gradytripp

lol if you actually think syracuse is better than WWS and HKS, you are in for a rude awakening. people from syracuse always bring up the #1 US news rankings to justify their decision to "choose" maxwell over WWS/HKS (they got rejected in truth). maxwell, although it is a good school, is nowhere near the top of the list when it comes to elite MPP/MPA programs. i have yet to see anyone who has turned down WWS for maxwell or has chosen HKS over maxwell with funding between relatively equal.

My two cents:
The US news rankings are worthless. When I was working in NYC and DC, senior people with whom I worked generally considered SAIS, SFS, HKS, SIPA, WWS, and Fletcher to be in the top tier for international policy/etc, but it varied widely once you drilled down to specific fields. Lots of other schools out there are great, especially if you know you're going into security, quant-based policy analysis, or what have you, and can chose based on school strengths. Internationally, it seems that overall school name means more than anything else. When I was in China, everyone thought (assumed) HKS was the best, and rated Yale, Columbia, and Princeton highly as well.

As for Princeton specifically, I think it might have a little less brand recognition due to the relatively smaller alumni base. In that respect, it's not unlike Stanford Business School. Both seem to do rather well despite that.

Bottom line, all policy schools have strengths and weaknesses. While you could probably identify a top tier (sort of), the utility of that is difficult to really quantify. Despite this, I imagine that most people would consider WWS a top program (some in Washington think that it is THE top policy program).

Bottom line, I wouldn't put too much faith in the U.S. News rankings in general, and especially not with rankings for a small subset of graduate programs (rankings that are 3 years old now too). Princeton is one of the top handful of MPP (and MPA) programs. It has a fantastic reputation and it pays for most of its student to attend, which is why it has an acceptance rate somewhere below 10%. Coincidentally, there was a malcolm gladwell article that just came out detailing exactly how arbitrary college rankings are (let alone MPP rankings). http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_gladwell

I do not think either of the previous two people were attacking her to be honest.  The truth hurts sometimes.
 
And I disagree, that you should "take as much time as you need".  There are deadlines for a reason because the adcoms need time to refer to the waitlist if needed.  Everyone else has to obey their guidelines, so what makes her so special?

If I could like this 1000x I would. 
 
It is awful to think how selfish you are being right now.  What you have done in paying two deposits and simply going "in circles" is certainly not illegal, but it is unethical and defeats the good faith that all of these schools have put on you to weigh the pros/cons and make a decision in a timely manner.  You had plenty of time to make up your mind.  Just go to the "Waiting it out" section on this forum and read about the people who are still waiting to get into ONE school.  The longer you hold out means that one person on the Fletcher waitlist is going to miss out on his/her dream school and be forced to enroll elsewhere.  I understand that this is a major decision in your life, but it is rather disgusting to think that you might be one of my classmates at SIPA this fall because of what you are doing. 
 
Am I being too harsh on some random on an internet forum? Yeah, probably. Am I going to get a bunch of negatives?  Maybe.  Just grow up a little and think about the bigger picture.

It's not the fact that "everyone is probably as over this decision" as you are that should make you feel embarrassed.  
 
It's the fact that you're sitting on scholarship money at these institutions that could otherwise have really helped someone, or could have changed their decision.  Just like the "unexpected 2nd round funding from SIPA" changed your calculus.
 
And that's just selfish.  And shameful.  And sh+tty.
 
Either put on your big girl boots and pull the trigger or make a date with the Karma gods.  Your choice.

^ LULZ don't be silly undegrad. Everyone knows that the Stene program at Kansas is one of the oldest and most respected MPA programs in the country. They have a heavy focus on city managment, but have several first-rate scholars that you would do well to read. See H. George Frederickson, Steven Maynard-Moody et al.

They are completely irrelevant (and absolutely misleading) for public policy schools that focus on international affairs, so they most certainly aren't the "best source out there." Somehow I doubt, even for pure "public affairs" schools, Indiana is better than Harvard and Georgia better than Princeton, which has nothing to do with prestige and everything to do with a school's resources, quality of faculty, and so on. Public affairs as an academic, non-professional discipline is what is being measured here. It's like "public relations" as an academic discipline (i.e. irrelevant). Academicians will have a natural bias toward academic programs, and most of the top programs discussed on this forum are not pure academic programs and most blend public with international affairs. If US News attempted a similar ranking for international affairs programs with no public affairs ranking, it would be like using APSIA to survey schools about the quality of pure public policy programs. It doesn't make sense and it's a fundamental flaw with the ranking. Anyone who goes to Indiana thinking they're at a more highly regarded program than Harvard/HKS is absolutely, 100% delusional. The schools with the best reputation in the government/public sector/NGOs as well as the private sector are not represented accurately in this ranking.

