Paradoxex22

I should clarify my above post. Getting international experience in this economy is difficult. It is no harder at Duke than any other institution. International jobs are pursued by hyper-qualified professionals as well as graduate students. Many career employees embattled by the current economy have resorted to working for peanuts and health care in international fields they enjoy more than their former jobs. Graduate students can still succeed, but it does take a certain perseverance that was not needed in past eras. That statement is true at Maxwell, Sanford, and even SIPA. I would encourage you to email the career services staff at Duke if international internships are truly one of your main concerns. Note that you are interested in opportunities outside Geneva. Good luck.

I won't comment on Syracuse, but I will clarify a couple of the Duke points. "-Options for summer internship for the Global Policy concentration appears to be confined to Geneva" This is the only option they actively advertise...and why not. Interning at the UN is a nice perk. However, roughly half of the career services personnel work to find internationally-focused students opportunities. Duke University also has a Microfinance initiative that is sending a policy student to Uganda this summer to do development work. An MPP went last year as well, so this is not a once-in-a-blue-moon affair. Also, last year a student interned at an NGO in Ghana, another in Central America, and another in Tanzania. We also had a student work at the UN in Rome. You have to work hard to get international work/internships anywhere, but you definitely are not "confined" at Sanford. "-Core requirements may make taking all the electives I really want to somewhat restrictive." Your first year you will find challenging and lacking in electives. Your second year you have much more liberty. I took three electives each semester this year (my 2nd), and have enjoyed myself thoroughly. I don't know Syracuse's curriculum, but at Duke those core classes are what establish the practical skills you value. Good luck deciding. Either way you will do fine.

Interesting post. You clearly want to to go to SIPA if all things are equal. The preference you have for the city aside, most people are going to say SAIS is you best option given that you cared enough to even ask. Many individuals think SAIS is a better program, and more respected in the private sector. So even without the financial issue coming into play, many would choose SAIS over SIPA. With the money issue, it becomes even clearer. SIPA has some advantages, no doubt. However, given your career aspirations, it does not seem to be the best fit for you. Hopefully this helps.

Yes, but how does that explain this? http://www.american.edu/kogod/career/calendar/index.cfm?id=2252628 Or this? http://jobs.deloitte.com/sacramento/management-consulting/summer-associate-mpa_mpp-advanced-degree-consulting-university-of-southern-california-jobs Those are targeted at American and USC, respectively. I am thinking they reach farther than the universities you mentioned. Perhaps they have people assigned to just those universities, as in they take a select few from those each year. I doubt they only recruit there, however. Deloitte is huge, and does not need to limit themselves.

Everything is subjective. With that caveat out of the way... Most people view Duke as being less quantitative because Duke does not tend to stress that side of the program. Ironically, most people leave Duke feeling that it is quantitatively rigorous. I think part of this effect is explained by the fact that many individuals come to Duke not expecting a strong emphasis on economics and statistics. Part of it is also explained by the fact that Duke views a strong quantitative foundation as essential to proper analytical policy making. At Duke you will take two semesters of policy-centric statistics, one of which will focus on research study design. Both semester will make weekly use of STATA, and the second will involve the drafting of your own statistical studies. You will also take two semesters of economics, both of which are graphical in nature and centered on policy implications. After those first two semesters, you can take more advanced research design and implementation courses (one or more each semester until you graduate, actually) that focus on advanced statistical concepts. There are also a plethora of topic-oriented economics courses to take. If that were not enough, your spring consulting project and your master's project can also focus on quantitative analysis, and the faculty are more than willing (in my experience) to support these studies with their expertise. The students at Duke typically have the Goldilocks approach to the first semester of statistics (some think it is too easy, some too hard, some just right), but most agree that the second semester of statistics is challenging and rewarding. Duke's program is geared to illustrating how program evaluation using statistical analysis is key to good policy making. These are not PhD-level statistics courses (though you are completely free and able to enroll in statistics department courses), but they are incredibly functional...and that is what a professional program should be I think. I hope this clarifies your concern a little. I should say that I do not know the Harris program. My impression is that individuals who want more of an advanced quantitative grasp on economics especially tend to go to the Harris school. Comparied to Chicago, Duke's program may be more management-focused. That's just a relative assertion, not an absolute one.

