ExponentialDecay

As well as any other school. Getting an STC position isn't super challenging in general, but moving on to staff requires a lot more than just going to a prestigious masters program. STEM designation isn't as important if you're aiming for IOs since you can work on a G visa (some don't even take OPT and make you open a G visa right away). That said, if you change your mind (and many people do once they realize the reality of working at an IO), a STEM designation is nice to have.

I talk about US programs and the US immigration climate because that's what I know. My impression from secondary sources is that Canada, Australia and a handful of EU countries (e.g. Germany, Poland) are feasible to migrate to via school, but I don't want to advise because immigration in each country is its own beast. The added complication is that a lot of traditional policy jobs require local citizenship or residency and policy degrees don't necessarily transfer well outside of policy fields.

lol dude what is your problem?

@GradSchoolGrad Please enlighten me if you see otherwise, but I've read both posts I made here and I see nowhere that I've been unkind or not nice, to you or to anyone. You never explained why you took such a condescending tone with me, "First off" and so on. Based on my longterm experience on this board, you are very invested in being the resident expert on all things here and you become incensed whenever somebody posts something you disagree with. I'm really not looking for an internet fight so, if you can't keep your communications civil, I'd rather we not interact anymore. You can post your opinion on a subject without directly putting it in opposition with mine. People here are smart and capable of making their own conclusions. Anyway. I find your post off-topic. The conversation was about whether trying to stay in the US after a master's degree is a good risk right now, and you have not addressed this point whatsoever. I will reiterate that, per my assessment, the US is not worth the risk right now (and basing one's decision on your unpedigreed assessment of what is "highly likely" for an as-of-yet unelected Presidential candidate to do is quite silly). This is where I'll leave it.

I'm sort of confused by your tone. I'm not saying a US education is bad; I'm saying that trying to immigrate via F1 now is much riskier than it was even a short while ago. I don't understand why you're acting defensive. 1. It doesn't matter. Even if Biden wins in November, policy and procedure doesn't just change like that once a new president takes hold (I should hope that people who advise on the Government Affairs grad school forum know that). It takes time for a new administration to make changes to immigration policies - hence why Trump's immigration policies, most of which were implemented at the agency, procedural level, and weren't even macro policies that passed through Congress, in large part came into effect in 2018 onwards. Further, we don't know where on the administration's priority list specifically, say, F1 visas or H1B visas will be - though I suspect they will not be high, given COVID and global economic collapse and all. We don't know who will control Congress. On a practical level, this administration's interventions created huge backlogs for USCIS, DOS, and other agencies, and constructed a multitude of procedural risks and barriers that I doubt will be high-priority enough to repeal in short order if at all. Finally, from an expectations perspective, we already have ample evidence that businesses are reaction to uncertainty around US immigration policies by entirely cutting the hiring of people with, shall we say, uncertain status - we're not just talking students on OPT, we're talking DACA recipients, asylees with EADs, anyone whose status is remotely uncertain. I don't see why in this case their expectations should recover faster than in literally any other situation where business expectations became deflated. 2. 2 years is actually not any time at all in the policy world. I'm not an expert in this field, I just follow it for personal reasons, and I have yet to read an expert who doesn't think that it will continue to be really bad for the next 2 years. 3. Institutions globally also value a Canadian education, or a British one, or a French one. Today there are many famous non-US schools in virtually any field, which also typically cost less and provide more options for staying in the country after. I think the US is not the best option for a non-MBA masters compared to other countries, where masters degrees are taken seriously rather than seen as a stepping stone for people who didn't get good enough grades in the BA or people who need to wait out a rough job market. Maybe 20 years ago the US was unique in offering non-lecture class experiences and practical learning, but today it is ubiquitous at top universities from Sydney to Singapore. Finally, this isn't "knee jerk" for me. I originally came to the US on an F1 visa (and yes, all my degrees are from the US) and I am still on a visa status today. This is an issue I consume a lot of news on and think about every day. Aside from my multitude of personal friends who are also non US citizens, I also am in touch with many people who are more junior in their careers in this very field, who worked with me in the summer or attended an event together, and who reach out to me regularly to talk about how they're doing on the job market and what their options are going forward. So I'm sorry to step on your toes, but the reason I commented here in the first place is that I do know a lot of facts, not just speculation, about this topic. If you don't have personal experience with the US immigration system and are not an immigration professional, I would maybe think twice about giving out diagnoses for other people's knees.

I would definitely pick a program that is STEM-certified. More and more MBA and policy programs are going that route, including some big names. That said, regardless of what you study and how many years of OPT you have, the current administration has made labor migration so difficult (not just H1B, but EB, L, O) that staying on after school has become exponentially more difficult than when you were in college. A lot of companies that hired internationals even 5 years ago now won't consider non-residents. Based on what I heard from a lawyer friend (large fwiw, of course), a lot of companies don't have the resources to hire internationals because they're fighting to keep existing hires in the country. There's a lot more hoops to jump through and a much higher likelihood of visas being denied or cancelled ex-post. So it's just a really risky proposition right now. I absolutely still know people who are staying on, but they all either have very quanty degrees from prestigious institutions or work for cap-exempt companies (and all were hired 2+ years ago - the situation got much worse even in the last 6 months). If I were a person considering coming to the US to study and work now, I'd look at Canada, Australia, or a European country where you speak the language. The US is just too risky imo.

