PeterQuince

What DupontCircle listed for SAIS, WWS, and Fletcher are inter-quartile ranges, so for WWS, 25% of admitted students scored below a 152 and 25% scored above a 160, while 50% of admitted students scored in between 152 and 160. Unless you knew that already and were surprised by that the 25% mark wasn't higher. I've got nothing for you there. Also worth remembering that "benchmarks" and average scores of admitted students aren't the same thing. A school can have a publicized (or un-publicized) benchmark they expect students to score above, but still make exceptions for individuals they want to admit, in that type of situation, the average would likely be higher than the benchmark. The average is just that - an average of every admitted student's scores. Scoring above the average doesn't mean you'll get in and scoring below doesn't mean you'll be rejected. As for Harvard, well, the list is dated, it may not have been accurate at the time, and it's a good reminder either way that the GRE is a key metric in the admissions process but not the sole deciding factor at Harvard or anywhere else.

Hi martinet25. I am not an expert on Harvard, but here are a few quick thoughts. My understanding is that the MPP at Harvard is the largest of the professional masters degrees and the most generalized. Students range from 22-year-olds with newly-minted bachelor's degrees to seasoned professionals. There is probably something there for most qualified applicants. The MPA is a more specialized degree, the average age of the cohort is a bit older, and many students already have a master's degree or significant economics/statistics/math coursework. I also suspect that the career interests of the MPA candidates are a little more narrow, and more geared to analysis and policy jobs (regardless of nonprofit/NGO/government field) than the MPP, which certainly produced policy folks, but also people who go on to perform more managerial or leadership functions in a wider array of loosely-defined public service industries. My sense is that the MPP is also a little easier to get into than the MPA, but I don't actually have any data to back that up. Simply, they're different programs with different goals. Then the MPA/ID is an entirely different program unto itself, as well as the MC/MPA. I would encourage you to think really critically about what your long-term professional goals are and learn some more about the what makes the MPP and MPA career paths similar and different. Here is where you want to reach out to career services and ask these questions directly. What do you want to do, and which program will help you get there? Remember that it's not just about "doing school" but investing in your own human potential to make a positive change in the world. Which program will better prepare you to do that the way you want to? [it's worth noting that at every US university the MPA and MPP degree distinctions mean slightly different things, so it's worth investing time to sort out the distinctions where the exist and not assuming every MPP is the same everywhere and wholly different from the MPA, etc.]. Good luck!

Thanks everyone! This was helpful. Out of curiosity, ZacharyObama, is that a guess or do you know that some schools review multiple scores? For those of you who have already applied, do the applications list fields to enter multiple scores, or only for one sitting? Thanks again.

Thanks dalu. That's helpful.

Hi everyone. Thanks in advance for your feedback. I recently took the GRE twice (in December and in January), and am not sure which score is a better score to send to admissions committees. I'm not dissatisfied with either score (and I recognize this is a high class problem to have), but I've heard conflicting commentary from peers and mentors, and wanted to see what other people thought. I work full time and am not applying anywhere this year (target matriculation is August/September, 2014), so I don't need to send scores immediately. With work and family commitments I don't have the time to properly prepare to write it again, so I am committed to using one of these scores. I took the test in December and was thrilled with my verbal and writing scores, but wasn't sure if the quantitative score was strong enough for my file to get a serious read at some of the top schools for domestic policy/administration (HKS, WWS, Harris, Goldman, Ford, NYU, etc.). I didn't take any math classes in undergrad, and took my only economics course pass/fail as I was already taking too many credits that semester (I do have an A in a graduate-level stats class I took while working), so I thought getting a higher quant score was important. My long-term goal is not to end up in a quant-heavy field but to build public-private partnerships to address challenges to social welfare, but I didn't want to be deemed quantitatively unprepared. So I studied math a lot, wrote the test again, and got my quant score up just a little bit, and saw my verbal and writing scores drop (my own fault, I hadn't continued studying anything but math). Is one score clearly "better" than the other? Are the effectively the same? Would you send one to one school and another to another school? If so, why? My instinct is that Test 2 is the better score, but I don't really know. Thanks in advance for the thoughts and guidance (and again I recognize that this really isn't a life-threatening problem in any way). Test 1 (really strong in verbal/writing, weaker in math): Quant: 158 / 74th percentile Verbal: 167 / 97th percentile Writing: 5.5 / 96th percentile Test 2 (shows more competence in math and strong but less stellar in verbal): Quant: 161 / 83rd percentile Verbal: 163 / 91st percentile Writing: 5.0 / 92nd percentile

MIT offers a Master of City Planning out of its Department of Urban Studies which is quantitative in its nature and focused on economics and policy (although I think you can take some design classes along the way). MIT also offers a Master of Science in Transportation out of its Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. The MCP and MST can also be taken as a dual degree.

