greendiplomat
-
Posts
244 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by greendiplomat
-
-
Yeah, thought as much. Small program has its benefits I guess. On the website it states around 300 applications are made, so by that math, about 10% are taken!!!!!!!
Worrying.
Well that assumes that all students that get into Yale accept their offer, which is clearly not the case.
That same FAQ page states that 50-60 students are admitted out of the 300, which would place the admit rate in the 16.7-20% range.
-
Oh, by the way, does anyone know what HKS's admission rate is these days? It used to be 30%, but I'm pretty sure Chicago and GPPI currently stand at about 15%, so I can imagine HKS's is probably around 10 or even less. I hate how screwed our generation is haha.
Where did you get this information? Unless things have changed drastically over the past year or two, I'm sure Chicago (Harris) and GPPI don't have admit rates of "about 15%". Petersons.com includes admit rate info for a good number of the schools they report on, and, while their data's usually not completely up to date, they provide a good benchmark. No data for GPPI, but they list 60% for the Harris school, which seems about right.
According to this, 21% for HKS, which, again, seems accurate.
-
Of course, otherwise why would i be re-applying? didn't mean to scare anybody, thought that was obvious...
Context is i applied straight out of undergrad, got rejected, then a few days ago got a totally random and unsolicited e-mail encouraging me to re-apply. what does it mean? i'm doing something else at the moment so obviously i am not going to drop everything i've built just to apply to SIPA, but if i can be guaranteed admission (or something close), i might do it. otherwise, if the result is going to be the exact same, i'm not going to cancel everything i was going to do NEXT year just to wait for the same verdict from them once again.
what do you think it means?
Given that glitches are possible (the Cornell undergraduate rejects accidentally being sent acceptance letters comes to mind), I don't think anything's "obvious". Getting an email encouraging you to reapply doesn't necessarily mean, at least given the limited context of your first post, that you're considering to reapply, as you elaborate in the second.
I think it depends on the nature of the email, which is more of what I was asking for. Assuming it was a generic email (from "admissions") asking you to reapply, I'd imagine that maybe there aren't as many registrants on SIPA's online application portal as they hope for roughly a month before the deadline, and that they're emailing previously unsuccessful candidates to get those numbers up. In this case, I'd say that, yes, you have more of a shot than you probably did the first time you applied due to your increased work experience, but not necessarily more than anyone else they're emailing (again, if they're just sending emails to all previously unsuccessful applicants, say, in the past year). If, on the other hand, it was a personalized email from a particular admissions officer's email account, then it could be that you were a borderline case when you applied and that they actually wanted to encourage you in particular to reapply. I'm imagining it's somewhere in between, though: a mass email sent to previously unsuccessful candidates that had limited work experience, since they're the most likely to have improved their candidacy.
In general, though, I think whether you reapply should be determined by how much you'd rather go to SIPA than what you were "going to do NEXT year" (is this a graduate program? a job?), as opposed to whether you're "guaranteed" to get in.
- greendiplomat and CaptainCrunk
-
1
-
1
-
Hey --
For letter's of rec, do the authors need to sign the letter if they're submitting the rec electronically? Or can they just sign it with their typed name?
One of my recommenders is asking -- if he has to actually sign it, he has to go find a scanner and figure out how to use technology. Haha.
I'm pretty sure what your recommender will have to do is exactly the same as what you do on the application itself--sign it by typing your full name.
-
hi, i'm wondering if anyone else got an email from SIPA recommending that you re-apply to SIPA, completely out of the blue? what does it mean?
More context, please. So as not to scare any current applicants, I'm taking it that you applied in a previous cycle and didn't get in?
-
Hello all,
So I have a dilemma. For a lot of the grad application instructions I see, most recommend one academic reference, one professional reference, and the last either/or. The catch is that this is the "recommended" route, not the "required" route. Now I could go back and did up an academic rec, but it's been five years since I graduated and I doubt they will be able to say something informative/interesting about me. I am debating whether or not just to forgo the one academic route, and go with really good letters from professional colleagues (two of whom happen to have PhD's.)
What you you guys think?
