ExponentialDecay

I've never heard of Willy Brandt School LSE is a strong brand, but it is often not strong enough to get people jobs in the UK if they need visa sponsorship, if they're graduating from the frou frou degrees, which your is. The thing about policy schools is that they're very much an American concept. In Europe, you get a degree in whatever subject you want to work in (politics, economics, education, whatever) - interdisciplinary programs are seen as a little bizarre. In America they are understood, but, whilst LSE is known, certainly at international organizations, the brand and network of American programs (HKS, WWS, SAIS, etc) is a lot stronger. If 21k (plus the same in living expenses - although I remember that the program is 2 years, so that's more like 42k) is acceptable to you, I'd pick LSE because it is a very well-connected, well-respected school, no matter the program. That said, I would choose neither. Good lord I need to consult someone about my comma use.

You have to keep in mind that the Russian historical school did not develop in the same way the Western historical school did because of the Soviet Union. For 90 years it was an expression of historical materialism, like the rest of the Russian humanities and social science scholarship. You have to keep in mind that your Russian colleagues don't read the same people, don't revere the same scholarly traditions, and that yeah, they are hostile to some lines of thought because the 60s never happened in Russia and those modes of analysis essentially don't exist (I have seen some gender or race-based critiques, but they are not done in an institutionalized prejudice lens - this lens is not recognized in Russia). Russian historical scholarship is still largely determinist, and maintains the Enlightenment Era ideals that were its last contact with the known world in 1917 and which were propagated further in the era of Marxism-Leninism. Even Russians say that the Russian humanities were destroyed and never recovered. I don't know how it is with other cultures, but ime Russian humanities and social science scholarship is not infrequently irreconcilable with its western counterpart, even in more quantitative disciplines. I would read it as a primary text rather than a secondary authority.

yeah is that funny?

you do? squeeee but can I ask - what exactly do you get?

Looks like this professor really doesn't want to write you a LOR, OP. You should probably stop asking her for one.

probably not probably not a reasonable fear if the CEO can write you a better recommendation than whoever is currently your 2nd or 3rd recommender, you should ask him. otherwise it doesn't matter.

Oh hello. I remember you from last year. Good to hear that you turned down the unfunded CIPA offer, got a job, worked for a year, and got into CIPA funded this time. It's a case study into how work experience really does improve your prospects in this field. Undergrads, take note. I think CIPA, if funded, is actually a viable option, and @went_away gives you another viable option in staying on at your MNC to get some more experience and applying to more prestigious school (I disagree with the rest of his advice, but whatever). But neither option is suboptimal and ultimately it comes down to choice. If you really hate your job or you really want to go to grad school, do that. Just some miscellaneous thoughts: 1. If you're looking at IOs (which are realistically the most viable option for internationals with this degree who want to stay in the field), more work experience+more prestigious degree can actually make a defining difference in your career prospects. The reason for that is that IOs are not dynamic organizations - a reality which is reflected not only in their promotion practices (virtually nonexistent), but in how your colleagues see you. Once you're embedded in a professional niche, it's hard to get out of it; this is good because you can get consistent work, but it's not so good if you're trying to grow your career or do something else. It's harder to get onto a track leading to a technical staff appointment after 1 year of WE and CIPA than after, say, 5 years and SAIS or HKS (although your results are highly contingent on your networking). The advice you hear a lot is to do impressive work outside the IO and then get in on a plum position rather than getting in on a lower rung and working your way up, because working your way up is uncertain and guaranteed to take a million years. 2. This is anecdotal, but idk that the Ivy prestige will make a salient difference in your work prospects. It's better to have it than not to have it, but generally, inside the field, people don't care that you went to an Ivy outside of H/P because the others don't have top public policy schools, and outside the field, it varies, but an MPA is a weakness on the general job market rather than a strength, generally. @jxw IO employees receive a diplomatic visa, not an H1B. there is no quota on these visas. Also, idk, I know way too many people who didn't get through the lottery despite working for google/goldman sachs to think that finding the employer is the main hurdle here.

Doing a job for 3 months is not the same as doing a job for 3 years. I know nothing about foreign service, but in my corner, people are advised to work for 2-3 years to see if they don't burn out from the field. A lot of people coming into this work are idealistic, talk about "making a difference", and are unprepared for how frustrating, bureaucratic, limited, and uncertain that making a difference is. It's also an uncertain career that requires a lot of personal sacrifice, in particular of the work-life balance and moving away from home type, which is not for everyone's personality and circumstances. Time in the field also helps with figuring out what problem you're trying to solve. Again, not sure how this maps onto FS, which is probably more like the CIA/FBI, and 22 year olds are indeed easier to teach regurgitation of the party line, but you can see the difference in policy essays between kids out of undergrad and people who have been in the workforce. The latter's are much more detailed and relevant to the actual concerns of the field. That said, can someone out of undergrad be a brilliant applicant and know what needs to be done and how they will do it just based on 2 internships? Hell yes. There are some extremely smart and proactive people in the world. But by that same virtue, it's no more true that an undergrad with two state internships is ceteris paribus a better applicant than someone with foreign teaching experience than the reverse. There are a lot of important unknowns in either case, so it's an individual question. Is it a good idea to advise both people to wait before gradschool? Yes. Simply because it's a hella expensive degree with 0 application outside the policy world that any person without strong footing inside that world has a very high chance of never using.