Greetings Bastille, The Sanford School cohort is enjoying spring break this week, so stilesg57 may be enjoying the finer points of life. I am a second year student at the Sanford School, so hopefully I can help answer some of your questions in lieu of his presence. I'm also better positioned to answer some of your questions, as I've been through many of the processes about which you are asking. Stilesg57 may still be in the midst of the process. Finding an internship - The Sanford School/Duke name is well-known with many graduates in high level positions. Washington, DC, in particular is rife with Duke and Sanford School grads. Last year 15-20 students interned in DC at a variety of governmental institutions. We had multiple placements at OMB, GAO, State, and other governmental departments. Some of my personal friends also worked at reputable think tanks, advocacy groups, and other policy organizations. I personally interned at OMB, so I am most aware of Duke's presence there. Duke also does well internationally. The Sanford School has a program that places individuals focused on international development and policy with high level organizations (ILO, UN, etc) in Geneva, Switzerland. We also had more than a couple individuals find placements with organizations in Africa. I also have friends who worked at very high profile organizations in Rome, Moscow, and Central America. If you want specifics, email me and I will see what I can do. It also bears mentions that we had people interning in Durham, of course, but also New York City and around San Francisco. Proximity matters when picking a school, but only to an extent. If you want to work in California, then Duke will not be as well-known there. There is a strong misconception, however, that the DC schools enjoy a huge advantage for placing people in DC. What I have found and heard is that many departments value non-DC school graduates, in part because of the structure of the DC programs. GW and Georgetown are work-focused academic programs. A lot of government agencies still value the more traditional academic experience, and target those school for summer internships. So Duke will not limit you in the nation's capital. If anything, the fanatical loyalty of the alumni is a bonus. Undergraduate institutions - I can't be too specific here, but we have plenty of Ivy League grads as well as comparable credentials (Stanford, etc). I graduated from UNC personally, and I have found the caliber of my colleagues to be exceptional. I will also second what has been said...in a program like Sanford, experience means at least as much as undergraduate pedigree. While all cohorts will have superstars and those who ask one question too many, you'll find that the diversity of opinion and experience makes the experience incredibly fulfilling wherever you go. Comparison to GPPI and Harris - You're asking me to wade in dangerous waters, here. People defend where they went to school. They willingly engage in cognitive dissonance, as you've aptly termed. GPPI is a different mentality and experience than most graduate schools. If you are sure that you want to be in DC and want to work in a federal department, than GPPI is a great place to be. I appreciate the diversity of locales personally (I worked in DC before leaving for graduate school), but it is your choice. Harris is renowned as a terrifically quantitative program. The reputation of the program is sound, and I believe its reputation is similar to Duke's. The weather is not as nice, but you may prefer Chicago to Durham/Chapel Hill (big city vs. college towns). Honestly I would decide based on my preference for environment and the money situation. SIPA is a totally different basket, but you didn't ask about that. Perception of Sanford by other Duke Schools - Sanford's cohorts are Fuqua (business school), Nicholas (environmental management school), and the law school. There is no pretension among the programs, and those schools readily allow Sanford students to take their classes . Clearly they show a preference for their own students when space is limited, but recently they have even been reserving spots in popular classes for Sanford students to fill. Cross-enrollment is an area that I have seen Sanford grow in tremendously just in my time here. I actually think it is one of the school's strong suits now. Further education - I'm limited as to what I can say here as well given the number of students who choose this path. By design most MPP students chose a professional program for a reason. However, when students do decide to pursue further education, the Sanford degree serves them well. I know of a couple of students pursuing MBAs (both at Duke, last I heard) after they receive their MPP degree. I also know of one student who has decided to pursue a PhD in Public Policy, and the admittances from which that person is choosing would make the most elitist individual blush. None of this considers the plethora of individuals who are dual-enrolled in our program from the start (~10 students in my class) at Duke, UNC, or even Georgetown in other programs. All of these cited examples are from my class of around 45 students. So, I'd like to think we are doing well. In considering any graduate program, I would stress one thing: distance is not everything. Schools not in DC do just fine in DC, and this goes for the Ford School, Harris, and the LBJ school too for that matter. How the school positions itself is most important. The Goldman school, for instance, is very highly rated, but it places very few individuals in DC each year. Why? Because the school by design focuses on California state government. If a school is focused on training students for policy work in places like DC, than the institutions there will find a way to reach those students. Just think, if you were running a business, why wouldn't you reach out to ensure you were recruiting the best talent? The government/most NGOs work the same way. If you have any specific questions about the examples I've cited, feel free to ask here or over PM. I hope this is helpful.

mcoakley, I empathize with the stress you are going through. I am a second year MPP student that frequented these boards during my process. The admissions process is frustratingly opaque, often by design. In Duke's case, they are trying to a new system this year, and so the process may be a bit different than normal. I can say that unless you have received a rejection, than you have not been outright rejected yet. Assuming you are in a waitlist-type situation is probably accurate. Hopefully the program will send out something definitive in the coming week or so, but you can take it as fact that the program is not sitting on any applications without just cause. I hope this is helpful.

