PeterQuince

Hello and congratulations on reaching the decision-making stage.
I am an MPP1 at HKS, and probably saw some of you around the school on Thursday and Friday. It was great to meet those of you with whom I was able to speak.
As a current student, I thought it could be helpful to offer some responses to some common themes on this thread (albeit speaking only for myself). I'm happy to respond to very specific questions over a private message or on the New Admit student boards under my real name. Additional disclosure: I am not a student of color but am active in diversity issues on campus and was also in attendance at the Diversity Reception in a semi-official non-speaking capacity. Maybe we met! I was not wildly enthusiastic about HKS following my own admitted students day, but that actually helped make the decision to attend easier because I knew I wasn't responding to emotion or sentiment alone. I was stressed about making the right decision, as was, I suspect, everyone else, which made the day less-than-enjoyable in some respects. The same was probably true this year. I am confident I made the right choice to attend, and I hope this post is useful.
The first year core is a work in progress, but is generally better every year with thoughtful, incremental improvements, driven in part by student advocacy. As someone who came to HKS from a social justice background, I have often found the holes in the curriculum to be personally challenging. What's worth remembering is the purpose of the core is primarily the instruction of skills -- how to think, rather than what to think -- and that the flexibility and freedom of the second year provides ample opportunity to take classes at HKS and across Harvard that harness those skills for just purposes. The larger challenge, I think, is less about the instruction in the core for people already wired to think about issues of systemic oppression, etc., and more for the students who have had the exposure to discussions of those topics. Certain classes are moving in that direction and it is a work in progress with a lot of thoughtful people engaged. 
With respect to rigor, it's difficult to do very poorly here (although some people do struggle) and courses are graded on a curve, but ultimately your education here or at any professional graduate school program your learning matters more than your grades. Even if you you want to be a consultant or a PhD, your learning still matters more. Saying "grades don't matter" is silly and reduces the meaning of hard effort, but at the same time whether you earn a B+ or an A- in any given course doesn't actually matter very much, and that's probably the way it should be.
Building on that point, learning happens inside and out of the classroom here in what I have found to be an incredibly dynamic environment. It's up to you to decide where and how you will learn the most during your two years at HKS. What I value about this school is the breadth and depth of the experiences people bring, and I have sought out opportunities to learn from the experiences of my peers. HKS is a generalist school in that it prepares people to conduct economic analysis for the IMF or to manage municipal transit systems, and everything in between. Between topical study groups with experts, lectures, panels, student-run journals, student-run conferences, research and practice based at the various centers, affinity and social groups (and coursework), HKS can be a bit of a carnival and it's up to each student to seek out opportunities, but professors and staff are excited to work with students and there is surprisingly easy access to funding for student initiatives. I see all of this as a strength and a key contributor to the vitality of the school, but if you're looking for a more intimate or narrowly-focused program there may be better options. If you're lucky enough to have options, go to the school that is the best match for what you want to do and how you need to learn.
Finally, graduate school is expensive, and only you can decide if it's the right choice to make to attend now, in the future, or not at all. I can say that my graduating friends are getting jobs and getting jobs they're excited about with the opportunity to make a difference. As an "older" MPP with a substantial scholarship and a working spouse I'll be able to graduate without debt (just nonexistent savings), but that's not necessarily everyone's experience and I don't know if I would have felt comfortable attending HKS without the grant-based financial support. That said, I am incredibly glad that I am here.