I think the question here is who would shed light on something that's not already covered in the rest of the application. In general, I don't think 5 years is enough time out of undergrad to warrant not having a single academic reference (since you could easily provide the professor with a CV and a representative piece of coursework to nudge him/her in the right direction), but, again, you know your own profile better than anyone else. I think the only case where you wouldn't provide an academic reference is if the rest of your application leaves no question that you can handle the coursework through grades in relevant classes, etc. (or maybe some your work involves something relatively "academic", e.g. research, that this third recommendation could touch upon), and, again, if this third referee you have in mind can say something that's not already said in the other two professional references.
-
I agree with the gist of where this conversation is going, but one point on word counts: the online application interfaces compile all the components of your application into one massive PDF (regardless of the format you upload your documents in), which the admissions offices then print before reviewing. As such, no, they won't run a word count on your application.
This said, after reading hundreds of applications, I'm sure admissions officers can get a sense when applications are longer than the word limits, so, if you're having trouble getting the essay under the word limit, I'd recommend that you get it as close as possible to the word limit without compromising quality. I'd say that Clay Made's rule of thumb is accurate in that you should only exceed the word limit by 10% at the very most, but I think this applies when the word limit, is, say 500 words. For a 1,000-word essay, I really think you should make every attempt to get it as short as you can.
-
Congrats on getting your application submitted. I'm a bit jealous because I'm still working on mine and hoping to get it all complete by early next week. I don't see much of a problem unless one of my recommenders fails to submit on time.
1. Does anybody know how strict they are with recs being submitted? The website does say all supporting materials need to be submitted by 2 December 5 pm, but was wondering if they were a bit lenient...
2. For the CV essay, did you submit 1 or 2 pages? I can't find anywhere whether there's a restriction to length for this.
1. As jkt0319 mentions, yes, try to get your recs in by the designated deadline, but I'm sure they understand that recommenders don't always get things in on time. 1 week after the deadline, and I think you're beginning to push it.
2. Just to make a correction, to jkt0319's response: No the resume/CV (or "Essay" 1) doesn't have an explicit word limit. (The 1000-word limit is for the personal statement, or Essay 3.) In general, I don't think your resume would exceed 3-4 pages, so I don't think you need to worry about keeping it short.
so when I submit essays should I put them double-spaced or single-spaced on my word document and then upload it ?? Thanks!!
I don't think it matters whether they're double- or single-spaced as long as you abide by the guidelines stated on the application instructions, as long as it's legible. Since these admissions officers are reading hundreds of applications, though, I'd at least 1.5-space it to be more friendly on the eyes. That's just my opinion, though.
-
Since the
thread covers IR, could I suggest abandoning this thread and posting in that one (that was started earlier and has more posts) to consolidate and avoid double posting?
- greendiplomat, Grad_Nov and Learn619
-
1
-
2
-
OK, apparently he's a gradcafe lurker, since he responded literally within minutes of me posting this, haha.
Just to provide background (maybe for other users), I hadn't consulted him to turn down my offer because it was a last-minute / unforeseen-circumstances sort of deal, but I have chatted with him a few times since, both randomly in the city and through work (I work at a related research group).
Thanks for your quick input, though.
-
I applied to graduate school straight out of college with reasonable success, but decided to work for 2 years before reapplying this time around. The professor most relevant to my course of study (who provided me with a LOR the last time around) isn't responding to my heads-up about reapplying to graduate school and my request for approval to use him as a reference again.
I've sent him 3 emails over a 2-week period, but what would be a reasonable follow-up to this? Would giving him a phone call and/or showing up to his office hours (I live in the same city and know his office hours) be (in)appropriate?
Your thoughts and points of advice are much appreciated!
-
I didnt know SIPA, HKS took the GMAT in lieu of the GRE.
In general, the majority of the more professionally-oriented policy programs do. As a matter of fact, I don't think either of SIPA and HKS make it at all ambiguous.
http://sipa.columbia.edu/resources_services/admissions/apply.html
-
I had a query related to yours. I graduated from my previous degree nearly 5 years ago. Would it make sense to seek an academic reference (if the school does not specifically ask for one) still or am I safe to proceed with 3 professional references?
during a recent fletcher online chat session, the admissions folks from the school recommended one from a past professor, one from a professional source and third from what you think will be the strongest recommendation.
