ExponentialDecay

I'm not sure why you're doing this PhD in the first place. Of course a PhD in public policy isn't going to be as rigorous as a PhD in economics. You should have known that going in. A PhD in public policy will never be "rigorous" enough to stand out on the job market: it's an interdisciplinary degree which gives literally no clue as to wtf you are doing beside it being remotely connected to the world of policymaking (which, as I'm sure you understand, can mean pretty much anything). If you want a job - any job - with this PhD, you have to hustle, build your own connections, invest in your expertise and your research. Unlike a PhD in econ, just the piece of paper isn't going to do shit for your career. If you want a career in research as in in academia, yeah, you should drop out, because that's not happening with a pubpol PhD. If you're not interested in actually doing, surprise surprise, public policy (which I assume is correct given that your other interest is the private sector), you should probably likewise drop out. This isn't a degree that has automatic value added. You are the value added. The degree is an empty credential.

I have very limited experience in the private sector (read: none), but in my understanding, whilst prestige will never trump having the right profile, how much of a marginal benefit it is will vary from company to company. I've heard that oil giants prefer those salt-of-the-earth Texas universities to the Harvards of the world; conversely, the uptight East Coast consultancies we've all heard of like Harvard very much. Anyway, a curious tangent: what is it that you people do at MNCs exactly? Are you a regular business development team, just focused on some region of the developing world? Or are you basically an in-house lobbyist?

Yes, it is indeed best to have one or more of those things before starting grad school in the field. But, best doesn't mean it's going to be feasible for you. A lot of this advice is intended for undergrads who plan to take out 150k for SIPA on the assumption that they'll graduate and walk into a GF at the UN and other people who have a rosier view of IR or the work world in general, and who may have not taken the time to fully explore their options. Somebody with 10 years of work experience is in a different boat. For someone like you I'd say that grad school is probably the better way, because you do have work experience that you can spin in a relevant way, and because you're kind of running out of time to make a good career change. The thing about IR is, it's a very competitive field. People say that it's better to build a network/relevant experience/protected status/some other kind of tenure in the field before you get a degree because, once you have the degree, you'll still have to build those things, otherwise you're not getting a job. It is entirely feasible that you will still not get a job in IR, even with a degree, because you do not have those other factors and cannot get them. People intern unpaid for years, spend decades as contractors - it's a thing. This field is messed up. If you cannot get a foot in the door any other way (which, again, for somebody in their 30s is much more feasible than for a 21 year old that can totally do Teach for America at least), go ahead, get the degree - but keep in mind that you still have to hustle. As you already have experience in education, and if you're okay continuing work in that realm, at least for the initial while, I'd recommend you also look at strong schools of education (e.g. Harvard, maybe Columbia), which typically have a strong policy component. There are a lot of IR jobs to do with education/education policy, and it may make a more cohesive professional narrative than an MPA (I don't know if it will - I'm just making a suggestion). Just keep in mind that unpaid internships or a pay cut (in real terms) may be in your future.

@DevinMiles I don't have debt. I don't believe I ever referred to the ease or difficulty of living in DC with debt, or to debt at all. I wouldn't know. My problem with these kinds of posts is the mix of accurate and inaccurate information, like I said. If OP wasn't shitting on rich international types, making vast but unsubstantiated claims about everyone's ability to afford some unquantifiable standard of living in DC, and complaining that the work doesn't suit them and therefore shouldn't suit anybody, I'd have no issue with it. If my "rantings" are not helpful to you, you are welcome to ignore them.

Aren't North and Ostrom, like, dead tho? I dunno, I'm gonna strongly disagree with the rest of y'all that OP shouldn't get another master's. Right now he has 3 irrelevant degrees with shitty GPAs and no good letter writers. I think becoming someone with a high GPA in a relevant degree and 3 good political scientist LORs is worth the chips, scattered or not scattered. Would that make him admissible to top schools? Perhaps not. How should I know. But right now his odds look worse. OP, obviously, don't get a public policy degree. Like, where do you even get that idea? Public policy degrees are professional degrees that are explicitly geared away from preparing you for PhD programs. Any program worth its salt will tell you as much in their info session. There are people who pursue PhDs after them, but their trajectory is a lot cleaner than yours - for you it would just be adding more noise. Of course, if you are open to doing a PhD in public policy, a master's in it is as good as anything. I actually think that, given your interests and trajectory so far, a PhD in public policy may be a better fit - as long as you're okay with leaving academia afterwards.

