ExponentialDecay

International student is a visa category. It has nothing to do with where you do your undergrad. As long as your friend is not a U.S. citizen or permanent resident, he is considered an international student. That said, it's alarming that your friend is apparently so ignorant about his own immigration status that he is sending random buddies to post questions like this on internet forums (not the right place to go for this information either). So tell him that.

If by abroad you mean US, Europe and other first world nations with heavy migration restrictions, a minimal-math degree that you could get with no work experience and a foreign law undergrad that will provide any employment opportunities worth speaking of is a tall order. You're probably best off choosing a country that gives you a path to a work visa (if not permanent residency) after completing a degree there (i.e. not the US or UK) and studying something business-related there.

...are there not MSW schools in PA? Seems silly to apply to Columbia if you want to live in a different state. I lived with my mom for a year once. It was fine. I don't think one's living situation is a typical subject of social discussion, so I'm not sure that anyone knew where I lived - not that I'd care if they did.

you'll be fine but the other guy is right that a lot of schools require intro micro or stats before matriculation, so get on that

A gap of a few months isn't really considered a gap, so you could get away with not mentioning it at all. Or, if your resume is chronological, you could just put in a section that says what you say here.

I'm not disagreeing with your message, I'm disagreeing with your tone. And I doubt anyone's been tracking your post history enough to have any indication of what you subscribe to.

Dude, it's your life.

ehhhhhhh I appreciate that this is an attempt to warn recent Sarah Lawrence graduates that the real world works differently off campus, but imo all this kind of rhetoric accomplishes is entrenching young people in their idealistic notions and avoidance of "corporate drudgery". I really wish people would stop portraying the private sector as this monolithic, vaguely kafkaesque entity where everyone has to bend over and take it from the boss, who is in cahoots with Trump and probably has a pointy tail. That's not the case. 1. The private sector is really diverse. Evil corporations and investment banks are only a tiny fraction of the private sector. The majority of private sector entities are small and medium enterprises, like organic farms, mom and pop stores, restaurants, or small companies that make shit like some niche design software or imitation mini cacti. Most of these companies make little if any profit and are just trying to provide a good product and stay in business. Ultimately, being private just dictates how you file your taxes. An entity isn't evil just by virtue of being private, just as it is not good just by virtue of being a non-profit. 2. Most Americans work in the private sector, so, statistically, about half of them are Democrats. Some industry sectors are more right or more left than others - oil companies tend to be staffed by Republicans and startups tend to be staffed by Democrats - but just that you work in the private sector implies exactly nothing about what your workplace environment is like. Your coworkers may all be uberliberal, ubercool millennials who went to similar liberal arts schools. Your company may put up a booth each Pride. Your boss may host weekly #withher rallies. And you still, by the way, would need to STFU because that's part of being a person that other people want to work with and promote, whether in academia, non-profits, government, or a pre-language hunter-gatherer society. 3. Because of how diverse the private sector is, you can find a lifestyle similar to the academic one at a private company. It's not all navy suits and 9 to 5. Some companies have flexible scheduling. Some have work from home options. Some have cool childcare perks, amazing office amenities or big vacation time. Some companies have better employer protection than the antiquated, calcified and politically fraught grievance systems endemic to most academic (and other large, complex and old) institutions. How feasible any given option is depends on what industry you're in, what role you have and where you are geographically (just as what your daily life looks like will depend on your discipline and the type of institution you're at), but it is possible, and, what's best, you don't need to sacrifice 10 years and be a department superstar in order to get a slim chance at it.

It rather depends on what the degree is. An MBA from Harvard is a very different thing from a cash cow humanities MA from Columbia.

List what math classes you took and your grades in them. the GRE is good but tbh unless that 3.43 is weighed down by Cs in humanities classes, that's a worrisome GPA. It's a worrisome GPA even if it's not weighed down by humanities classes. It also depends on what your research was and who your supervisor was for that (whom you should ask about your chances btw). If you want a realistic shot at MIT and Stanford, I'd get a master's from a program that places at MIT and Stanford (LSE, Bocconi, BGSE), kill it, do research with Giacomo Ponzetto, and then you'll have a good chance of getting in.

1. I'm not sure why it's a good idea to incentivize superfluous posting? The point of this forum is to provide and retain information. Would anyone find it helpful to wade through dozens of "what's your favorite cat color?"-type postings in order to find what they're looking for? 2. I am likewise sure that ~no one is intentionally giving bad advice that they know is wrong just to watch the world burn, but as in legal parlance, ignorance of the law excuses not: whether they're giving bad advice intentionally or not, they're still doing harm. And it's not realistic to expect experienced members to monitor this BB for n00b answers. We have full time jobs and real lives and stuff.

1. What do you want to do? 2. Does program x place students into positions doing what you want to do? 3. Go to the program that does (2) most successfully People so often forget that graduate school is a means to an end, not the end itself. Either prestige or reputation are only meaningful insofar as they help you get the outcome you want. Getting the world's most prestigious history degree won't help you if you want to be a physicist.

People do do that. There isn't an epidemic because, one, most people doing PhDs want to get the PhD, two, a master's in the American job market is this weird limbo degree that implies you're more qualified than a BA (therefore the company might have to pay you more), but you're not an expert/fully fledged research professional with a PhD. In a lot of fields a master's basically doesn't qualify you for anything beyond what a BA qualifies you for, so mastering out basically means wasting two years. Of course it's stupid convention and I don't know who came up with the nonsense that you need to sacrifice 5+ years to academia in order to learn to do research, especially at the non-PI level, but academia is slow to change and the labor market is slow to change - so there you have it.

Wrong forum. You're looking for Government Affairs in the Professional Programs section. But, since I'm here... Your internship experience doesn't really set you apart from other direct from undergrad applicants because they all have internship experience, and most have exactly the same experience as you. The typical direct from undergrad applicant is a political science major who has studied abroad, taken intro micro and has a bunch of summer stints on the Hill/congress/some think tank or other. Your GPA is low for direct-from-undergrad, but probably good enough for second tier programs. Your chances of getting serious money are low because of the combination low GPA + no work experience.

Kinda hard to give thoughts when you say nada about your research interests, OP