f_man

i always wondered about that actually. after attending the idealist grad fair in SF females seemed to outnumber males 2:1. (yes small sample size, etc. kinds of bias come into play so one can't infer too much.) there were statistics published awhile back on the idealist website that actually reflected this gender breakdown. different schools seem to publish different class admission statistics, but i cant say ive seen a class where females comprised a much smaller minority.

retook the gre and quelled the concerns tied with it, in addition to contacting schools directly to answer my other questions. thank you!

i hypothesize the economy and the subsequent 25% increase in overall applications this year has made everyone a little more...cutthroat and competitive. or its some combination of that and those currently in programs finding themselves busier than usual.

i think this completely explains why this forum is so quiet relative to previous years. and this naturally leads to the question: is this forum fair game for assessing applicants? if so, then everyone has every incentive to beef up their stats, and show concern over a 1590 GRE score/3.9GPA so that when an adcomm member comes across the application, they can tie them back here and stand out as a memorable applicant. (i suppose this includes spelling and grammar.) in other words, reinforcing one's own stats that are far above the school average, though perceivably ostentatious, make an applicant more competitive. the MA in IR, or probably just about any MA serves as a quick signal to employers that you are capable of learning some specialized subject matter. advanced degrees open up doors in different places; i think many can argue that an MBA opens the greatest number of doors. id imagine IR wouldnt provide the same broad opportunity, but would certainly make one much more competitive in a very specific field. i would have to side with kiebelle-- far more people on here post statistics that are above those of the desired school's class average. for those on the cusp of these stats, it makes more sense to receive feedback in order to give applicants a little nudge, or to quell any doubts so they won't be discouraged from applying to specific programs.

just completed the GRE and wound up getting destroyed, with a total score less than 1200. if adcomms read this forum i'm probably sticking out like a sore thumb, but perhaps that is the risk i am willing to take. the rest of my profile: -3.1 gpa undergrad from one of the UC schools, double majoring in international relations and economics. upper division gpa is the same for both majors (at least i'm consistent LOL). i do regret double majoring instead of simply minoring in one of the fields, as taking 3 or 4 core upper division classes had an impact on my performance. -interned at a major US gov't institution in DC -WE: 2.5 yrs as a policy administrator/analyst for another major US gov't institution--3.5 by the time of enrollment. i'm confident not only in having 3 outstanding LORs, but in also developing a compelling SOP based on personal history and current work experience. (both prior policy/gov't experiences were strictly domestic, but i'd like to get the MPP in order to open doors to international organizations.) it seems like hardly anyone currently in an MPP program or an alum still lurk this forum, but id like to ask anyway: do any MPP programs place enough weight on work experience to where it can completely offset the borderline gpa and below average gre? i figured i might as well give this forum a shot and hopefully hear from any outliers. i recall reading about one person on here who was accepted to georgetown with a below average gpa and GRE. i noticed that the gpa and gre ranges even dip below my stats but my intuition tells me these are people with 5 or more years of experience. heres one example: Berkeley/GSPP avg years of work experince: 3.5 avg age: 26.7 (22-45) avg gpa: 3.6 (2.7-4.0) GRE quant: 710 (530-800) GRE verbal: 630 (330-800) GRE AW: 4.5 (2.0-6.0) so does it seem safe to assume that those with the 2.7 gpa probably have tons of work experience and a high gpa? likewise, those with the low GRE scores have a high gpa and tons of work experience?

could you paste your statement of purpose please?

i went last year for idealist in SF. at that time i was only giving grad school some light thought and so i asked some pretty broad questions. this years a bit more serious, with apps actually underway, so i plan on asking questions related to the process and what makes one schools program unique from others.

760v and 730q is not great. i highly suggest you retake the GRE, because anything less than the 92nd and 99th percentiles on the GREs is sub-par.

i imagine for most people it isnt easy to find a job in a government agency doing public policy analysis. so when MPP programs state that a low gpa can be made up in another area, does this mean you had to have been a director for a humanitarian aid group to qualify?

i'll be applying to MPP programs this fall and out of the 3 letters of recommendation, at least 1 should come from an academic background. my dilemma is the fact that i never really kept in much contact with professors of classes where i earned As in. there are a few professors that might remember my face of classes i earned Bs in. and then theres one TA who i had 3 classes with, who knows me really well and can actually vouch for my work, which includes overseeing an undergrad thesis. after being 3 years out of undergrad, hes actually earned his PhD and is now an assistant professor. the potential caveat is he is a professor at a less reputable institution. which do adcomms prefer in general: a generic LoR from a well known professor, or a well written LoR from my TA?