As someone who visited both schools last year and chose Duke, I can perhaps lend a bit of counter perspective. There's been a lot said about the quantitative focus of Michigan. Having had 4 semesters of quant now, and taken the advanced set of courses that Duke offers, I can only say that Duke definitely has a strong quantitative approach as well. Beyond this, students often take courses in the econ and business schools as well, depending on their mathematic flair. Michigan's out of program course offerings were and are quite impressive. Duke doesn't market their other programs as much to MPP admits, but having taken classes in other programs, like the Nicholas School of the Environment, I can attest that there's few limitations at Duke as well. Combined with the ability to take courses at UNC-Chapel Hill (there's a bus that connects the two universities all day every day) and NC State, and the breadth of course differential is more myth than fact. The main difference for me is the focus of the programs and the location. Duke is very career-focused. Practical skills are emphasized. You will work with a real-life client on a real-life policy project in your first year. You will have time-limited assignments that force you to work in groups under stress. You will complete a Master's Project that requires you to design and execute a study of your own design. Michigan has a policy exercise that they tout heavily, but do not require a client project of a capstone work. Both programs have international opportunities (Michigan's changes each year, I believe, and Duke has the Geneva program). Michigan focuses more on strict academics and the study of policy. Accordingly, and in part due to their unparalleled alumni base, Michigan has more highly reputed teachers. Due to their class size, they have more classes. As for location, I suppose it's subjective. Ann Arbor is a very large college town. Durham is in a region heavily influenced by multiple universities. Going to Durham means you get to live near Chapel Hill (they are literally 20 minutes from each other), etc. What sealed the deal for me was that I wanted to work in DC, and Duke's presence there is astounding. Also, the distance to DC meant that I had the ability to go up multiple times to do interviews. It's important to parse the marketing from the reality. I'll be interested to hear how the Michigan weekend goes, as I was nearly certain of where I was going after last year's weekend.

Heh, I hope that means I helped. Look, having tossed out positives about the program, I don't want to come off as a Duke sycophant, either. There are reasons to not come to Duke. Other programs allow you to explore the academic side of public policy more rigorously. Other programs are in a larger city (although the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area is nothing to sneeze at). There are probably some programs that are more focused on quantitative skills (although Duke now has an advanced track for those students looking to push themselves in this area). As I said, I'm willing to answer any question honestly. I just remember lamenting, as you all are, on this site as I waited for email to determine my fate. It all worked out for me. I'd simply like the same for you all.

As a current first-year Duke MPP student, and someone who used this site extensively in the past, maybe I can help shed light on the pros and cons of the program. Each Public Policy program will claim to have a niche. When deciding among schools, it is really your job to decide if a given school's niche is real, and if it fits you. Then look at the environmental concerns, i.e. weather, extracurriculars, etc. I applied to four schools, and looked at dozens. Coming from DC, I did not apply to any of the District programs, and going to Georgetown and GW require you to make a deliberate choice in how you want to study, as classes are at night and you intern during most days. Comparing these programs in any way other than prestige doesn't make sense in my opinion. As for Duke. I believe it does an exemplary job of preparing you for the work you will actually do in the policy realm. Classes are tailored toward analyzing case studies and acquiring skills that will be applied in real world situations. This is reflected in the first year spring consulting project, the summer internship requirement, many time-constrained group exercises, and the required master's project. The spring consulting project requires a team of MPP classmates to do actual data analysis and design a policy recommendation deliverable for a real-life client (with real-life expectations). It's a semester-long project, and given my past-life as a governmental contractor, I can attest to the fact that it is realistic. The summer internship requirement is an opportunity to get policy experience on one's resume before entering the real world. Students intern all over the world, with a concentration of folks in DC. Duke has strong ties at most governmental agencies (and decently strong ties at them all), so the process is not overly daunting. Finally, the timed exercises, like the 48-hour exercise, offer good practice at working effectively in groups under extreme deadlines. I have thus far found the experience quite helpful. One thing I would stress to all prospective MPP students is not too put too much emphasis on location. MPP schools know the location of their job markets, and as such they put a lot of effort into minimizing the transaction costs of getting students there. I have been to DC 4 times this semester, and the four hour drive has not been a huge inconvenience when it comes to interviewing for potential internships this summer. Perhaps if you want to work in NYC or Boston solely and lack existing contacts, then going to school there is beneficial, but for DC in particular I'd say attending school in NC is not disadvantageous. Regarding alumni, reputedly Duke's base is one of the more avid around. Even though I did my undergrad at an athletic rival institution, I must say so far I agree. Anyway, ask more questions if you wish. I'd be happy to answer more questions.