If you've got nothing lined up, then sure, re-take the GRE. But you also might want to start work on your personal statements and reaching out to your advisers/professors/supervisors now for recommendations. In an ideal world you would have a draft of your resume and all your major essays to share with your references for their feedback and to make sure they have in their minds the representation of your candidacy that you want to convey.

Congratulations on the graduation. I am not a GRE or admissions or EP/MEM expert. So I don't have advice. But I do have an opportunity cost question. Is your plan this summer to work? To take classes? To intern? Reading your post I wonder what you would be giving up in order to study for the GRE this summer (and how much work you think you would actually need to bump up your scores). If you're graduating without a job and can devote a solid block of time to GRE review or can toggle between job hunting and studying, then I cannot see a reason not to retake the exam. But if you have relevant work lined up for the summer/fall, or are taking courses that will round out your candidacy, then you might need to ask yourself what will matter most in your limited time (and how limited that time will be). Since you already have a score under your belt but not enough math classes, I would think (again, perhaps in ignorance) that an "A" in the post-grad coursework you will need will be more valuable to you in the application process than a 30-60 point bump in your GRE score. I'm not sure this will be helpful, but keep in mind your tradeoffs and the relative and actual value of your time as you go about making these decisions -- and best of luck.

Hi everyone, thanks in advance for your guidance. This isn't so much of a "help me find programs whose profile I match" question as much as "help me understand what the nuances in professional preparation exist between what seem like similar schools". One of the challenges I have had in researching programs categorized here as government affairs is that the degree names (public policy, public affairs, public administration, etc.) seem to mean slightly different things to different institutions, and the program websites, while generally quite helpful, aren't always as helpful in answering this question: just what do these programs prepare graduates to do? I have read the alumni/careers section, and while I can pick out some trends, it does seem like most schools are happy to advertize the full breadth of where their graduates find work right after school (which is great, but still leaves me confused regarding skills, etc.). From what I can gather, some programs seem to prepare graduates for public management at the municipal/state level while others prepare graduates for policy analysis at state/federal agencies, think tanks or consulting firms, and others still prepare graduates for leadership roles in nonprofit organizations or social service agencies. This is clearly an imprecise dichotomy and many of these skills are transferable, but I am curious to learn from your experience: with respect to domestic policy (education, social welfare, and other broad issues), what sort of work do the programs below prepare graduates to do? Harvard MPP (HKS) Berkeley MPP (Goldman) Princeton MPA (WWS) Michigan MPP (Ford) NYU MPA (Wagner) Carnegie Mellon MSPPM (Heinz) Chicago MPP (Harris) Syracuse MPA (Maxwell) Maryland MPP Georgetown Brandeis MPP (Heller) Texas MPAff (LBJ) Example: I know Chicago has a reputation as a quantitative-heavy, policy analysis school. Do graduates also go on to management work? And the reverse question for NYU, etc. Thanks for your thoughts! If anyone has additional thoughts on these programs and/or other recommendations, I would really appreciate it. For reference (since it seems that's what people share here), I am interested in education policy, specifically at the state and district level, as well as most urban issues affecting the welfare of children, youth, and families. I have four years of experience working in education and with youth directly and managing a large college access program, with an interest in evaluation and program design. I haven't yet figured out what precisely I want to do next, but it seems like an MPP (or equivalent) might make a lot of sense at this point. Non-matriculated grad coursework in stats, labor/public economics, econometrics, etc. Again, thanks for the thoughts (and hopefully this won't just be useful to me).

First, I think Princeton is tied for 4th with the University of Georgia, so I wouldn't call that a "relatively lower rank" given that it beats out Goldman (UC Berkeley), Ford (UMich), USC, etc. You can't get much higher than 4th. Georgetown's PPI (which so many on these boards are clamoring to get into) is 14th. There are dozens and dozens of schools ranked. When you say relatively lower rank, do you mean on the overall (4th) or on individual specialties? I'm not sure how much this matters, but Princeton is also quite small compared to many other policy/administration/public affairs programs. The MPA (and mid-career MPP for lawyers) is really the only professional program at Princeton, whereas many other schools (like Harvard, Chicago, etc.) can foster collaboration between multiple professional schools, cross-list courses, and attract talented instructors who come to teach one subject (law, finance, etc.) and get involved in affiliated programs (policy, environmental management, etc.). It's hard to do that with a school the size of Princeton, and its smallness has other benefits: smaller cohorts, more individualized attention, etc. But the size may be a factor: there is only so much WWS can offer. But at an enormous policy school that offers everything under the sun, there is only so much a student can ever take advantage of. Can't do everything.

