myshemblable

Mygreen, What you say makes a lot of sense. I agree that the two components are "accomplishment" (why someone should listen to you) and "connections" (you have to pick a side, meet the right people, stay loyal, etc etc) My real question, then, is around how you build accomplishments-what.in my first post, I called "source of expertise". From what I'm hearing, it seems like working your way up the Hill (as opposed to working up a bureaucracy or a university) seems to be the route to climb. Are those types of jobs that people get out of programs like SAIS, Georgetown, and the rest? Do you even need those programs to "reset" or should you just go and work there directly? Are you better served being in DC than elsewhere?

Sorry...on a mobile phone and accidentally hit reply... Empty promises. I am more inclined towards direct routes that imply a clarity of purpose. Thoughts?

Sorry...on a mobile phone and accidentally hit reply... Empty promises. I am more inclined towards direct routes that imply a clarity of purpose. Thoughts?

Sorry...on a mobile phone and accidentally hit reply... Empty promises. I am more inclined towards direct routes that imply a clarity of purpose. Thoughts?

Hi guys, Apologies for going missing and for not driving the discussion forward. I have appreciated all of the comments so far, but have been in transit and not well-positioned to reply. A few of my own thoughts: I chose to take the "prestige" track out of undergrad and went to work at a high-flying private sector firm, despite knowing that it was not directly relevant to my long-term interests. As a result, most of my friends have points of view similar to Nabad's. I feel that I have a pretty strong grasp of the pros and cons of that life. I have seen a very small number of my colleagues go on to lives that align with their original interests, while I have also seen plenty of people stuck in career paths they didn't realize they had signed up for. The real question I am asking is that, if I am very clear in this career goal, what is the most direct way of getting there? What are the pros and cons of less direct paths? I have to be honest and say that I am generally biased against delayed gratification approaches, as I see them as paths full of em

Nabad, Interesting point on the "old boys' clubs". From what I am reading, places like HKS and WWS are broader and have a large percentage of their students focused on domestic issues, rather than on purely IR issues. Wouldn't that be an advantage in favor of programs like SAIS/Georgetown/SIPA/Fletcher/ etc. On that same note, how beneficial are two years in DC (e.g., at SAIS or Georgetown) vs spending those two years in Boston/New York/New Haven? I also noticed that you mentioned law schools in the mix. What would be the advantage of going to law school vs. a MPP or Masters in IR type program? Pure prestige? Seems like an expensive habit with the extra $60K in debt.

Hi guys, I am starting the process of researching Master's degrees in Foreign Affairs and had a few introductory questions for you that I had trouble finding in the forums. My goal is to work in foreign policy in DC. My dream job is working as a foreign policy advisor for a Congressman/Senator/President (yeah yeah, it's ambitious, but I am aiming high at this point). My big functional areas of interest are in security and political economy with geographic interests in East Asia and East Africa. I have done some, but not enough, research into the backgrounds of people with the types of careers that I want and it seems that most people fall into a few different types of backgrounds: Political Science academics who have made the jump into the policy world: These people tend to develop expertise through research in specific issues, perhaps work in thinktanks,or stay at universities, then make the jump by attaching themselves to some political figure based upon this expertise (Condoleeza and Anne-Marie Slaughter jump to mind as examples) Career DC'ers with Masters degrees in Foreign Affairs: These people typically come to DC straight out of Masters programs in Foreign Affairs and then go to work in DC either in a government agency, or they go straight to the Hill and work their way up. Their expertise is more based upon positions held (typically starting as an aide in some relevant foreign affairs field) than upon research as is the case in Type 1. (Cofer Black, Mitt Romney's foreign policy advisor, and Obama's current Chief of Staff Denis McDonough come to mind) Military/Other bureaucracy: People who come straight from the Military/Intelligence/State Department etc etc etc. These people may not necessarily have any graduate degree, but have some kind of base within government and meet people from there. They may be careerists in a government agency first, then they make the jump into something relevant Career DC'ers with other professional degrees: These people are very similar to Type 2, but may come from JD or MBA backgrounds, rather than Foreign Affairs degrees. (Dan Blumenthal jumps to mind) I wanted to get this forum's opinions on the differences in these backgrounds and what they might mean and also perhaps ask some career advice for the best jump to make given my background. From what I gather, Type 4 used to be very, very common, but is increasingly rare as the degree landscape changes. Even in my initial research, I was surprised at how many people seem to be Type 2. Here's a bit about me: Previous Schools (Name, type, or tier): Top 5 private research university Previous Degrees and GPAs: International Relations (3.8 GPA) GRE Scores (Verbal/Quantitative/Analytical Writing): Haven't taken it yet Previous Work Experience (Years, Type): 2 years at a top management consulting firm on the East Coast, 1 year at as a consultant to an agricultural development agency of an East African government, 3 month internship at an East Asian democracy/human rights foundation (in that country), 3 month internship at a China-focused research agency in DC International Experience: 1 year at as a consultant to an agricultural development agency of an East African government, studied abroad in China, Taiwan and Vietnam Other Relevant Experience: President of a student group on US-China relations during undergrad Math/Econ Background: Multivariable calculus, intro micro and macro econ, intermediate micro econ, two econometrics courses, international political economy Foreign Language Background (if applicable to your program): English, Mandarin (advanced, 4 years university study), basic Amharic I started to post this in the existing "Am I competitive" thread, but realized that I'm asking less about competitiveness and more about fit. Given my background, do I "jump out" as more one of these types than others? Would love to get any input from you guys that I could. Also, if this is in the wrong place, let me know and I am happy to repost elsewhere. Thanks for the feedback!