Hello and congratulations on reaching the decision-making stage.
I am an MPP1 at HKS, and probably saw some of you around the school on Thursday and Friday. It was great to meet those of you with whom I was able to speak.
As a current student, I thought it could be helpful to offer some responses to some common themes on this thread (albeit speaking only for myself). I'm happy to respond to very specific questions over a private message or on the New Admit student boards under my real name. Additional disclosure: I am not a student of color but am active in diversity issues on campus and was also in attendance at the Diversity Reception in a semi-official non-speaking capacity. Maybe we met! I was not wildly enthusiastic about HKS following my own admitted students day, but that actually helped make the decision to attend easier because I knew I wasn't responding to emotion or sentiment alone. I was stressed about making the right decision, as was, I suspect, everyone else, which made the day less-than-enjoyable in some respects. The same was probably true this year. I am confident I made the right choice to attend, and I hope this post is useful.
The first year core is a work in progress, but is generally better every year with thoughtful, incremental improvements, driven in part by student advocacy. As someone who came to HKS from a social justice background, I have often found the holes in the curriculum to be personally challenging. What's worth remembering is the purpose of the core is primarily the instruction of skills -- how to think, rather than what to think -- and that the flexibility and freedom of the second year provides ample opportunity to take classes at HKS and across Harvard that harness those skills for just purposes. The larger challenge, I think, is less about the instruction in the core for people already wired to think about issues of systemic oppression, etc., and more for the students who have had the exposure to discussions of those topics. Certain classes are moving in that direction and it is a work in progress with a lot of thoughtful people engaged. 
With respect to rigor, it's difficult to do very poorly here (although some people do struggle) and courses are graded on a curve, but ultimately your education here or at any professional graduate school program your learning matters more than your grades. Even if you you want to be a consultant or a PhD, your learning still matters more. Saying "grades don't matter" is silly and reduces the meaning of hard effort, but at the same time whether you earn a B+ or an A- in any given course doesn't actually matter very much, and that's probably the way it should be.
Building on that point, learning happens inside and out of the classroom here in what I have found to be an incredibly dynamic environment. It's up to you to decide where and how you will learn the most during your two years at HKS. What I value about this school is the breadth and depth of the experiences people bring, and I have sought out opportunities to learn from the experiences of my peers. HKS is a generalist school in that it prepares people to conduct economic analysis for the IMF or to manage municipal transit systems, and everything in between. Between topical study groups with experts, lectures, panels, student-run journals, student-run conferences, research and practice based at the various centers, affinity and social groups (and coursework), HKS can be a bit of a carnival and it's up to each student to seek out opportunities, but professors and staff are excited to work with students and there is surprisingly easy access to funding for student initiatives. I see all of this as a strength and a key contributor to the vitality of the school, but if you're looking for a more intimate or narrowly-focused program there may be better options. If you're lucky enough to have options, go to the school that is the best match for what you want to do and how you need to learn.
Finally, graduate school is expensive, and only you can decide if it's the right choice to make to attend now, in the future, or not at all. I can say that my graduating friends are getting jobs and getting jobs they're excited about with the opportunity to make a difference. As an "older" MPP with a substantial scholarship and a working spouse I'll be able to graduate without debt (just nonexistent savings), but that's not necessarily everyone's experience and I don't know if I would have felt comfortable attending HKS without the grant-based financial support. That said, I am incredibly glad that I am here.