I don't know....I didn't find it all that obnoxious. Maybe there was a small personal vindication included in the post, but I don't know if the statistics are as misconstrued as you're insinuating, normajean. I visited Michigan's spring preview/admit weekend, and thus I did get in, and it was my second choice, so I think I'm qualified to say something. The lack of job offers was subltly apparent at UMich, and the career services head seemed a little disconcerted when asked about job offer %s, so I'd say it's a slight issue this year at Michigan. The job offer issue never really struck me, though, because I hope to get a job more on my merits than my career services department. That's my hope, at least. Ann Arbor is a fine place to go to school, and has an amazing atmosphere. That said, it does have some comparative disadvantages in terms of the job market I think, both in self-selection and locationally. Michigan is many things, but an "up and coming" or "policy-centric" state is not one of them. It still has an amazing faculty, a ton of social policy resources, and the largest living alumni base in the world though, so how much the locational aspect matters is up for debate. I also highly doubt there are tons of Michigan MPPs wandering about for too long sans job for long. Anyway, if I was a potential MPP I'd find that fact a little alarming as well, especially if it was being championed. It's faux pas to post anything overtly negative about possible institutions of choice, though, so you're darned if you do and darned if you don't, unfortunately.

The story I heard at the admit weekend was that around 25-30 have job offers upon graduation. Many take the summer off to relax after the strenuous two years, and search for jobs during that period. Apparently 60-75% have jobs by the following August. I assume that part of the remaining group is composed of continuing education folks and others. I admit I was less impressed by the career services head's response to this question than at other institutions. It's probably part of why I'll be at Duke come August. BTW, Susan Collins, for what it is worth, is pretty amazing. She's an ex-Brookings policy expert with all the trappings that a policy school like Ford can appreciate. That said, her hire was very much in line with my impression of the school. It has amazing faculty and opportunities, but is more academically focused than some of the other MPP programs, which tend to have more strenuous application requirements.

Hey, I don't know much about the UCLA program, but I was curious if you went to the Duke Open House, and what you thought of it? You can PM me if you don't want to post it here.

Greetings, Just a quick question regarding schools we're considering. We are all bandying about programs of high caliber, deciding between Michigan and Chicago and Berkely, etc. One school I haven't heard mentioned much is Duke, which has a reputed MPP program by US News standards as well. I have several schools I'm looking at, two of which are Michigan and Duke, and I was wondering: 1. Which you'd consider superior, and why... 2. Why some of the MPP applicants here decided not to apply to Duke.

WWS is easily the most selective...I heard they have something like an 8-10% acceptance rate. The money brings the apps....the reputation helps. GSPP is so specialized, I can imagine a lot of folks don't turn them down. They accept primarily folks from CA and a few others....it's more a regional program than most admit. That said, their natural selection angle and reputation sets them up well. Harvard must be pretty selective, but with a yearly class in excess of 200 students, they also accept a fair number of students. I think that more than anything makes them slightly less selective than some other programs. Beyond that, I bet it's all pretty close and tightly kept among admission departments. Duke, Michigan, Chicago, Georgetown, etc....all pretty ridiculously selective.

It isn't much fun, I agree.

Umm....while the location may not seem ideal, many people say Ann Arbor is a fantastic college town, and the Ford School has a program that many would say is better than GT. The truth is that it's different: The Ford school is heavy on quantitative analysis. As this doesn't seem to be your focus, it may not fit for you, but I am not so sure that, outside of sheer name recognition (which folks in the industry should see beyond) the Ford School is any less elite than GT's MPP.