If you are seriously thinking that the US news list for MPAs are even close then you are delusional. First of all, the biggest factor that should matter is a school's ability to place students in jobs. Everything else is secondary. Secondly, the reason why these rankings suck compared to the ones for undergrad, law, or business is because it is just hard to collect info and streamline the methodology and rankings for MPA programs which are harder to quantify and qualify. It is better to use common sense such as knowing that any ranking that places Syracuse, Georgia, or Indiana above Princeton and Harvard clearly has a flawed system.

Oh Jesus, everyone knows the US News ranking is wildly inaccurate. No need to repost it here thus giving it more false credence. Asking people to provide their own rankings accomplishes literally nothing except revealing the biases of everyone here. If you want an informal assessment of the top programs, you can search practically every thread in this forum. 

How would you rank the MPA programs? US News' top 25 rankings are below. What are your top 5? Top 10? Top 25? What makes a MPA program better than others in your mind?
 
Rank School name Score #1  
Syracuse University (Maxwell)
Syracuse, NY
4.5 #2 Indiana University–​Bloomington Bloomington, IN
4.4 #3 Harvard University (Kennedy) Cambridge, MA
4.3 #4 University of Georgia Athens, GA
4.2 #5 Princeton University (Wilson) Princeton, NJ
4.1 #6 New York University (Wagner) New York, NY
4.0 #6 University of California–​Berkeley (Goldman) Berkeley, CA
4.0 #6 University of Southern California (Price) Los Angeles, CA
4.0 #9 Carnegie Mellon University (Heinz) Pittsburgh, PA
3.9 #9 University of Kansas Lawrence, KS
3.9 #9 University of Washington (Evans) Seattle, WA
3.9 #12 American University Washington, DC
3.8 #12 George Washington University (Trachtenberg) Washington, DC
3.8 #12 University of Michigan–​Ann Arbor (Ford) Ann Arbor, MI
3.8 #12 University of Wisconsin–​Madison (La Follette) Madison, WI
3.8 #16 Arizona State University Phoenix, AZ
3.7 #16 Duke University (Sanford) Durham, NC
3.7 #16 Florida State University (Askew) Tallahassee, FL
3.7 #16 University at Albany–​SUNY (Rockefeller) Albany, NY
3.7 #16 University of Kentucky (Martin) Lexington, KY
3.7 #16 University of Minnesota–​Twin Cities (Humphrey) Minneapolis, MN
3.7 #16 University of Texas–​Austin (LBJ) Austin, TX
3.7 #23 Georgetown University Washington, DC
3.6 #23 Georgia State University (Young) Atlanta, GA
3.6 #23 Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey–​Newark Newark, NJ
3.6  

While I too agree that the rankings do have some innate inaccuracies, I do think it provides a glimpse into a schools quality. The survey is administered to deans, directors and department chairs of the 266 public affairs institutions in the US (two per school), who I would hope have some amount of expertise on the subject even if they are biased.  A basic 1 to 5 quality score is given and then averaged to come up with the final ranking. The response rate is actually 39% which really isn't that bad (if you have ever administered a large survey before you will know).  I think the point is well taken that public affairs is loosely defined, but US News doesn’t even create the definition they are supplied a list of schools by the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration and the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management. All of this information can be found in their methodology section (a section that most people do not know exists it would seem).
 
To be clear I don’t put too much stake in these rankings, but I do think they get a worse reputation than they deserve. Honestly, it is the best source out there and while imperfect (and skewed toward academia) it does provide some useful information about a programs quality. No one should ever make a decision based solely on these ranking, but as you search for schools I don’t think keeping them in mind does any great disservice to you.

Just look at the top schools being talked about in this forum.... half aren't even on the US News top 25, mainly because those schools have an international affairs focus, but also because the US News definition of "public affairs" is completely unclear (and so is their methodology). The survey response rate is notoriously low (somewhere in the low 30th percentile), and professors will have a natural bias toward pure academician-types that are often only half the faculty at top programs. US News also has the International Studies and Politics ranking (http://www.usnews.com/education/worlds-best-universities-rankings/best-universities-politics-and-international-studies) that is more accurate for int'l affairs programs but is still an academic ranking and not oriented toward professional schools.