Huh? That sounds like no workplace or professional relationship I've ever been in.

All of them accept kids out of undergrad. I even know a few who received full rides, too. Not to be callous, but it's an expensive degree without much financial return, and they need tuition-paying butts in seats. A lot of especially the top programs swear up and down that they don't take undergrads, and especially because it's not true, I really think they say it selflessly for the undergrads' own benefit. There's many ways to skin a cat and I am no cat-skinning expert, of course, but imo, in America, there are few good reasons to get a professional degree without prior work experience, especially one you pay for, and especially this one. This field is so experience-based that the master's without work experience will confer no salary or responsibility bump on the job market. You'll be starting in the same place as your undergrad friends, only you'll be older and possibly in more debt.

@chocolatte_ if you're legit doing this to check a box, apply to those mid-career/executive MPA programs they have that take a year and are low or no-residency. The Harvard one accepts like 50%+ of applicants. Less prestigious ones probably accept everyone. I wouldn't worry about the application process too much in general. As you go down the rankings, the adcoms' concern quickly becomes less about academics and more about your ability to pay.

I've been where you are, and I can tell you that 99% of what you think you're seeing is inside your head.

I think that jumping from forum activity to program competitiveness is a big fucking leap

@BrittanyA1701 I saw this http://www.dailyrepublic.com/california-us-world/gop-higher-ed-plan-would-end-student-loan-forgiveness-in-repayment-program-overhaul-federal-financial-aid/ which says this:

Did they remove federal debt forgiveness in both bills?

@Revolutionary Striving to learn more is a great goal, but basing your self-worth on how good you are at it I don't recommend, from personal experience. It's a one-way ticket to suicidal depression and putting your life on hold until your PI/an R1 tenure line/the Nobel committee tells you you are just as worthy of breathing as everyone else. @lutherblissett thanks bae ily. You make me feel better about my life choices.

I don't know about Pakistan, but in the US, an MPA grad will be hired into many of the jobs an Econ MA grad would be and vice versa (if we're talking policy jobs - if we're talking about quant-heavy stuff, that's different). I'm also not sure how having an econ MA is going to attack your problem of lack of work experience. An econ MA is not work experience. I think you should go to the US, pay attention to the job market while you're studying at your MPA program, and decide once you have a better idea of the lay of the land.

If your work is international or concerns foreigners in the US, it counts.

My own message to people who are considering doing FIRE because these programs are expensive, from the heart: it's not about the money, and I don't mean it in a frou-frou follow your dreams kind of way. I've been an expat all my adult life, and the isolation, lack of community, and uncertainty is not fun. Money is part of it, but it pales in comparison to feeling like you don't belong and like these people aren't your people. It's been a bit of a torturous road for me, but in the econdev community I feel at home. This isn't meant to be an exoneration of the many flaws that OP identifies with this work: the field is highly competitive, underpaid, my organization is exploitative, my prospects are poor, my lifestyle is not conducive to sustaining romantic relationships or most friendships, and I don't feel more suited to this work than I would be to, say, academia or mopping the floors; but I like where I am. For me and I think for everyone else, it's not so easy as a choice between passion and money. Part of it is having the institutional platform to do the kind of work you want/are able to do, part of it is being surrounded by people who get you, part of it is culture and lifestyle. Part of it is falling into it. Part of it is then choosing to keep showing up. I'm passionate about many other things and I could be making the same money I'm making doing many other things. But I'm here. I'm happy that OP found something they like (or is at least pretending to). I will admit that I bristle at them advertising what is essentially a cult. Like, there is limiting refined carbs in your diet, and there is paleo. There is being pro-market and there is libertarianism. There is being frugal and then there is writing blog posts about how to get enough calories and save on your grocery bill by putting olive oil on everything. These things seem less about living life and more about obtaining an illusion of control or filling up the emptiness inside of you with busywork. And, who knows, maybe that's what I'm doing. Economics is the cult of cults. I do think that, whilst taking a shit ton of debt for these programs is stupid, it's no less stupid to waste years of your life denying yourself the chance to try something you want to do. I've had difficulty getting over many of the same considerations OP puts forward, but in the end I got the right credentials/skills/network for this field relatively early, certainly compared to people who come here after 10 years doing something else. For some of these people, the transition is smooth. For most, they leave their lucrative doctor/lawyer/engineer/finance jobs and start comparatively or completely over. I don't know why they do it, they don't seem to have planned their lives like this, but they do. In the end, there's no point in being a slave to your mind/body/ambition/checkbook. Just try to do the best you can with what you've got.

depends on the methodological focus of your program (some are quanty; some are very quanty) and your research agenda

man OP I get how you feel but throwing a hissy fit because somebody on the internet implied that you might be a little entitled is not a good look on anyone.