Hello and congratulations on reaching the decision-making stage.
I am an MPP1 at HKS, and probably saw some of you around the school on Thursday and Friday. It was great to meet those of you with whom I was able to speak.
As a current student, I thought it could be helpful to offer some responses to some common themes on this thread (albeit speaking only for myself). I'm happy to respond to very specific questions over a private message or on the New Admit student boards under my real name. Additional disclosure: I am not a student of color but am active in diversity issues on campus and was also in attendance at the Diversity Reception in a semi-official non-speaking capacity. Maybe we met! I was not wildly enthusiastic about HKS following my own admitted students day, but that actually helped make the decision to attend easier because I knew I wasn't responding to emotion or sentiment alone. I was stressed about making the right decision, as was, I suspect, everyone else, which made the day less-than-enjoyable in some respects. The same was probably true this year. I am confident I made the right choice to attend, and I hope this post is useful.
The first year core is a work in progress, but is generally better every year with thoughtful, incremental improvements, driven in part by student advocacy. As someone who came to HKS from a social justice background, I have often found the holes in the curriculum to be personally challenging. What's worth remembering is the purpose of the core is primarily the instruction of skills -- how to think, rather than what to think -- and that the flexibility and freedom of the second year provides ample opportunity to take classes at HKS and across Harvard that harness those skills for just purposes. The larger challenge, I think, is less about the instruction in the core for people already wired to think about issues of systemic oppression, etc., and more for the students who have had the exposure to discussions of those topics. Certain classes are moving in that direction and it is a work in progress with a lot of thoughtful people engaged. 
With respect to rigor, it's difficult to do very poorly here (although some people do struggle) and courses are graded on a curve, but ultimately your education here or at any professional graduate school program your learning matters more than your grades. Even if you you want to be a consultant or a PhD, your learning still matters more. Saying "grades don't matter" is silly and reduces the meaning of hard effort, but at the same time whether you earn a B+ or an A- in any given course doesn't actually matter very much, and that's probably the way it should be.
Building on that point, learning happens inside and out of the classroom here in what I have found to be an incredibly dynamic environment. It's up to you to decide where and how you will learn the most during your two years at HKS. What I value about this school is the breadth and depth of the experiences people bring, and I have sought out opportunities to learn from the experiences of my peers. HKS is a generalist school in that it prepares people to conduct economic analysis for the IMF or to manage municipal transit systems, and everything in between. Between topical study groups with experts, lectures, panels, student-run journals, student-run conferences, research and practice based at the various centers, affinity and social groups (and coursework), HKS can be a bit of a carnival and it's up to each student to seek out opportunities, but professors and staff are excited to work with students and there is surprisingly easy access to funding for student initiatives. I see all of this as a strength and a key contributor to the vitality of the school, but if you're looking for a more intimate or narrowly-focused program there may be better options. If you're lucky enough to have options, go to the school that is the best match for what you want to do and how you need to learn.
Finally, graduate school is expensive, and only you can decide if it's the right choice to make to attend now, in the future, or not at all. I can say that my graduating friends are getting jobs and getting jobs they're excited about with the opportunity to make a difference. As an "older" MPP with a substantial scholarship and a working spouse I'll be able to graduate without debt (just nonexistent savings), but that's not necessarily everyone's experience and I don't know if I would have felt comfortable attending HKS without the grant-based financial support. That said, I am incredibly glad that I am here.

Hi vendettapolitics.
Reading your original post, I am curious to know why you want to pursue a public policy degree (not necessarily at Harvard, just in general), and what you hope to do with it. Articulating this vision might be helpful for your own sense of purpose also for the application committee that will read your file. You have an unusual undergraduate background that could be valuable to bring to a public policy school, but you will need to explain why you are pursuing the path you are pursuing and how an MPP (or similar) will advance that (or redirect it).
While there are some students who enroll in competitive MPP programs (or similar) directly out of undergrad, I think it's useful to have at least a few years of professional experience to help guide your graduate studies. A place like the Kennedy School has a dizzying amount of incompatible opportunities, even for someone adept at navigating commitments as you are now. To get the most out of any such program you will want to know why you're going there in the first place, and some work experience can often help.
Best of luck deciding what to do next.

Long-time lurker, infrequent poster. This is an interesting thread.
 
I was talking to a good friend of mine last night, considering options for what to do next year. We have very different work experience (he's a lawyer for the government, I work for an education nonprofit), and he reminded me just how subjective my application process was compared to his. For law school, your LSAT and GPA largely (although not entirely) dictate your options before the consideration of funding. Statements of purpose or personal statements matter, as do letters of recommendation, but it remains an equation with two primary variables that have the greatest weight (although tipped differently based on the school). The common denominator is that almost everyone applying to law school intends to become a lawyer (or will become one, even if they don't intend to now). There's only one bar exam for each state (plus a few for certain federal courts), and while some law schools have specialties, the general education is very similar across all institutions, so with acceptances in hand, it's pretty easy to examine cost, aid, size, community, hiring record, and a few other factors to make a good matriculation decision.
 
Conversely, for most of the people who post and read on this forum specifically (for a broad range of policy and government administration programs), the GPA and GRE scores matter, but they are far from the only factors. Because many of these programs are so different from each other in their areas of emphasis, scope, and type of professional and/or academic training, and because so many people's interests are so different from each other (community organizing, municipal administration, economic policy analysis, international diplomacy), it's much more of a complicated matching process for the admissions committees, which is why statements of purpose and letters of recommendation matter so heavily. I've wondered why people often mention (on this board and elsewhere) that they know they have "Strong LORs" or similar, because that seems necessary but not sufficient. Programmatic fit seems to matter a great deal and whether a recommendation is a strong endorsement or not, it has to demonstrate that your academic and professional goals match those of the program, and that you would add to the community. I think it's more difficult to write a thoughtful and customized letter of recommendation for some of these schools than for law school.
 