Marketman, My natural tendency is to turn to a regional focus. In undergrad, I had a heavy focus on East Asia (China, Taiwan, Singapore, Korea, Vietnam, in particular) and would love to leverage that experience. My development work will be in East Africa, which provides a very different frame of reference. That said, in the long term, I am looking for what is universal about these topic areas. I want to be a political scientists first and foremost, not a regionalist. I have also found that my regional interests are pretty broad and change frequently (just compare my undergrad and work experiences). For that reason, I feel that a functional focus might do me better in the long run. Thoughts? I'd love to get your insights on programs, as you seem already to done a lot of legwork.

Hi everyone, Thanks for the replies. It is encouraging to hear that things are not as hopeless as I initially thought. In terms of my past experience, I agree that my consulting and development experience aren't weaknesses, all else being equal, and could give me very unique and tangible insights in putting together my application. Ideally, I can figure out how to tie all of these experiences into a coherent SOP. As for research interests, I am still working on articulating things clearly. I am not even sure yet that interests qualify more as Political Economy or Comparative Politics. The overarching theme is that I am interested in how economic distribution impacts ground-level political decision-making and participation. Essentially, the impact of economic decision-making (both macro and micro) on constituency-level political decision-making. A couple of key topics come to mind: Patronage systems / corruption and development Decision-making regarding preferential trade agreements Ethnicity, development, and political participation With all of these topics, I think you could look at a cool cross-section of development types (aid-driven vs. organic growth-driven economies), country types (large vs. small countries, homogeneous vs heterogeneous societies, etc etc). I recognize that I will need to tighten up these interests and get much better at articulating them. That said, I'd appreciate any initial feedback. Do any immediate programs jump out as relevant? Regarding IRToni's comments on European MAs, has anyone tried this option? Do you have thoughts on any good programs that provide real research experience?

MarketMan, Thank you for your reply! 1) I have a couple of longer undergrad samples that I could pull together with a little cleaning up. I doubt they'd contain earth-shattering revelations, but they'd prove I could write. 2) I have done research, but it is proprietary. I'm not sure there is an easy way to share anything. In addition, it would all be in deck format. Not something I'm sure that Adcoms would get. I agree that I am a classic case for the more professionally-oriented policy degrees (MPP/MPA/etc). However, my concern is that these degrees would give me less tangible research experience than an MA that was geared towards people thinking about a phD. Assuming that I wanted to pursue the phD afterwards (rather than return to my firm), I'd still have to pay for the MPA/MPP on my own anyway, putting me in the same spot financially. In your view, are there any unique advantages to a professional grad degree? The only thing I can think of is comparative advantage. Given my background, I will have an easier time getting into a top top professional school (whether it's an MBA, JD, or MPA/MPP) than I would getting into something less "relevant". A professional degree might help move me along towards more policy-oriented things, but how much will it really help me move into the world of academia?

Hi guys, I am a prospective phD student in political science. As an undergrad, I majored in International Relations at a top 5 US university. I was close to a couple of professors, but did very little real research. I even dropped out of my senior thesis to dedicate more time to student groups. I maintained a ~3.8 GPA overall (slightly higher in my IR major). I spent two summers and a quarter working abroad in East Asia and am fluent in an Asian language. After graduating, I took a job with a top 3 management consulting firm. I have worked there for about 2 years. In a few weeks, I will begin a year-long stint working for an African development agency in-country. I have the option of returning to my firm after that, and they will even sponsor 2 years of graduate work (typically an MBA, but other professional degrees would work, as well), assuming that I come back afterwards. That said, I am generally dissatisfied with my career trajectory and do not think that I will be happy with a life in the private sector. I have done quite a bit of soul-searching and decided that an academic career in political science is what I want. I am open to getting involved in government/policy work, but, first and foremost, I want to be a scholar advancing the field. Let's focus less on whether or not I am making the right decision. Assume that I can do the math and understand that the opportunity cost of switching from my current path is very high, even in the best case outcome. My question for you today is whether or not I am an adequate applicant in my current state, or whether or not I should look into a terminal MA or some other graduate degree to strengthen my application. The economics of a two-year MA program are not great, but I could pay for maybe 1/3 of the total program cost by burning through my post-grad work savings. I would probably need to take on debt for the remaining 2/3 of the cost. A couple of specific questions for you: 1) Given my lack of research experience, do I have a shot at any decent program as I stand today? For simplification, let's assume I could pull off solid GRE scores. 2) Is it worth the financial and time burden of doing a terminal MA, or some other graduate degree? Again, let's assume that I could use the time effectively and improve my GPA, recs, and get in at least one decent research paper. Would my application be stronger then? Would it be enough to "move up" in terms of the types of programs I could get accepted into? I really appreciate your advice!