in furthering your resume and giving you the skills to conduct more advanced research and policy analysis. Although I can't speak to your complete academic record, I wouldn't be overly concerned about a few poor grades in quantitative classes early in college, assuming you have a generally strong academic record. I think the 740 GRE will demonstrate to the admissions committee that you are capable of doing math, and hopefully you can illustrate in your statement how you have already been using statistical methods and such in your research and analysis. Given that you are limited geographically, you may want to apply to both MPH and MPP programs in your region (I don't know how many programs you are interested in). I am of the opinion that if you could see yourself benefiting from and enjoying the program, you might as well apply. The main disadvantage of applying to more schools, is that you'll have more to choose from once admitted(and obviously the money and effort that goes into applying). Best of luck!

I definitely think you should go for it. Granted, I don't know much about how selective the MPIA program is, but if you don't apply you'll never know. Additionally, your undergrad GPA isn't ever going to change, so the key for you will be to write very strong essays and have strong letters of rec. My experience (U of Chicago CIR) was that not too many students had been out of undergrad for more than a few years, so I don't think you will suffer from a lack of experience. If you apply and it doesn't work out, you could try taking additional courses that might help fill in gaps in your undergrad transcript (such as econ, math, or whatever). Focus on getting great grades and LORs from the faculty, which could help you overcome a somewhat lower undergrad GPA. Best of luck!

My favorite is the graduate bowling comment.

If you know that you want to do the PhD, then it seems smart to apply to it as soon as possible. I don't see much of a reason to wait to apply to the PhD program until after you've completed the MA, which I assume is two years. As for them only accepting 6 - that number is likely to change that much over the next few years, so I would just give it your best shot and see what happens.

I've looked into this for all the schools I'm applying to, and nobody has mentioned them ever expiring before the official 5 year mark. To the OP, I am curious what schools do not let you use scores that are older than two years, but still considered OK by ETS? Thanks,

I tend to agree with the previous post. Faculty are so busy that even if they do manage to respond, they aren't likely to remember you months down the road. If you need to know something that is important to applying or your research, go ahead and ask, but I wouldn't contact a bunch of professors just for the sake of getting on their radar or trying to help your chances of admission.

When I applied last time around, I think I applied to 17-18 schools. I had three professors provide all of my recommendations, and although I know they weren't big fans of doing LORs, nobody complained about how many schools I applied to. I also made sure to give them a nice thank you card/present after the ordeal, which may actually payoff since I'll be asking one of them to do it all over again this year.