greendiplomat

Right. I don't see why people are so up-in-arms about this post. The question wasn't so much an attempt to devalue people pursuing MAs in IR, but, rather, an honest question asking whether the degree is the most marketable option compared to other options out there (obviously a person applying to IR programs wouldn't devalue his/her own degree...). I myself think that, if you want to go into work related to international relations where a Master's degree is often the minimum qualification required, MAs in IR are a viable option. If, on the other hand, you're considering other options, you might want to go with a more general degree like an MPP (with the option of pursuing an international track) And yes, the "bragging" claim was totally uncalled for, and, again, I don't see why people are angry about this particular one and not the 239492387498237 others listing their accomplishments and asking for an honest assessment of their chances. Since internet-speak (posts, emails, IMs) can often be misinterpreted, let's give people the benefit of the doubt and keep this forum the friendly and open one that it is!

While I think it would be nice to have at least 1 academic LOR, I don't think it's the end of the world (especially considering that these are largely professional programs). If you're worried, you might want to look for a professional reference that could reflect on your academic capabilities. Any work experience that was, for example, very research-based?

I'm coming directly from undergrad, so GRE scores are, relatively speaking, important. Given that you will have had (I'm assuming) at least 4 years of WE upon matriculation, I wouldn't worry too much about your GRE scores being slightly below the median for some of these schools (besides, most of these schools have medians around the 700 mark, so I think you'll be fine). The only school where you *might* have trouble would be HKS. This said, I get that you've taught for the past few years, but I think that the main thing you should be concerned about is how focused your career goals will come across. My only reason for pointing this out is that you're applying to a very wide range of programs. On the spectrum of programs covered by this forum ("Governmental Affairs"), I feel like Wagner and SAIS are on opposite ends, the former being a very standard Public Admin degree, while the latter is a "pure" International Affairs degree. That is, unless, you're interested in International Public Management or International Development (the fields covered by Wagner's "International" track). What field are you interested in, and what are your long-term career goals?

From what I gather, GPA matters less and less the longer you've been in the workforce, and, considering that you've proven yourself capable of doing well at Fletcher, I think you'll be fine. The quantitative score for the GRE might be more of a concern, but, since Fletcher's program's flexible enough that you can graduate without much quantitative work, I don't think this is a deal-breaker either. Just make sure your statement and recommendations are good!

I mean, theoretically, you could distribute you SOP as it stands across the 3 parts and essentially get the same point across. This said, if you think that that would really mess things up, maybe consider emailing the adcom? While SIPA has a reputation of being impersonal and whatnot, everyone's actually super helpful and forthcoming if you take the time to seek them out. Just my 2 cents.

pizzatime, I think the question was more with regards to employment. As indicated by the salary scales, I'm take it that GPA doesn't really matter in terms of what salary you start with, but I'm assuming a high GPA would make it more likely for you to land the job in the first place.

Oh, and I forgot to mention, Columbia's SIPA has 3 degrees that could be considered "environmental policy": the MIA with a policy concentration in Energy & Environment; the MPA with the same policy concentration; or the MPA in Environmental Science and Policy. In my previous post, I was mainly talking about the MIA with environmental concentration (the course offerings in the field are really staggering), which, to my opinion, is highly regarded. The MPA-ESP is a 1-year intensive program that was created within the last decade or so, and, as most MPAs doesn't have as international of a focus (although I think it's more international than most MPAs). I think it's the latter that's not as highly regarded, just because it hasn't been around for that long. Just my 2 cents.

I think I posted this on another thread as well, but I think it's important to note whether these programs are strong (or not) in domestic or international environmental policy (or both). Anyone have any insight on this? How does Duke do in terms of international environmental policy? What are some other good schools for international? I only know that Columbia's MIA program has an excellent selection of international environmental policy courses, mostly thanks to the Earth Institute (and I only know this because I do my undergrad here).

I think it really depends on how you phrase it. If your "why" section just treats the program as a stepping stone to a PhD and you leave it at that, that could very well be a deal-breaker. If, however, you mention that a PhD is within your plans and you elaborate on what you intend on doing with the PhD, I think it's a completely different story. (Sorry if that was really obvious, but I feel like it was worth verbalizing).

Yeah, the fact that you've been out of school for a while (and with impressive work experience!) don't make your grades as crucial to your admissions (not to say that they don't matter). Out of the 3 you mentioned, I'm sure you have a good shot at Columbia (I'm only knowledgeable about the standards for this school since I'm finishing off my undergrad here and have taken a bunch of SIPA classes). ... though I agree with Politicalgeek that numbers for GPA and GRE (even if only approximate) will allow us to give you a better approximation.