I think godlessgael's post gives the general rule of thumb, as I think it's in any applicant's best interest, regardless of experience, to get someone who can vouch for his or her academic ability and potential for success in the program.
The one exception to this rule, perhaps, is if you have someone in your professional life that knows you as an academic, and I think the only way a professional contact could fulfill this role would be if you've worked with the on research. I'd imagine this would have to be on the level of publication-quality research, not casual research done for the job.
In general, though, I think 5 years out of college isn't long enough to warrant going with 3 professional references. Just go with a past professor in a course where you've had some way of appealing your ability for independent thought, like a final paper/project, and send him/her a copy of that along with the standard CV, etc. when requesting the recommendation, and hope for the best.
-
Nobody knows. It was launched on September 2010. The first batch of students will start on 2012. So there's actually no way of telling the program's reputation.
Exactly, and we won't be able to tell what sort of success graduates have on the job market until after 2013, and this is assuming that they publish employment data so soon.
Looking at the curriculum, though, I question the value of a 1-year MPP. Yes, it carries the Oxford name brand, but apart from that, I'm questioning students can develop both the skill set as well as the expertise in a specific policy area expected of MPPs. (I wonder why they didn't just do what LSE did and embrace the American 2-year MPA/MPP model...)
All that considered, I think this would be a great program for those with existing expertise in a policy area through work experience just wanting an MPP to open more career opportunities up to them, but I would advise anyone with limited work experience to steer clear of this program.
-
Honestly I think your instinct about being too inexperienced is spot-on. Your stats are wonderful, but at HKS, WWS, and the like, you'll be competing with people of similar academic backgrounds who have been working for the UN for 10 years, you know?
So in my humble opinion, I would advise getting 2-3 years of work experience before applying.
Agreed. As someone who was in a similar boat as you, applying straight out of undergrad (though I did intern every semester and every summer I was in school), I'd advise you to think about why it is that you want to go back to school so soon.
In my case, my original desire to go back so soon was mostly based on school being the most familiar/known option, having been in school for the past 16 years and not quite knowing how successful I'd be on the job market. Now, having turned down my spot at SIPA and starting my second year of full-time work, I know that I couldn't have made a better decision in deciding not to go to grad school (yet), partially because I know that I can get better offers this time around (both in terms of funding, as well as fit/selectivity), but mostly because I have a much better sense of what courses I want to take at grad school to get me where I want to get in my career.
So, I'd firstly suggest that you think about what specifically you want to get out of grad school and how it helps you get where you want to be in 5 or 15 years. If you aren't able to articulate that clearly, I doubt that WWS/HKS/GSPP would admit you, and if you spend your two years exploring different sub-fields like one would in college, that would, frankly, be a waste of your money. Also, WWS has bios on each of their students, so you might also want to take a look at those that were out of college 1 year or less before applying (so '09 and '10 college grads since they haven't updated for this new school year yet) to get a sense of what kinds of students are admitted that fresh out of undergrad, and how you compare.
Hope this helps.
-
Verbal is pretty bad for a MPP/IR sort of program.
It looks like s/he's an international student, and, besides, the only section that really matters for MPA admissions is the quantitative section (since verbal ability be measured more easily and accurately through the personal statement, as well as the TOEFL for international students).
My only advice to you, smsirin, is to make sure you emphasize what you want to get out of an MPA. Since you already have a master's in international affairs, make sure you have a pretty good explanation in your SoP on how the MPA will help you achieve your career objectives in a way that your prior master's doesn't (and I don't think "going to a more prestigious school" will cut it.
- greendiplomat and destine
-
2
-
I think the percentages are a matter of correlation rather than of causation. That is to say, it's not that Princeton weights GREs heavily, but just that students that have performed well academically tend to do better on the GRE than those that do not.
As I mentioned in another thread, the GRE is used more as a general tool for "calibrating" the different undergraduate programs' relative rigor. For example, if you come from a school with which the admissions committee doesn't have much experience, they might look to the GRE scores as to get a general idea of the academic potential a certain candidate with, say, a 3.6 GPA from that school might have with an applicant with a 3.6 from, say, Princeton.