Are any of you familiar with the Annenberg Institute for School Reform based out of Brown University? They seem to do some interesting work but it's hard to find the meat of their work off of their website. Thanks!

First, I am no expert, but I don't think that your education history (at least your major, anyway) will be a problem at all. I work in education and many of the undergraduates who work with us and the young, fresh-out-of-college staff often go off to graduate school to earn masters degrees in education. I have worked with a number of young people who have been accepted to education masters programs (non-teaching) at Harvard GSE, Columbia's Teachers College, Boston College, University of Vermont, University of Rhode Island, Brown University, etc. without a major (or even substantial coursework) in education. What they did have, however, was a strong grounding in the social sciences and a lot of really relevant work experience. Most MEd/EdM/MA in Ed/MSEd/etc. programs are fairly general in that they prepare graduates for a wide range of careers after completing the degree. There are institutions like Teachers College that seem to have as many distinct masters programs as Columbia has undergraduate majors (some exaggeration here), but they are not, typically, programs for specialists. You'll get some introduction to a core body of literature in your field area (with which you may or may not already be familiar). You will get a rudimentary grounding in a methodological approach to research, but generally in most programs this methodology work is designed to make you an effective consumer of research, rather than a researcher. Example: you will be able to identify the key journals, read up on a specific topic, prepare a memo for your supervisors suggesting that you start such-and-such initiative. Or you know how to identify best practices in your field and transfer that knowledge to others. In light of that, it's always seemed (to me) that relevant work experience and a strong undergraduate background mattered more than what your major was for non-teaching education programs.

Have you been to the World Bank's employment website? http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTHRJOBS/0,,contentMDK:20522507~menuPK:64262363~pagePK:64262408~piPK:64262191~theSitePK:1058433,00.html. A lot of the positions list an MBA as a relevant and desirable degree to hold, so I think your issue is really just getting enough work experience, and while an IR degree might help provide a good context for what you want to do, it will only further delay the real start of your work experience. Also, have you thought about the Junior Professional Associates program? http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTHRJOBS/0,,contentMDK:20515930~menuPK:1477636~pagePK:64262408~piPK:64262191~theSitePK:1058433,00.html#Top This program may be the one best suited to your experience and academic background. You may not work for the World Bank for a full two years after your two-year contract is complete, but you still get two years of experience with the World Bank, which I imagine is a pretty good stepping stone to other sorts of IR/development work. There are probably other programs like this one with the IMF or the EU or NGOs -- the larger ones, anyway -- that are designed to take smart, motivated people and work them intensely for two years before recycling them. Another option is to consider going into either non-profit (Bridgespan, etc.) or for-profit consulting with an international focus. That might not be the way you want to spend the next two-three years, but it would certainly be a path that values your education background and would provide a lot of highly relevant experience.

What do you want to do in IR long-term? Because that may drive whether or not you actually need another degree. My background is education/US domestic policy, so others on this board surely know more than I do. But I also advise undergraduates through my work, so I don't think this is totally off base. With your profile (economics degree, management/business administration degree, apparent fluency in at least English and French), I assume you would be able to secure a pretty respectable entry-level or higher-than-entry-level position at the World Bank or the IMF as an analyst or an economist or a researcher of some sort. That might provide you an opportunity to utilize the skill set you already have while developing content knowledge and expertise in international and/or development issues. You might find such a position would give you the background to pursue an MPA/MPP/MA in IR, but you also might find that with management background and experience working in governmental/nongovernmental economics and finance for development purposes, that you can keep working in the field without an additional expensive and time-consuming degree.

I think it's up to $50k now (this thread is a bit old). The key difference between this fellowship and other graduate packages is that often students receive a fellowship that pays their tuition and fees (health insurance, etc.) and then receive a stipend for living expenses. This fellowship is *not* on top of tuition and fees, but rather provides funding to students all in one place, from which their tuition and fees are deducted. Tuition is $25k a year. After taxes (which presumably one would get back with a tuition credit), the end-of-year take-home for living expenses is still in the $11-12k range if I did the math right. Am I making some incorrect assumptions here? For ipsqq, if you're still on these boards, what are some of the pluses and minuses in your mind? Thanks!

Thanks fadeindreams! This is very helpful perspective!

Okay -- this is pretty funny. I hadn't meant to create any smiling faces or copyright symbols. Edited: 1. Have any of you been in a situation where you took additional post-bachelor's coursework to improve your academic profile and not gotten the results you wanted? 2. Does anyone know how much MPP/MPA programs take post-bachelor's coursework into consideration? 3. How much do you think the post-bachelor's coursework and grades really helps or hurts?