So... don't apply to work at those departments? Like, suppose UChicago is overrun by the icky feminists: why would you want to go there anyway? Even if you get in, how do you expect to find an adviser willing to supervise your dissertation, which is the point of the endeavor? If political science departments are indeed so ideologically polarized (in which case I'm not sure why it's called a science...), the solution seems obvious: stick to the departments that shill your ideology. Again, perhaps I'm not understanding something, as I am posting outside of my usual subject range, but your preoccupation with this political leaning stuff seems rather out of left field. It's like if you said that you'd be okay studying under scholars who were Buddhist or listened to heavy metal music or something. Like, why wouldn't you be? Those things are completely irrelevant to your actual work. In my experience, you're more likely to know a given professor's favorite pizza toping than you are their political affiliation. That said, I feel obligated to mention as we get a few characters like you in my area as well: if you're studying at George Mason or Liberty University or another one of those tinfoil hat places, be warned that your professors may be grossly misrepresenting the field to you due to their own biases.

I think calling it a "postmodern-leaning establishment" is going to do far more to tank your chances than either your political affiliation or interest in Calvin Coolidge. Like, what does that even mean? There are certainly party affiliation trends within fields, but as long as you are a good scholar and don't act unprofessionally (which goes for what I presume you call SJW snowflakes as much as it goes for the neo-Nazis), nobody will care.

Chelsea Manning was also banned from entering Canada, so I hope OP isn't applying to any Canadian institutions or intending to spend any money or time on that dictatorial police state. I have a lot of sympathy for Manning because of the path she chose, but let's not kid ourselves that "not supporting Harvard" is going to be the vast systemic change needed to uproot nation-states. Harvard is an institution within an institution, and it is that higher institution that she pissed off. If you're not applying to UVa because of Charlottesville, I have bad news for you about universities in, like, half of the country. Which is to say, maybe it's a good idea not to apply there, especially if you're POC or otherwise visibly marginalized, for your own physical safety.

@brown queer Do I know you? Anyway, I don't know the Indian context enough to comment on the work experience/education/whatever. My advice to international students is always to seek out other international students with a background as similar to theirs as possible (in terms of credentials and citizenship/financials) and look at their trajectory/ask them for advice. In the admissions process you will be ranked against other international students rather than against Americans (and if you are from a particularly popular country, i.e. China or India, you will be ranked against other Chinese and Indians), and this random white person's opinion on how impressive you are therefore doesn't count for much. I can only say that no amount of impressive experience will counteract lack of work permit when it comes to finding work in the US or Europe (especially the latter, which effectively only hires EU citizens for development roles), unless that's via the Indian embassy. You can try for work experience at the UN or the WBG (especially if you have a master's). idk about the MPP, but the Harvard MPA is pretty strict on its 2+ years of professional experience requirement. And, of course, I wouldn't count on funding, no matter how much experience you have.

I'd call them up and ask them how many students have 0 years of work experience (internships don't count for admissions, I'm sorry). That's a vastly different situation from even having 1 year of it. But broadly these are not competitive programs and you'll get in somewhere, especially if you aim low, especially if you're not looking for funding. Virtually all of these programs are looking for tuition-paying warm bodies. I'm more telling you this because, without any work experience in the field, the MPA is unlikely to have any positive effect on your employability, and if you are taking out student loans, that's a concern.

You have enough work experience and tbh, yeah, as you near 30, the age starts to be a concern (it shouldn't be, but...). The GRE is fine. Top schools aren't great with scholarships, so another idea is to go to a decent school in DC (ahem, GW) and rack up those networks/internships.

@queenjaneapprox Seeing as you don't even identify your complete lack of work experience as a concern, I think you need to spend much, much more time researching these programs and the career path in general, especially if you intend to go into debt to pay tuition.

Everything should be in by the deadline unless noted otherwise, but schools are more lenient about late LORs if you let them know that it's happening.