Your formulaic answers are clearly reflective of someone whom works for the school and is trying to present a candy glazed picture. Please just direct questions to your work phone or the schools website, and cease your dissemination of propaganda here. This is a place to get true information from the program and not candied responses.

I think it's relevant. It's saying if OP wants to, he/she might consider re-applying next cycle, and use the time in-between to really boost his/her profile. OP clearly is a good applicant, based on the list of accepted schools. With more work experience, higher GRE, more language, maybe some part-time classes with A's, I bet OP would get great funding.

If it's so obvious that you can transform your candidate profile, why do so many people create a false dichotomy of big debt, top school vs. less debt, second-choice school? Why not do the work to get less debt, top choice? I am not the only poster in here saying that taking a year off to improve yourself is a highly viable option.

People underestimate the degree to which they can avoid debt if they are willing to put in the work to improve their admission profile.

I would argue that many critical admission/fin-aid metrics, including GPA, GRE, obtaining internships/jobs (not necessarily your performance in them), and foreign language boil down to who cares more. Not inherent intelligence, not your financial resources, not where you were born. Effort, pure and simple. Put in the work, and you get paid for it (literally).

If you spend 4 hours a night studying in college, you're going to have a great GPA. If you spend 500+ hours studying for the GRE, you're going to have a sick score. If you are willing to troll online for hours to find relevant internships/jobs and send out 20+ applications, you're going to get one. If you take time every single day to study a foreign language, you will become proficient in it. Polishing your SOP, researching your schools to detail exactly how you are a fit for them - so much of apps (and life?) comes down to desire. There are trade-offs involved: time you spend doing those things means time not spent with friends, lovers, a good book, a sunny meadow on a spring day. It might not make you happier, or well-rounded. But if you put in the work, I guarantee someone will give you admission + serious funding.

I'll be attending one of my top schools on a full ride. It didn't just happen - I did all the things mentioned above, and more. Sometimes it sucked, GRE prep particularly so, as I ended up at about 750 hours prep time. But the thought that kept me going was that not being able to attend grad school, which I wouldn't be able to sans major funding, would suck infinitely more. So I put in the work, and now I get to go to school for free. Not because I'm smarter (guarantee that's not the case), not because I'm richer (my bank account laughs at this): because I cared more, and did the work other people weren't willing to do.

You can write this off as self-aggrandizement. Or get upset because you didn't get the financial aid you wanted and think I'm insinuating you're lazy. But fundamentally, grad school admissions and fin-aid are not mysteries. Everyone knows the things they look at to make decisions. It's your choice whether you invest the time and out-work competitors.

No one is being sensitive here. I am trying to be practical because I have met people with international backgrounds like his who were not academic aces, but their experiences and lives abroad are well valued by these schools because they bring in a different point of view and s/he shot it down like she knew the admissions process. Why do you think these schools love to publish where their students come from and how "international" they are, it is effectively the essence of the program. Here at SIPA, it is really interesting to sit in a room with an Israeli and an Egyptian and hearing them talk about their respective foreign policies, and if a school finds a decent applicant from that country, they may just admit him/her (charge them the max, I might add) because not only does it boost their stats, but it is insightful for other US students to hear them speak, at least it is for me and many of my US colleagues.

And, It's not like he didn't seem to know that his chances were not great, or I bet he wouldn't be gauging someone else's reaction. I just don't like when people come in here and act like they are gods gift to this forum and they know all the ins and outs of the process. It is fine to tell an individual to improve on their IR experience and and perhaps take a couple of classes and that may improve their chances, but to just say it so abruptly is spiteful. I don't know who you are, but it sounds like you know the ins and outs of the admissions process and could predict with an almost certainty where someone will get accepted.
And btw why would his/her criticism hit close to home, I don't know what that even means, could you please explain...troll. Looking at your posts, you seem to be Myrnist's number 1 fan, pathetic.

You come off terribly sensitive and perhaps MYRNIST criticism hit a little close to home. MYRNIST while a bit abrupt, was on point. No IR experience, middle-tier university, and poor grades does not equal a top 5 IR school. This may be harsh, but it is spot on.