I work at a large R1 university that will pay for employees to take one job-related course for credit each semester. This is a wonderful benefit that I've been enjoying. In college I took very few quantitative classes, so I've been using the education benefit to tackle the quantitative material that intimidated me as an undergraduate. A question I have, though, is how much will these grades hurt or help? All three of the courses I have taken so far have been at the graduate school, and I think I am likely to earn my first "B" in a while. Will this hurt my transcript more than if I hadn't taken the course at all? I know this could sound like a somewhat whiny question. I'm really just curious to see what other people's perspectives are/experiences have been. This is a slightly modified course list (to make the names more generic). econometrics/program evaluation (grad course) Pass (elected pass/fail option)* multivariate statistics (grad course) "A" ** public and labor economics (grad course) -- projected "B" ** * I took this course pass/fail as my first course while also working full time, would have earned an "A"; the prof and I have a good relationship, and he is willing to write on my behalf. ** The grad school does not award +/- grades. I work about 55-70 hours a week (not including the time I spend on these courses), so I don't always have the time to put in the effort I want to. That's no excuse -- certainly not to any of the professors -- but it's a reality for me. I want to keep taking courses because regardless of the grades I am learning so much (and it's really helping me do my job better!), but I fear I'm setting myself up to have a less ideal transcript than I did before I started. I guess what I am wondering is: (a) Have any of you been in a situation where you took additional post-bachelor's coursework to improve your academic profile and not gotten the results you wanted? ( Does anyone know how much MPP/MPA programs take post-bachelor's coursework into consideration? © How much do you think the post-bachelor's coursework and grades really helps or hurts? Many thanks to anyone who has thoughts on this. Really appreciate it.

Thanks Dagger! The Ford School at Michigan seems really exciting, but these programs all still seem somewhat intangible to me (what exactly one gets out of them, besides better statistics skills, etc.). That may be an outgrowth of working straight out of college in the less policy-driven side of the field of education where most people have either a research degree or a very hands-on instructional or administrative EdM/MEd/MAT. How do you like Michigan?

Regarding your inquiry, I don't know. This is an off-the-cuff (and totally non-exhaustive) list of elected officials with MPA/MPP education: Jim Langevin (MPA, Harvard), US Representative (D-RI) Jack Reed (MPP, Harvard), US Senator (D-RI) Kathleen Sebelius (MPA, University of Kansas), Secretary of Health and Human Services, former Governor of Kansas Political (non-civil service) appointments: Andy Card (Harvard), Secretary of Transportation, White House Chief of Staff If your'e talking strategists, etc: David Whilhelm (MPP, Harvard), Democratic Party Campaign Manager (Pres. Clinton, Sen. Simon, Sen. Biden, etc.)

Greetings. First-time poster here but I've been reading the forum for a while. I've been working in education (broadly) for the past couple of years and hope to pursue graduate school in the next few years, as a means to gain more tangible skills for grappling with issues of education access/equity, housing/homelessness/food security, neighborhood economic development, public safety, job creation, public health (I have too many interests). To this end, I'm still not really sure if a law degree, an education policy degree, a business/management degree with a nonprofit focus, or an MPA/MPP/etc. program would be best, but I am researching and exploring options. I know there are is a heavy international relations/security studies focus on this particular board. Are there any domestic policy folks out there? I was wondering what guidance any domestic policy applicants (or students) may have, and if anyone knows if the work experience below is relevant, etc., or if policy schools would be interested in my stats. I've never worked in government (although we receive federal funding), political campaigns, think tanks, or the business world (which all seem to be common on this thread, so that's why I'm asking if anyone has thoughts on the relevance of the background, etc. -- basically, I'm just new to thinking about graduate school and anxious). Many thanks to anyone for any thoughts regarding good/bad programs, or, well, anything. Basic stats: 3.64 GPA from Ivy League uni, 3.8+ for the second two years; haven't taken the GRE yet Honors in history (awarded for strength of thesis - about 20 of us earned this distinction my year out of ~120 undergrads in the department) Three years of work experience with education equity work of a research university on college access for low-income students, one of those three years as an AmeriCorps member, two of those years helping to coordinate a college access program reaching about 2000 students yearly No formal math background, but graduate-level coursework taken in statistics, econometrics/program evaluation/policy analysis while working full time Strong background in GIS software (ArcView, Crimestat, GeoDA), as well as SPSS and Stata Considerable background in leadership development for youth and young adults, and experience with managing community partnerships, training/mentoring young adults and high school students, data management and basic (basic) program evaluation