@elmo_says I'm sure your friends would be pleased to know that you're on here calling them "rich international types". Friends that talk shit behind your back are the best type of friends. I'm not sure why you're salty at being disparaged for trying to make your personal dissatisfaction into some kind of social critique. If you're going to make some kind of inequality of opportunity argument, at least start by not shitting on people who are more disadvantaged than you. The reality for "international types" especially at IOs is that the lack of a recognized western postgraduate degree makes what little career progression there is much harder. Most of these people already have a master's, in something employable like finance or engineering, and are overqualified when they enter MPAs, if they do. That's not the point. The point is that a top role at UNDP isn't saving the world either. The international public sector mostly facilitates the work of others - the private sector, academia, local government - and sometimes that facilitation is vital, but that's all it is. We don't have the deciding vote. This and the small anecdote above is why people and adcoms strongly recommend work experience in the field before applying to these programs, and why prospective applicants shouldn't assume that work experience is just a checkbox for the plebs whereas they, with their numerous internships and high GPA, are obviously exempt. No amount of informational interviewing or whatever it is you did will teach you the realities of the field. This advice is given precisely to avoid wide-eyed neophytes graduating only to be surprised that they have to collaborate with "questionable private sector elements" - the very questionable private sector elements that it is the purpose of your professional life to serve. In the ideal, governments don't serve governments. Governments serve the people. I never listen to people bitching at parties. Few people are able to be objective about their lives, much less compare against any reasonable counterfactual, and lots of people enjoy complaining. You can't build your life according to what other people say. This is a brutal, highly political field where there is no easy answer to anything. Everyone has their own path, which often leads to the exit. If you're doing this because you're naive or because you just want a stable job, get an HVAC license. Gives you more time and money to pursue either avenue. btw DC studios in the ~1200 range are totally feasible.

Eh, in part the reason that it places so well is that its cohort comes in really well-prepared (e.g. they will not take anyone with a sub 160 QGRE or without 2+ years of relevant work experience). Especially its international students usually come in with already a master's degree from their home country and often with work experience in the places that hire them afterwards (IDB/ADB/WB/IMF). The remarkable thing is that some of those people then go on to get positions that generally require a PhD, so the brand really does work. The real question is how do you pay for it.

@midastwentytwo The audience of TV, podcasts, articles, and magazines is not PhD holders - which is good for those outlets because otherwise most of them would be out of business and credibility. Most people who like to shoot the shit about The Economy are not PhD holders. Maybe it would be good for the more vocal among them to try a PhD, in order to learn how much they don't know, most likely fail out, and shut up - but it is what it is. Don't even mention that your love of podcasts etc inspired you to study political science or that it qualifies you for admittance to a program; it sounds woefully naive. The problem with evaluating applicants with your profile - good profile, but for a completely different field - is that there is no way of knowing that you'll end up willing and able to do the work. I'm not gonna patronize you about whether you dearly and truly want to commit to the life of the mind - which is irrelevant - but even assuming you are, you have said nothing so far to indicate that you know what academic political science or even academia in general entail. The obvious problem is that you have no relevant coursework or research experience, which is a hurdle but can be overcome. The other problem is that your college education seems essentially vocational. Part of it is appearances and snobbism, and part of it is the question of whether you can write to the level of a graduate student in the social sciences, whether you can synthesize difficult texts and ideas, and basically how much work it would take on the part of the department to get you up to speed. It's one thing to dump 20,000 pages of reading on an otherwise prepared economist or to teach quant methods to an anthropologist, and a wholly different one to teach someone how to research via academic sources and write in the academic register. Academia requires a lot of not soft, but hidden skills that people without exposure to western academia (people from low-ranked institutions, international students, people from vocational majors) sometimes don't have or can't demonstrate. There's no harm in applying to t20 schools if you can spare the time and money, but I don't see it happening tbh. These programs are extremely competitive, and even people with perfect profiles don't get in. Without a good sample, relevant experience, and good recommenders, I just don't think there's a saving grace here. That said, PhD admissions is increasingly competitive and many people get a master's first, especially if switching fields - there's no shame in it. Some master's are partially or fully funded. If you do end up going that route, the end goal is to come out with 3 really good letters and a curated writing sample/research agenda. And the knowledge and experience of which the latter are symptoms, most importantly.