I'm leaning towards the MIA with a Energy & Environmental Policy as my policy concentration, but mainly due to my academic/professional interests. A few thoughts on the MPA-ESP: - Great if you're pretty sure that your career will involve environmental science/policy. - Obviously less internationally focused than the MIA; compared with the regular MPA, however, I don't think there's much of a difference in that they're primarily domestically focused but have international components (as an example, I edited what was originally a term paper for the Hydrology course in the MPA-ESP for the journal I run, and it was on water systems management in the Philippines). - The fact that it's a one-year program could be a pro or a con; while it's definitely cheaper, it only leaves room for 2 electives (which wouldn't be a problem if your interests are covered by the required classes). - The higher admit rate could also be a pro or a con; while getting in will be easier (and, from what I understand, fellowship funding for the program is separate from the regular MIA and MPA), it could be less prestigious (but then again, "MPA in Environmental Science and Policy" and "MPA with a concentration in Energy & Environment" from SIPA probably don't look much different to prospective employers... I probably have this bias because I know a lot of the faculty/admin involved in both programs). The deciding factor for me was the number of electives I could take... my interests are in environmental governance in conflict zones, so I want to be able to take classes in both environmental policy and humanitarian affairs (and they even have a class on the environment-conflict nexus "Environment, Conflict & Resolution Strategies"!). Then again, judging from your interests, it would seem that the MPA-ESP would be the better fit. Here are the links to the respective curricula if you haven't already come across them: http://sipa.columbia.edu/academics/degr ... nce09.html http://www.columbia.edu/cu/mpaenvironme ... culum.html Hope this helps!

In general, I don't think a slightly lower verbal score should hurt you too much (I mean, your quant scores are solid, and your verbal isn't that low to begin with). I guess the question would be whether you think you can improve your scores the second time around. If you think you didn't really study all that much the first time around, I'd just grab a GRE book and do practice problems, memorize words that appear frequently, etc. If, on the other hand, you felt like you studied a lot the first time around and doubt that your verbal score would go up, I'd take your scores as they are and focus your energies on other (perhaps more important) parts of your app.

I feel like your question would be better answered by HKS itself (i'm assuming there's a length limit to these posts!). Here's the page from which you can access the various master's programs offered: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/degrees/masters

Just to follow up / clarify on Douracell's point, there's an MPA in Development Practice, and a PhD in Sustainable Development (I thought I'd 'defend' my home institution...). The MPA in Development Practice, as can be seen by the curriculum (http://sipa.columbia.edu/academics/degr ... culum.html) focuses on the Sachs-style model of development aid, and, while it includes an environmental component, it's definitely not the focus (I mean, there's more required public health classes than environmental ones). The PhD curriculum (http://sipa.columbia.edu/academics/degr ... culum.html), while also based on the Sachs-style model of development, includes a much heavier environmental component. Here again, though, it's important to note that it's a degree in sustainable development (i.e. development that is sustainable), rather than environmental sustainability in general.

I would avoid retaking the GRE unless you're certain that you can raise your quantitative score above your first 3 attempts this time around. Considering that you have a finance background, you absolutely need to prove your quantitative ability, and reaffirming those scores won't really help (I'm not necessarily saying it'll do you bad, but, if anything, taking the GRE isn't cheap...).

I'll have to disagree on this one. Yes, statistically, doctoral programs are harder to get into. This said, that doesn't mean that the solution to getting into a doctoral program is by gaining more work experience than would be required by a master's program. What's important to note here is that whereas the primary purpose of doctoral programs is to train people for academia (though, obviously, people go on to do different things), master's programs in the field are primarily for professional advancement. As such, the important thing to prove to future advisors that you're cut out to do the research, not that you have general exposure to the field. Undergraduate academic record becomes important here (publications in your field are a plus), and if you want to supplement that with a master's or work experience, just be sure that these are conducive to this end; look for master's programs that have a research (i.e. thesis) component or job experience that's relatively research-oriented. Just my 2 cents, but, considering the different purposes of doctoral and master's programs, make sure that money isn't the only thing that's making your decision. After all, if you do end up pursuing a PhD, you'll be in a highly academic environment for 5 years (or more!), and, apart from the opportunity cost of giving up this time, this requires a lot of patience/dedication.

Thanks, mims. That's what I was thinking, but I wanted to confirm.

Hello all! So I'm pretty sure I'm applying for Fall 2011, but I'm taking the GRE anyways because there's a slight chance I might be applying for Fall 2010 (besides, I think my mind's more in the quantitative/academic mindset right after having taken a bunch of math courses, than it will be a year or so out of college). Since score reports cost $20 apiece after the initial 4 that are included in the testing fees, I was thinking of sending my scores to the 4 schools I'm definitely sure I'll be applying to. In the event that I don't end up applying this year, would they keep the scores for consideration for Fall 2011? I know that reapplying candidates, for example, don't have to resubmit their scores, but I'm wondering if they do the same for people that haven't formally applied in the first place... All help appreciated!

Hey there moose, I'm also in a similar boat (though I'm an econ and environmental science double major and plan on applying for fall 2011). Are you more interested in domestic or international environmental policy? I know this might seem like a no-brainer, but I often find that schools often lump the two under the general "environmental policy". It's definitely useful to look into the course offerings in the field to tell what kind of bent their environmental policy programs have. I'm currently an undergrad at Columbia, so I can tell you a lot about SIPA (I've taken a bunch of classes there). Are you looking into the MIA, the MPA (both with concentrations in Energy & Environment), or the MPA in Environmental Science and Policy? Hope this helps.