-
I agree - at least for Fletcher, Georgetown and SAIS (I don't know enough about Stanford's program to say one way or the other). After quickly reading through your description, I think your selling points will be your time spent abroad and relevant work experience. Potential weaknesses might be your quant score - but I think you've addressed that weakness with the USDA classes (or the "Graduate School" - I can't stop calling it USDA). Since improving your quant score on a retake isn't a sure thing, I'd spend your time on application essays, informational interviews, scholarship research, school visits and, if time allows, maybe another language/quant class at the Graduate School.
The major variable (IMO) to focus on in your applications is what you want to do after you graduate. Make sure that you convey to admissions that your experience/interests/abilities + their degree = your career goals.
As far as safety schools go - you might want to pick a safety if you're 100% convinced that have to go to graduate school next year. Just make sure you ask yourself the question - "If this is the only school I get into, would I actually be willing to attend? Or would I want to wait a year and reapply at my top choice programs." If you aren't actually willing to attend, don't apply. A safety school makes a lot of sense for a high school student applying to college who is on a set timeline, or maybe if you're applying to programs which are all long shots (which doesn't seem to be the case here). But when it comes to grad school, it's such a huge commitment in terms of time and money you need to make sure that you're going to a place that will provide you with sufficient returns on your investment.
I'm going to disagree with the first point with the above two posters in that your profile (regional focus and relevant work experience) are strong enough that you'll stand a decent chance despite your above-average-but-not-excellent GRE scores at all of the above programs. As a rule of thumb, your standardized test scores are weighed more heavily the less known the rigor of your undergraduate program is (the whole point of standardized tests, that is, to standardize the figurative playing field). Given that you're coming from a top 10 LAC, I'd say that your GRE scores aren't going to make or break you.
That being said, given that your quantitative preparation is apt but not extensive, you might want to retake the GRE if you have the time and think that you can make substantial strides by studying (a wise poster put it well a while ago when saying that you don't want to minimize the admissions committees' excuses to reject you). If not, just focus on improving your statement of purpose and getting strong recommendations, as SarahL suggests.
As for safeties, I'd be surprised if Fletcher didn't accept you (you seem like a great fit for the program). Though they're an excellent program, they don't focus on the quant as much in their core (though they do require a certain baseline knowledge of it), and, again, your work experience and regional+disciplinary focus seems very desirable. I think this brings me back to my original point (sorry for sounding like a broken record).
-
Got accepted to SAIS, SIPA, GW, SIS, and UCSD. Deciding between SAIS and SIPA. I wanted to work for the government or a nonprofit, but that's no longer an option considering the amount of debt I'm going to be taking on. I feel as though I'll be forced into finance/consulting just to pay off the debt, which I believe would be better served by an MBA vs. MA. I need a MA to get into the field I like, but I feel as though the debt will force me into a more lucrative less enjoyable field...is it worth it?
I checked into loan forgiveness and it's a joke...no forgivness until you have made 120 payments (10 years). http://studentaid.ed.gov/PORTALSWebApp/students/english/PSF.jsp
While I think it's important to continually apply for external funding leading up to and during the program wherever you end up, so you might not be facing that much debt.
That said, if you have zero funding at this current point, you'll still be facing a substantial debt burden. I think it might be worth either coming up with a compelling reason to defer or to reapply altogether, and then to use that extra year not only to gain experience to increase your likelihood of getting funding from your schools, but also to start looking at external funding opportunities early in the process (at least a few months before the application deadlines).
As for your MBA vs. MA dilemma, don't go get an MBA just because it'll help you in paying off your loans. Remember that grad school is an investment to get you further in the career of your choice, not to get you further in your loan repayments. I do think that it is possible to graduate from these programs with debt and have a satisfying career, but at the end of the day, it's your decision whether you think it's worth the extra effort it will take to make your repayments.
-
I'm torn between SAIS and SIPA. I didn't receive aid at either school and they both look like a good programs so i'm having trouble choosing. I'm sure a lot of people are choosing between these two programs and I was hoping some of you can explain why you are choosing one over the other. I wasn't able to go to the SIPA open house so I'd love to hear your opinion/impressions.
