ExponentialDecay

I mean, what's your situation? Most stipends are enough for a single childless person to scrape by on in their area, but not enough to cover emergencies or significant life changes. If you are young and healthy, don't anticipate any costly emergencies, and have family/savings/alternative sources of income to fall back on if any do arise, you should be less concerned than if you are old and sick and have dependents and a weak support system. But also, life is unpredictable and a PhD takes a long time.

These different "identities" schools advertise are more an attempt to differentiate a similar product on an increasingly crowded market than any real difference. The curricula at the top IR schools are basically the same (unless you're doing a more specialized program like the MPAID or the data science thing at Heinz). Many of their graduates who work at financial institutions don't do work related to finance or economics. SAIS positions itself as "quantitatively rigorous" and as a feeder to the institutions people associate with economics, but unless you make it your goal and work very hard for it, you're not going to be waltzing into an economist job - quite the opposite. Don't be taken in by the advertising. I'd advise you to compare the curricula in detail and figure out how much economics you will be required to take at either (I hypothesize no difference), and then, let's be real, pick the cheaper option - when you graduate, nobody's going to care what bullshit classes you took.

I think you're looking for college confidential

I just said that work immigration is much easier in Canada than in the US. What will give you more job opportunities depends so heavily on your personal circumstances and abilities that I cannot begin to answer such a question. Unless your think tank is classed as an academic institute it's not going to do anything for your visa eligibility, and whilst SAIS places well at IOs, they're all going through budget cuts right now, hiring is extremely constrained, and I don't know where things will stand in 2 years.

If you're okay with Canada, it's easier to get a work visa there (although I can't vouch for doing so in public policy - many of those jobs are frequently reserved for citizens). Then, unless you're made of money, I'd go with the cheapest option.

You mean, like the mentality that there are "male qualities" and "female qualities"? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 @telkanuru OP was a troll but he made the real MRAs show up

Entry is seriously not that hard. Staff position is another question, but no grad school will help you there. I hope you're not expecting to enter the MBBs out of a "prestigious" policy degree, especially as an international student, and especially without commensurate work experience. Because it's not happening. It is exceptionally difficult to get good funding as an international student at any US institution without a strong background, so what a lot of international students do is, actually, work up: in undergrad, that means starting at community college or a low-ranked university and transferring, and in grad school, it usually means a starter master's degree in the US or Europe. I know a few people who are on visa and taking out 6 figure loans, but with the exception of one guy who is top of his class in a finance degree and already has a job at JP, I'm not sure what they're doing. At the same time, I don't know anyone's personal situation: if you're in line for a family reunification GC or you can get a job in your country with a US law/policy/business degree and a US salary (which is feasible for people from, like, Hong Kong), maybe that's reasonable. Those are not my circumstances so big loans were certainly not reasonable for me. Sure; but most people at Columbia on no scholarship are okay with it because they're naive or stupid. I'm sorry to call anyone out, y'all, and I'm sure one day I'll get banhammered for rustling delicate feathers, but I'm just giving it to you as it is in this indelicate manner because, as evidenced by the frequency of posts like this, y'all just don't catch onto nuanced warnings. @nycpolicy I'd take the full ride and the 3 years OPT (if only I had 3 years OPT...). That's money and time against some nebulous "prestige". As someone with prestige coming out the wazoo, I can tell you it helps at the margin, but the H1B lottery doesn't discriminate on the margin. Also, none of your options are all that prestigious. I didn't even know Fordham had a policy school, but the difference between it and Tufts is that I heard Tufts has a policy school.

Well hello. The only thing better than enjoying a sunny Friday off is doing it in the virtual company of my prospective colleagues/debt slaves, so welcome! It would help if you posted a more detailed profile e.g. using the format in the sticky thread (feel free to also PM me your SOP or whatever) and stated what your professional goals are beyond being sector-agnostic and looking to stay in the US, in terms of institutions and roles. I'm not really sure what "being a generalist" means in this profession - afaik that's not a thing. Also, how much can you finance out of pocket? So here's the thing about the DC schools. You'd have to be simple to not get an STC gig at one of the IFIs coming out of them, so that's a (good, all things considered) option for staying in the US. That said, at least at the Bank, they're seemingly doing everything they can to make these contracts untenable as permanent employment, so I don't know if that's still going to be an option 2 years from now. I know the regional development banks have better contract conditions but they also have more stringent nationality requirements. You might look into the ADB, which I know nothing about. H1B is a tough sell for the foreseeable future. There's a good representation at these institutions from HKS and WWS. The other schools, I can't say. By the way, forget about work life balance. I can't speak to the reputation of GW in India as I'm not from India, so I would trust your network there (presumably you're asking people in your industry, not Auntie). When evaluating these scholarships don't forget to account for cost of living. Living in DC for 12 months will run you ~20k at a conservative estimate. NYC will be similar or more expensive. Boston is a little cheaper. Chicago is a lot cheaper. tbh I just don't see an obvious solution for your situation. Immigrating to the US is hard as it is, and if you choose to also go into debt for a not very employable degree in the meantime... eh. A lot of it comes down to the personal factor, and maybe you have a fire lit under your ass and you'll take advantage of all the opportunities and make all the important contacts and be my boss in 2025; I can't know that. I can only tell you that, in your position, I wouldn't take out a cent in debt for any of those degrees. Some of that is rational and some of that is my personal risk preference. I also didn't have to and still got to pursue this career in this country (so far), so maybe I don't understand your pain. I think if I were coming from abroad and couldn't get a good scholarship to the top programs (did you apply, btw, for the Fulbright and the JJ/WBGSP?), I'd apply to the regional programs and go to the one that gave me a full ride over taking serious debt to go to a top program. I don't know about the US private sector, but so much of getting into the IFIs is about getting into the community of your countrymen and having them help you out.