This is a strange question. MPP and JD are very different degrees and lead to very different careers. If you are not sure which one is right for you, the answer is probably neither - for now. Getting an American law degree without plans to work in America is particularly strange, especially when you are not looking at financial law, contracts law or another area where being barred in the state of New York could be relevant. It does not seem to me like you are ready for grad school. If in Indonesia it is hard to find a job without a masters, I would recommend getting a local masters and going to the US once you have a better idea of what you want to do. I get that you got a scholarship, but life in America is very expensive, this is an investment of 2-3 years, and you really want to go once you can take the best advantage of the opportunities you are given.

...they also require linear algebra, calculus up to multivariable, and a proofs course? For admissions questions, you should look on the websites of the programs you are interested in and, if they are not answered there, contact admissions.

They had PhD-level credentials before they got the MPA. Not super relevant for OP.

If you want to get an econ PhD, do not - and I cannot stress this enough - do not get an MPA. Speaking of Harvard's MPA-ID, if you go to the open day, Dani Rodrik will literally give a speech to you, in which he will literally tell you that, if you want to get a PhD later, this is not the right program for you. MPAs and other professional policy degrees are designed for people who want to work in policy. They do not provide the right opportunities for someone who wants to get a PhD. Some degrees in this general area now offer relatively sophisticated economic and mathematical coursework - because that is what is increasingly required to succeed in many policy fields. A lot of the time these course offerings are not rigorous for hte purposes of demonstrating that you can do PhD-level work. Aside from that, a lot of econ people think people get MPAs when they're not good enough for an econ PhD. So don't do this. Make a choice that sets you up for success. If you want an econ PhD, you have broadly two avenues open to you. One, if you can do applied quantitative work, try to get an RAship at your local university, J-PAL, the Fed, some other econ RAship (you should do this anyway because it's required for the application and because it's a good way to determine whether you actually like the work). The math classes you have plus an RAship doing quantitative work sets you up to apply to mid-tier PhDs directly. Otherwise, get a 2 year masters in econ with a thesis option. If you want to go to a prestigious econ school (not at all a requirement to be a successful career economist, unless you want to be head of DEC or a Harvard professor), get a prestigious econ masters, like PSE or Bocconi. One year taught masters at places like LSE are not prestigious. One year taught masters that track the top 10-25% of the class into the PhD, like BGSE, are prestigious. Your best source of info on the internet is urch.com Finally, treat your PhD preparation as an exercise in determining whether this is the right path for you. Both on the downside (a lot of plenty talented, mathematically gifted people end up hating econ and dropping out) and on the upside (depending on what you want to specialize in, you may find better career prospects by doing PhD Finance - especially if you want to go into academia).

Not commenting w/r/t the specific situation with your visa, but I wouldn't attack @PokePsych for trying to be helpful and saying something that is very true. Moreover, not only are departments usually clueless about visa policies, but HR, legal and even the ISO can make mistakes and give bad advice. From the State Department's perspective, you and you alone are responsible for maintaining your visa status, so if you have problems because of some bad advice you followed - from your school, your lawyer, who cares - you are screwed. So just as a general piece of advice from someone who has spent a decade on F1, by all means listen to your provost and the international office, but double check everything they say with a second (qualified, of course) opinion or by reading all of the relevant legal documents yourself. Most visa stuff is handled on the USCIS website, but you may need to look up tax treaties etc for financial matters. Seriously, your visa status in the US is serious shit, especially in this administration. So stay vigilant and don't get nasty with people who try to help you out

This is probably way late, but depending on what you mean by sustainable finance (i.e. financial instruments and financing structures vs finance that targets environmental sustainability goals) you are better served doing a straight finance MA or MBA with a concentration on sustainable finance in the former case, and an environmental program in the latter. An international development program is going to be too unfocused to efficiently serve either of those goals. The SAIS energy program is well-reputed and you can switch into it. In either case, if you are committed to doing a public policy degree, I recommend prioritizing strong, well-connected finance faculty. The SIPA network at multilaterals is fine. Don't know where you're getting the info that MPA-DP cohort is significantly older than the SAIS IDEV one.

afaik SAIS is getting restructured imminently so just a thought overall though, unless CIPA is giving you a ton of money, you should do SAIS, especially if you want to work in an IO. I also don't know any country where Cornell is better respected than Johns Hopkins, but I know many countries where Johns Hopkins is a brand name and Cornell is virtually unknown.

@GradSchoolGrad I mean, I don't know when you got your masters, but things changed a lot in the policy masters arena even in the past 5 years. None but the most competitive programs have out of undergrad proportions as low as 25% lol. Programs at the level of Georgetown, SAIS, SIPA accept anyone who can put together an application in English. Really? It's pretty common. Harvard may disclose when spotlighted applicants are dual-degree, but they absolutely still feature them. HOWEVER, it is one thing for a well-established school to add a new program, create a new research center, or create a joint degree. I'm talking about reorganizing or eliminating existing flagship programs and culling staff. This sector is in a great deal of upheaval. Every policy masters today is having an identity crisis because employment options for policy generalists with 6 figure debt from a 2 year masters have dried up long ago. Schools are trying to plug large and persistent cash flow holes. Of course no one knows what will happen post-corona - hopefully, there will be a boom in student applications and at least the top schools will get more time and budgetary space to work through a gradual transition, but shit was moving scary fast in the past two years. I'm not privy to the reorg happening at CIPA and it is indeed not a good idea to go to a grad school that's going through a major transition. What I'm saying is that many of the students who are matriculating this fall at schools you consider "prestigious" are stepping into the same mire. I think a policy degree is still the right career choice for many people. But I don't think the decision can be made on prestige anymore. Most of the grads from Harvard and Princeton are stuck in the same employment situation as people from lesser schools.

How the fuck are you going to pay back 200k in debt with interest working in the humanitarian sector???