I currently work on mainstreaming climate change issues into sustainable development policy. While I'd like to do this long term I know I'll be taking on a good amount of debt so I will probably have to go into the private sector, probably consulting, for at least a few years after graduation. SAIS has great connections with the world bank and other development institutions but SIPA seems to have a stronger private sector connections.
If you're interested in climate change and specifically with regards to sustainable development, I don't think there's a better fit than SIPA, especially with considering equal funding.
SIPA's commitment to issues of sustainable development can be seen from the fact that its only PhD program is the Program in (surprise surprise) Sustainable Development. Moreover, since SIPA's particularly strong in both development and environment, you'll have a very wide array of courses to choose from SIPA and elsewhere at Columbia (even one called "Climate Change, Human Rights, and Development", which seems right down your alley). All of this is is well-complemented with the resources of the Earth Institute (which co-runs the PhD program with SIPA), through which you can get many an internship/TA/RA position outside of the below-mentioned second-year funding.
Topically, I don't think the Energy, Resources, & Environment at SAIS is oriented towards people whose primary focus is climate. As who visited the SAIS program mentioned, while the curriculum can be adjusted to climate-related issues, the majority of graduates go on to work in private energy companies or energy trading, with many of those that go into the public sector ending up at Dept. of Energy. Full quote at the end of this post; see above link for context.
As for private sector connections, I'd say that SAIS and SIPA are fairly evenly matched as far as employment stats are concerned, so I don't think you should worry in that regard, though SIPA might have a *slight* edge in that it's in NYC. That said, one thing that distinguishes SIPA is that its core is built with the belief (which I agree with) that the future's leaders in the "international and public affairs" space will have careers that go in and out of the public and private sectors, and, as such, the core equips students with general and financial management skills in addition to your rigorous policy-/econ-/quant-analysis skills standard to policy programs. In that sense, SIPA might also make sense to you if you're planning on straddling the public and private sectors.
Additionally, I'm not sure about SAIS, but if you attend SIPA and do well enough in your first semester, you can qualify for 2nd-year funding, the statistics for which can be found here with specific assistantship information for 2nd years in 2011-12 (as an example) here (note that the $ values are per semester).
Finally--and this is a piece of advice that a current student gave me at the SIPA open house--, external funding opportunities come up throughout the year, so be sure to keep checking periodically throught the summer and into your program, wherever that may be. That way, you might actually end the program than less debt than you anticipated, allowing you to look for the job that you actually want!
I can't help you compare with Fletcher or Yale, but I visited the SAIS ERE program on Friday, so I can tell you a little bit about what I heard. It seems that a lot of SAIS ERE grads go into oil companies, energy finance on Wall Street, or the Dept of Energy (apparently there are a LOT of SAIS grads in the DoE, so if you want to work there SAIS would give an advantage.) Very few ERE people go into nonprofits. I told the ERE coordinator my personal goal--to help communities protect against or deal with climate change--and while she said that you can tailor the curriculum however you want, I got the impression that I wouldn't fit in very well with the students pursuing this type of work. But your goals are different from mine, and given your interests, it looks like SAIS would be great for you because of the required concentration in International Economics and the number of grads that join the DoE and World Bank.
-
Would you know Christiana Figueres?
Would you know NIck Stern?
In the field of environmental economics and policy, LSE must be the world's best institution.
Congratulations on your acceptance onto the programme and please save the world!
I'm also interested in this topic... I got into a few econ-heavy policy programs with strong international environmental policy tracks, but I'm currently weighing the merits of turning down my offer and reapplying to environmental economics masters programs with an international focus (e.g. LSE) and international economics masters programs with the option of environmental econ courses (e.g. Yale IDE).
To follow up on the original post, does anybody know how rigorous this particular master's program is? While LSE is obviously world-reknown for its environmental economics, this particular program, in its first year, is run by the Geography & Environment department. Judging from what people can tell from the program page, does this look like a viable stepping stone for "econ-ish" PhD programs (environmental/public policy, ARE, etc.)?