And then there are things no one can control: the size of the applicant pool, the quality of the applicant pool, the diversity of the applicant pool (across the obvious and many far less obvious measures). It's enticing to think it's cut-and-dry, and perhaps it is when you're accepted, but it isn't necessarily when you aren't, because countless qualified people are denied admission or waitlisted every year because there aren't enough seats in the classes. But you really have no idea if you "got in by the skin of your teeth" unless someone with authority tells you as much (and you might question why they decided to do so if they did).
 
I have friends with amazing experience, grades, and scores who have struggled to be admitted and friends with far less stellar profiles who got in everywhere they applied, and I think it has a lot to do with (a) really knowing what you want to do and why, (b ) applying to schools that will help you achieve those goals, © communicating that effectively through your application, and (d) supporting your recommenders as they communicate it in their letters. I'm sure that's why some of my friends have struggled, but it's also not always enough because of all of the exogenous factors no one can control.
 
Best of luck to everyone with decisions if you have them to make, and if you do, give yourself a pat on the back. You may not know why you were admitted (or denied) somewhere, but don't assume you know for sure unless someone on the admissions team is willing to sit down and review your file with you.

Long-time lurker, infrequent poster. This is an interesting thread.
 
I was talking to a good friend of mine last night, considering options for what to do next year. We have very different work experience (he's a lawyer for the government, I work for an education nonprofit), and he reminded me just how subjective my application process was compared to his. For law school, your LSAT and GPA largely (although not entirely) dictate your options before the consideration of funding. Statements of purpose or personal statements matter, as do letters of recommendation, but it remains an equation with two primary variables that have the greatest weight (although tipped differently based on the school). The common denominator is that almost everyone applying to law school intends to become a lawyer (or will become one, even if they don't intend to now). There's only one bar exam for each state (plus a few for certain federal courts), and while some law schools have specialties, the general education is very similar across all institutions, so with acceptances in hand, it's pretty easy to examine cost, aid, size, community, hiring record, and a few other factors to make a good matriculation decision.
 
Conversely, for most of the people who post and read on this forum specifically (for a broad range of policy and government administration programs), the GPA and GRE scores matter, but they are far from the only factors. Because many of these programs are so different from each other in their areas of emphasis, scope, and type of professional and/or academic training, and because so many people's interests are so different from each other (community organizing, municipal administration, economic policy analysis, international diplomacy), it's much more of a complicated matching process for the admissions committees, which is why statements of purpose and letters of recommendation matter so heavily. I've wondered why people often mention (on this board and elsewhere) that they know they have "Strong LORs" or similar, because that seems necessary but not sufficient. Programmatic fit seems to matter a great deal and whether a recommendation is a strong endorsement or not, it has to demonstrate that your academic and professional goals match those of the program, and that you would add to the community. I think it's more difficult to write a thoughtful and customized letter of recommendation for some of these schools than for law school.
 
And then there are things no one can control: the size of the applicant pool, the quality of the applicant pool, the diversity of the applicant pool (across the obvious and many far less obvious measures). It's enticing to think it's cut-and-dry, and perhaps it is when you're accepted, but it isn't necessarily when you aren't, because countless qualified people are denied admission or waitlisted every year because there aren't enough seats in the classes. But you really have no idea if you "got in by the skin of your teeth" unless someone with authority tells you as much (and you might question why they decided to do so if they did).
 
I have friends with amazing experience, grades, and scores who have struggled to be admitted and friends with far less stellar profiles who got in everywhere they applied, and I think it has a lot to do with (a) really knowing what you want to do and why, (b ) applying to schools that will help you achieve those goals, © communicating that effectively through your application, and (d) supporting your recommenders as they communicate it in their letters. I'm sure that's why some of my friends have struggled, but it's also not always enough because of all of the exogenous factors no one can control.
 
Best of luck to everyone with decisions if you have them to make, and if you do, give yourself a pat on the back. You may not know why you were admitted (or denied) somewhere, but don't assume you know for sure unless someone on the admissions team is willing to sit down and review your file with you.

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!

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.

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.

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.