The MPP is a professional degree. If you want a PhD, don't get an MPP.

You have 50K per year or cumulatively? If your tuition is fully covered and they're giving you a stipend, take it. A small loan is fine.

If the school you'd really want to attend is on that list, it's worth giving them a call and asking about deferring and being reconsidered for funding next year. Otherwise, if you'd like to apply to more/other schools next year, I'd recommend just reapplying. None of the awards you got are spectacular and you can get them again.

Respectfully, this is demonstrably false. The reason economists do policy jobs is that a large part of policy design, in almost all fields these days, is applied economic theory. The distinction here is important: economists are not statisticians. Statisticians can run the numbers, but they are at a disadvantage for policy design jobs because they don't know the models. I don't know how many friends you have at IFIs, but your sample is not representative of degree attainment in these organizations. The majority of people at the IMF are either economists or financiers. Because of the nature of Bank work, it hires people from a variety of backgrounds, but economists are very well represented. It's true that you can hold an economist title with a policy or other non-economics degree, but if OP is sure that they want to be an economist, getting a degree in economics is the most straightforward way to achieve that. OP, your choice here largely depends on what you want to do. If you want to be an economist, I'd go with PSE. It's a pipeline to the EBRD and OECD, and among economists it's well-known as a top program. Among non-economists it's obviously hit and miss (think carefully about how much economists' vs non-economists' opinions will be weighed in your intended career path). Economics as a field is very cliquey and you'd have to spend some time proving that you're not a monkey if you come from any program this is not "MSc Economics" or "MSc Finance", so if you're certain that you want to be an economist, just get the economics degree. Chicago is more well-known stateside and to non-economists, but it's also a relatively new program, there is little alumni network and more importantly, people don't really know what to expect from its graduates in terms of ability. I hear you on the practical applicability, but keep in mind that data analytics is a different thing from economics. If you just want to do data work, this is fine. If you want to build economic models, I'd check that the curriculum actually teaches those. They're harder to learn (indepth) than coding. Consider also whether you want to work in Europe or the US after graduation. If you have work permission in both this is moreso a consideration of what professional network you will build (although it's hard to build a professional network in DC from Chicago and on as intense a study schedule as Chicago degrees usually have); if you need a visa, this should be one of your primary concerns. Further, if Chicago isn't giving you serious money, it's not really worth the extra 50k over PSE imo. Either way, you can get into IFIs with whichever one you choose and both will benefit your career about equally in the long run. You'll be fine if you just go with the one you prefer.

I'd elaborate, but you answered your own question. In international development, prestige matters a lot. If you were getting a technical degree or this degree came at no cost to you it'd be a different conversation, but with these priors you're picking the overall suboptimal choice. That said, you clearly love the program, and whilst I'd say it's irrational to go with what you love in view of the drawbacks (imo you don't need a degree to live on the west coast), fortunately I'm just a person on the internet and you don't need to listen to me. What I consider an okay level of debt is irrelevant. Because of my personal circumstances, for me that level is 0. You certainly have different personal circumstances, ergo your figure is different. I'd just advise you to arrive at that figure based on facts rather than feelings.

I do think the gender bias in the mathematical sciences (and especially theoretical branches and pure math) is disproportionate relative other STEM fields, but OP, coming in here with aggressive one-sentence arguments and no evidence will not lead to a productive discussion. If you're upset about your results and want to rant, this likely isn't the place because you will get shot down (as you can already see), and you'll probably feel even worse. fwiw at least on the applied math side, every woman I know who has wanted to get a PhD has gotten in (programs of their choice or of similar caliber). That said, I think the bias starts way earlier than grad school applications (you're lucky if it starts in college), and I think it continues in perpetuity after them. Part of it is that nobody wants to address gender bias or sexual harassment (which disproportionately affects women) because it damages the reputations of people and institutions in myriad ways, and part of it is that mathematical science is still a boys' club. It's not limited to STEM. This is an article on gender bias in economics. I tried sharing it along my institutional channels and nobody gave a shit.

The Chicago MPP has access to some pretty quanty courses (with priority enrollment for PhD and MACRM students, though) but in itself it's as quanty as any other MPP - so, not that much. That will make a difference for employers. I don't know if the Heinz program is STEM-designated, but if it is and you want to stay in the US, 3 years OPT is the #1 consideration.