Well, okie. Honestly, for analytical/social policy all three schools have good programs. UMD-CP has a program that was consistently ranked right up there with GT and GW, so as far as the quality of the education goes, it's an easy choice. GT outpaces UMD in terms of prestige and ease of access for internships/alumni networks. Overall, I'd not consider GW unless you just love some element of their campus/curriculum. It probably cost as much as GT, and won't open anymore doors in terms of connections etc. Now if you like the program/connections the program has, then go for it, but taking a cold look, I'd not pay full price for GW given your options. If I was deciding, I'd probably side with UMD, all other things being held equal. Regionally, both programs will hold a lot of weight. Outside the DC Metro area, GT will matter more. If you want to be in DC, and work with the federal government, then you won't make 80k a year off the bat (unless you're amazingly sly or fortunate), so 75-100k debt will matter. That's how I see it, personally. Prestige matters, but only in the context of what you want to do. There's no reason to pay for a Harvard MPP if you plan to work in Texas, for instance, because an LBJ school degree will cost a fraction of the price and work just as well (maybe better). Same way with DC. But heavens, heavens, do visit the campuses. There isn't much of a starker contrast in school environments than GT and UMD. One isn't worse than the other, but they are very very different. I live in DC, I should know. =)

You would have to call the Career Services department for the programs you are interested in. I can guarantee they have the information, but that they don't all publicly release it. Some things to keep in mind: 1. MPPs don't all go into high grossing consulting jobs. Many go to work in highly prestigious, low paying NGOs or other nonprofit entities. 2. Many go to work for the federal government, earning 45k a year at the onset (GS 9 or equivalent) and then escalate from there. These folks may be Presidential Management Fellows, and thus are policy "elites" that could earn substantially more in the private sector. GT in particular has a slew of these. 3. Programs have varying regional and national recognition. So you have to consider if location matters. UMD may have an identical average salary, but all of their graduates may be working in the Baltimore-DC area. Do you accept these potential restrictions? 4. Many may be supplementing a law/business degree, causing their starting salary to be rather gaudy. I have some opinions on what the value of those educations are, but I won't give it, because you didn't ask. =P Anyway, I think it's probably possible to get the data you seek, but you'll have to call the universities to get the scope that you need.

Amanda, thanks for adding some clarity. To extend her input, most professional schools (not sure about MBAs) appreciate work experience, and very few of them will penalize you for pursuing the PC or TFA. Duke University has fellowships set up for folks who either of those programs specifically. If the degree is something many folks pursue as an extension of undergrad, then perhaps the worth is somewhat mitigated, but for programs where experience is a plus, those programs are typically looked at very highly.

If you're doing it out of school, and not as the 5th thing you've done to keep you out of the real world, it doesn't look just good, depending on the field it looks phenomenal. International programs and MPPs love that sort of experience. It adds an experience unique to 95% of the applicants who will be applying for top tier programs. I know one of the MPP programs I've been admitted to has around 10-15 PC alums in its admitted class. If you have good stats (or average, really) but a compelling story to tell and a PC experience to back it up, I think it elevates your reach in terms of the caliber of programs you can consider...a lot. Remember, these are seminal experiences that should inform your SOP, etc. Actually drink the kool-aid and get a lot from the experience, and that will show through....and you'll actually be what top programs, at least in relevant fields, are looking for.

It's possible. My initial 3rd choice got back to me a month earlier than other programs and gave me a sweetheart deal for my MPP aspirations, so maybe it's because of the fact that they are competing with legit schools. It certainly didn't hurt. Still, the point I highlighted is definitely a factor in undergraduate admissions, so it also makes sense that some schools would extrapolate that to the graduate level too.

I actually disagree with the first response on one point. I don't think it's why you haven't heard back....it should DELAY the decision making process for universities, but it could impact their decision. Schools still do care a little about yield rate....not as much as in the olden days, but some. The theory is that if you apply to a school in the middle of the pack in terms of your field, and you don't have any obvious other reason to apply there (you don't call one out in the SOP), but list the top schools in your field as your other choices, then that school may feel like a safety. If your stats aren't up to the caliber of the top schools, they may be more likely to accept you, knowing you'll most likely enroll. You're a sure bet, in other words. If you have exemplary stats, however, the school may be more likely to deny you, not wanting to waste an open slot on you only to have you decline (or forget to decline). In undergrad this happens far more prevalently...Tufts and Washington in St. Louis are too schools infamous for supposedly practicing this method of boosting yield rates. In grad schools I imagine most schools use the data to gauge who they are up against for bright students on average...but there isn't really any compelling reason to fill it out, I imagine. Maybe they recruit you harder if they know you are applying to top programs, and they are aspiring to be a top program...but this is a long shot.

As I said, it only gets worse...so try not to focus on it TOO much. The Ford School appears to be sending out initial acceptances, judging by the results reported here. Seeing as that's a school I applied to, you can only imagine the heightened anxiety that is resulting.