this post would go well with a beer because it's one salty snack ahaha That's not true. It is entirely feasible to live independently in DC on even the much lower pre-master's Hill/NGO/STC salary, and by independently I mean inside the District while shopping at wholefoods and going out several times a week. I don't know what kind of lifestyle you and your friends expect. Also, the reason those "international types" (wtf? what's wrong with being international?) take STC jobs isn't because they're rich (ahahaha. AHAHAHAHAHA) but because of the visa. You can get whatever job you want wherever you damn well please, and yet you still whine like the "international types" are better off than you because apparently the kingdom hasn't been granted to you on a silver platter. Your privilege rankles. The MBA is frequently interchangeable with the MPA/MPP, and it is more versatile/higher paid. The problem is that MBAs at equivalently prestigious institutions are hella more competitive and expensive, and most of your MPA classmates simply wouldn't be able to do one due to one or both of those reasons. If you didn't know this to be the case going into your MPA program, you didn't belong in the program. If you are still complaining about this, you don't belong in the field. This field is for serious people doing serious work, and overgrown children playing at "saving the world" and satisfying their undeservedly large egos are wasting everyone's time. The rest of it is true and in principle the post is correct. But holy shit do you people shoot yourself in the foot with the throwing everyone under the bus and saying stuff you must know is wrong just for show.

The GRE is on the low side of acceptable. I wouldn't retake. Do both.

@MPP19 poor reading comprehension might be /:

I'm not sure why a lack of knowledge of critical theory is preventing you from forming a research focus. A research focus in literature, at least when it comes to graduate admissions, is usually a literary period, movement (by which I mean, like, the Beat poets rather than the Vienna circle), or author. It's fine if you also have a favorite critical lens, but it's not required. If you don't have any exposure to critical theory, it is strongly recommended that you take a class rather than try it on your own: critical theory is written in a difficult style, especially the earlier stuff, and if you're not experienced in philosophy, can be difficult to (mis)understand, so it's better if a professor is there to guide you the first time. That, or have fun reading the Norton anthology. Humanities master's really aren't very competitive. Funding is, however. If you're looking for funding, the simple answer is to apply to programs that give a lot of it to many people. People get funded at Chicago MAPH too, but like 1-2 in the entire cohort, and nobody can tell you ex-ante where you'll get funding and why. Most important criteria are writing sample, SOP, and letters. Fit is important in PhD admissions, but in master's, while it should be very important to you, it's not going to be a huge deal to the admissions committee. These programs aren't competitive enough for that. You don't need research experience. Extracurriculars don't matter.

@James D. I got the bit about why you can't attend an in-person master's the first time, thank you. My question is, I repeat: why do you need a master's at all? You state that your end goal is a PhD (you also state elsewhere that your end goal is to teach highschool, so if you could clarify which of these very different aspirations you are actually aiming for, that would be great!). You don't need a master's to pursue a PhD. You can apply to the PhD out of undergrad, or with just the undergrad if you for whatever reason that I don't need to know can't apply right afterwards. So why do you need the master's?

Is getting an online masters going to somehow waive his military commitment? He can't apply to PhDs once he's served it? I don't get it.

Is there a reason you can't apply for a doctorate out of undergrad?

Post your profile. If you applied several times and got dinged, there's probably something wrong with it. (At a guess, bad GRE scores or irrelevant work experience). GSE and GSD have completely different admissions criteria (duh, they're different programs) and are considered to be less competitive. Going to HKS won't significantly change your life, so if you're serious about a career in this field, I'd apply to programs where you can realistically get in with money and go to one of them.

So I'm struggling to conceptualize what exactly you want, I think because you don't have a very good idea yourself of what economics or academia entail as fields. If you want to be an academic economist, like I said previously, you need a PhD. That an MPA is not enough is a given. But then you say you want to be an academic lawyer, and whilst I have no idea what that entails, I'd be surprised if it required or even considered PhDs received in things that are not law. What do you mean by "serious research"? If you want to credibly build your own models, you need a PhD - mostly for the credential. However, whilst most MPAs do not provide nearly enough training for testing models, the MPA-ID apparently does. In an implementational capacity it is enough. Again, I don't really understand what you want, because you say you want academia but then you also want to practice, but if you're not planning on switching over into economics 100%, I'm not sure that the PhD is worth it for you. Time-wise, it will cost you the best years of your law career. This is serious: really think about it. In any case, in your shoes my first step would be the econ MA, for two reasons. One reason is that you don't have enough math background to get into a PhD at present, and the JD isn't really relevant. Another reason is that you may want to get more exposure to what graduate work in econ really is. The daily grind is not glamorous (unless you're one of those weirdos who enjoy cleaning data, of which there are many at PhD programs - another thing to consider), the method we have for answering questions does not appeal to most people, and it is nothing like what you experienced in undergrad. There's not a lot of writing about important policy issues and a lot of dry calculus. A lot of people drop out in their comps years because, at that level of abstraction, econ becomes pretty dull to people who are attracted to it from the policy or political economy side. So really make sure it's what you like.