Also, Linda (assuming that's your actual name!) -- mind sharing your stats/background? I want to get a sense of whether I have a shot before turning down my current offer and reapplying to places. PM if you'd prefer.
-
Dear all,
I am in a predicament. I attended both of the open houses for GSPP and Harris. GSPP was basically everything that I could dream of, while Harris was disappointing.
Financially, GSPP essentially gave me in-state fees (I am out-of-state). However, Harris gave me the motherload: full-tuition plus a stipend. If I attend Berkeley, I will end up with 30K to 45K in debt, depending on how much I work. I have no debt from undergrad.
I have little preference in terms of where I would like to work after my MPP (I am from the Midwest). I also am hoping to work in domestic policy and play some sort of role in the legislative process, perhaps as an analyst at a place like the CBO.
It would be a much tougher decision if you simply had a preference for GSPP over Harris, but if it's the difference between "everything that I could dream of" and "disappointing", I'd say the 30K-45K in debt is totally worth it.
-
I was looking at the World Resources Institute's website the other day and noticed that they had quite a few staff who studied energy policy at SAIS. Just pointing that out, but a couple of their managers were from SIPA as well.
... but WRI isn't a development bank. I think given that the original poster is interested in working at a development bank, having the level of econ that Yale IDE would offer would make the Yale joint degree make the most sense.
And, on the topic of environmental non-profits, WRI is just one of many organizations. The Environmental Defense Fund, for instance, seems to have quite a sizable SIPA contingent, with a good number of HKS PhDs (though we're talking about master's programs in this instance, so the latter isn't particularly relevant).
-
I am looking for advice: I want to focus on environmental and energy policy and chose rather quant heavy curriculum (econ & econometrics classes). Careerwise I am interested in working for development banks or in policy-making.
Financially my 5 offers do not differ a lot:
I got accepted at SAIS, Fletcher (MALD), LSE (1 year program for Env Policy and Regulation), MPA at SIPA (2 year) and the double degree at Yale Forestry and IDE. I know it's a good position to be in, but I am still kind of lost:
At the moment I tend towards Yale because it seems to have everything - many relevant classes in my field and a very good econ program, though the double degree would take 2.5 years.
On the other hand Fletcher and SAIS offer a better known degree and amazing alumni networks. In the US and with the big IFIs Fletcher's and especially SAIS reputation seem very strong, but since I am European Yale's brand name seems to be better, but both programs at Yale are rather small and not particularly well-known (correct me if I am wrong with any of my assumptions)
I would appreciate any advice or thoughts you have on the topic, especially concerning the 3 programs (Fletcher, SAIS, Yale)
Thanks
I would do the Yale FES/IDE program in a heartbeat, because the IDE portion would be by far the most quantitatively rigorous.
The econ components in most policy programs' core curricula (including all of those in your list) are roughly equivalent to that of an undergrad econ major with the option at some schools of taking actually graduate-level econ through cross-registration in the schools' respective econ departments (this applies to Fletcher and SIPA on your list). With the FES/IDE program, you're getting an econ MA that already starts with micro/macro/metrics coursework already at the graduate econ level (slightly below the PhD level, I hear).
If you're interested in working for the World Bank, I've heard from multiple sources that you'll be hitting a ceiling without that kind of econ training. Several people that I spoke to went as far as to say that you need a PhD to really make your way up in development banks, which also makes having the IDE degree useful in that a good number of graduates go on to get econ PhDs afterwards.
As for the name recognition of the programs, I'd say that, yes, on the whole, large policy schools like Fletcher and SAIS are better known in policy circles than smaller MA programs like IDE. That being said: (1) FES is a pretty sizable school with a relatively large alumni base; and (2) I think the relevance of the econ MA that you'll get in addition to the MEM is more valuable to your particular career goals than the marginal name-brand recognition that Fletcher/SAIS have over Yale FES/IDE, of which the career placements of IDE graduates is telling.
- Cdot and greendiplomat
-
2
Official HKS Thread
in Government Affairs Forum
Posted
I wouldn't worry. I applied an hour or so before the deadline and got my SPARKS account just now. I think they issue your SPARKS account in the order that they process the applications.