Who says? I've certainly never heard of it. OP, why Europe? Is it just the fees? Do you have any connection to the region? I ask because, for IR graduates without EU work permission, the visa situation can hard - particularly so in the case of someone with no professional network or relevant skills/experience. Anyway, in the UK, consider UCL/LSE, if you have the grades. The Graduate Institute for Development Studies Geneva (IHEID) is also very reputable. These are all expensive options (as is Hertie in Berlin, btw - they charge US-level tuition fees). A cheaper option would be Bocconi in Milan. Look also at the schools in Barcelona and Madrid. I've heard good things about Baltic-area schools (e.g. U of Tallinn), but no personal experience. btw, the UN and WHO are not NGOs - they are IOs, or multilateral governmental organizations. NGOs are non-governmental organizations (e.g. Amnesty International, Oxfam).

Look, they're not going to sit there and count your a's and the's. 500 words is about a page, 2 pages double-spaced. So stay roughly within those boundaries. 700 words is about a page and a half, which is probably too long. Length guidelines exist to suggest the volume of information that a text should contain, and how that information should be presented. So I would suggest situation your statement within those two perspectives. Maybe you're including stuff that doesn't need to be there (e.g. regurgitating information that is already on your resume, such as "I am a 2015 graduate of Armpit University who majored in Political Science", or stories about your childhood). I would also suggest looking at how your statement is structured. I bet you could rephrase some of it more concisely, lose filler words, streamline the syntax, eliminate any repetition, and so on. See if you can get a second pair of eyes on it.

I'm not saying that a PhD in public policy is uninformative. You yourself have set up an axis of comparison between the PhD in public policy and your master's in economics. I'm telling you that you're disappointed because you are expecting a public policy degree to be an economics degree by another name. The academic study of public policy is very valuable and can produce incredible specialists with top skills for both research and implementation, but its scope is much wider than economic analysis. If you want to exclusively focus on economic analysis, you should be getting a PhD in economics. I'm not sure why you're getting so defensive about the strengths of public policy when you seem to have no appreciation for any of the non-economic perspectives or skills that your program is teaching you. Finally, it does seem from your responses like you didn't research your program or what a PhD is in general. A PhD is not about the classes. If the classes are easy, good for you - you can start on your research. Between you and me, you should probably also get a full-time job in some kind of policy outfit, because you'll be grateful for the work experience and network more than you are for your piece of paper. I don't necessarily agree that you think you're too smart for grad school, but I do think it's rather myopic of you to lord your economic background over a non-economics program. An economist coming into a policy program is obviously going to know the economics at a high level, just as a swimmer who starts training for a triathlon is already going to know how to swim. This should not have been a revelation for you. If you want to lord your economic background over the hoi polloi, you should consider switching back to the economics track - but keep in mind that there you will be competing with other economists instead of picking on the history majors.

@Nico Corr I mean I don't know about Forbes. I only work in the field and am speaking from experience. You linked me to a picture that's taking up half my computer screen with 2 lines of text with no citation or even indication for where their data is coming from, so I can't even respond intelligently to this thing. imo IR is a huge and varied field, and it's stupid to make a generalization about the salary and growth dynamic of careers as varied as FS, IMF, the development consulting arm of the Big 4, and small-time NGOs that focus on teaching English to female refugees from sub-Saharan Africa. I wouldn't even take it upon myself to advise anyone about getting Federal jobs, because I don't work in that system, or about getting jobs around education, because I don't work in that area. If you know people who work at the institutions you want to work at, rather than asking them to get you a job (which is rather presumptuous when you're networking and can bias people against you fyi), ask them how one gets a job at their institution. The answer may be highly structured and specific, or it may be some iteration of "get lucky". Run your educational plans by them. It's not that the market in IR is bad as much as that there is no market for IR in the way that there is a market for teaching or occupational therapy. There are economists who work in IR, there are data scientists that work in IR, or doctors, or educators, or transgender activists, and your job prospects will vary greatly with your skillset and experience. Your prospects will vary based on what organization you are in or want to be in. For instance, veteran status will do wonders for your employment prospects in the Federal government and with private companies that contract for them, but it is meaningless in UN-affiliated employment. I don't even know what you want to do within IR. I do know people who made the switch after 10 years in an unrelated industry, via a graduate program, but they all had really marketable skills (strategic language fluency, significant experience abroad, quant) and they're all essentially starting over, by which I mean internships, short-term contracts, and 5 roommates in Petworth. My sample is small so of course this is anecdotal. I will only say, if your desire to go to grad school and take on debt rests on the assumption that you're going to get that $91,000 median salary, don't do it. This may be feasible in the private sector doing consulting, etc, but for the public and non-profit sectors, that is quite high. If you're just looking for a cushy sinecure, try to grow your career in education administration. With what I know of your background, this will be much easier to do.