ExponentialDecay

Do you want to be an academic economist, or do you want to gain a quantitative skillset to help in policy work etc etc? If the former, you need a PhD. If the latter, you don't and probably shouldn't get one. If you want to learn quantitative research methods or gain some graduate-level exposure to economics, a quanty MPA program, such as the one at HKS, will suit you very well. Even a summer course or a certificate will do. There is no need to go through 5+ years of economics professionalization just to become a marginally better lawyer.

Really? That has not been my experience, nor the experience of most of my colleagues/former classmates. You are not eligible for most staff positions at a UN without a master's (and then probably a PhD and 5+ years of experience), but people get "real jobs" (by which I assume you mean paid and full-time) in this industry with a bachelor's only all the time. They won't necessarily be jobs at the IMF (although that is also possible), but that's not strictly necessary either. Some of the programs you listed (e.g. the HKS ID or Princeton WWS) have strict requirements for work experience which you don't match, but some also don't, and given your profile is otherwise strong, you'll get in somewhere. The question for you is whether the money/time is worth it at this time in your career. Also, pull the quant up to 160, which is the unofficial cut-off for some of your programs.

lol the humanities academic job market is bleak literally everywhere even nazarbayev university doesn't want to hire philosophers

Why do you want to go to a heterodox program? No one will take you seriously. Also, that list is fairly suspect. Like, the Levy Institute has a Minsky problem, but you can also go there, take the standard classes, and graduate as a relevant empirical economist. Likewise, Amherst is presumably mostly on there because they have a lot of people doing history of econ and suchlike. Most of the undergrad programs are there because they have, like, that one crazy professor, but the rest of the faculty is fine. Like, why is WPI on that list? Why is Conn College? Why is Simmons? In general most of the programs on that list (speaking to American ones) are just low-ranked and therefore have some questionable faculty. Heterodox economics isn't really a thing in America.

...or until you're ~25 and have 2-4 years of work experience, like most matriculating MPA students? The MBA and MPA are the only two master's programs in this area that require work experience. Academic master's don't care. I guess I don't really get why you're panicking. You said it yourself - you're only 23. Seriously, it's okay if you're not President of the United States by the time you're 25. If you're not sure what you want to do, take a break, figure that out, travel or work or volunteer or whatever you want in the meantime. Why are you even applying for PhDs if you want an MPA? Panicky applications to a bunch of places you don't really want to be at won't make you any happier or put you on a path to success. Seriously, chill. You've got time.

Why do you think that a forum dedicated to international affairs will be able to give you any information about applying to chemistry programs?

@ayasofaya It will probably be more helpful for you to read through this topic and through this forum in general and see the profiles of accepted students to your program. Why are you reporting your application concerns to people who, apparently, don't have a lot of experience with these programs? It's not their fault they're telling you you'll do great - if you ask me if your ignition is working correctly, I'll probably also say that it's working great, because I'm not a mechanic and I have no idea. Like, this is your grad school application, and your time and your money and your life - you listen to other people's opinions at your own risk. If those opinions aren't coming from a place of education and experience, they are probably irrelevant. Lastly, I hope this doesn't come off as harsh, but It's great that you have the drive and courage to sell yourself (seriously - many people don't), but if you do it recklessly, you risk coming off as arrogant or out of touch. Like, I'm not clear on how this is different from just taking a class, you know? Joint campuses are very common now. Lots if not most US undergrads take classes away from their home institution. I did it a few times in my undergrad, and I would never think to highlight it in my application to anywhere, because it's not particularly impressive. Being able to sit in a classroom, take exam, and be held accountable for your grades is usually considered a given for applicants to most decent undergraduate programs - not grad school. And whether it takes more initiative to take a class in college than to complete a self-learning course like Rosetta Stone is a matter of opinion. I'd say it's more impressive that you're continuing your language learning when you're out in the work world - but that also isn't particularly impressive. When you're doing these applications, try to look at your materials from the point of view of the admissions committee. We all have the right to be proud of whatever we want, but it's not necessarily something that an admissions committee will be receptive to, and ultimately they're the ones calling the shots.

Tbh you don't come off as a serious applicant imo. Did you misunderstand what the "interests" section is for (it's for your career interests), or do you seriously think that you're getting an MPA to learn languages? I also have trouble deciphering all the "bruhs" and similar. The QGRE is too low. You need to get it above 160. The verbal is lowish compared to the averages that people at top MPA programs will have, and since you have an untraditional undergrad background, I'd pull that up as well. But the QGRE is very, very important - especially if you have no math. (which I recommend you take at a CC - I don't remember about SIPA, but most programs require at least one of microeconomics/statistics for admission). The work experience is also a problem. If you can swing the NGO thing as something other than "helping dad out at the office", that could be worthwhile. Just as a warning, folding clothes in your living room as a child can be a nice segue, but it will not carry your application - your parents being aid workers does not substitute for work experience in the field. I actually wouldn't depend too much on the name of your undergrad school or the name of the school at which you took electives (more on that later). Not a lot of people with a design background switch over into this career, and not many people who haven't been to design school understand how rigorous and how much work it is. That's not to say it will be a negative (you'll be surprised at how much adcoms enjoy novelty applicants), but you do need to show that you can read, write, and count, basically - which is why I recommend knocking out a really good GRE. Seriously, getting a good enough GRE score is vital in your case. You're also suffering from a strong case of iviness imo. SIPA isn't better because it's Columbia. Fletcher (Tufts) and the Georgetown schools are a bit better for Foreign Service, actually. Some Ivy MPAs (well, all of them outside WWS, HKS, and SIPA) are not prestigious at all. When it comes to the graduate level, Ivy doesn't mean better. Likewise, it's not significant that you took language courses at an Ivy. What matters is how good you are at the language. Taking them at an Ivy doesn't necessarily make you more proficient than taking them somewhere else, and adcoms do recognize that. I wouldn't get a letter from your MIT prof just because he's from MIT and a department head. Get letters from people who know you well and can speak to your abilities on a deep level. Only get a letter from that guy if he fits this bill. Your Goethe instructor isn't the right fit, no. Overall, I get a lot of enthusiasm from you, but not a lot of direction or maturity (not of you as a person, but of your knowledge/experience with this career path). Why do you want to work in Foreign Service? Why SIPA? (this is an application question, and if you don't have a good answer beside it being Columbia, you've just killed your application). You like learning languages, you want to help people, you've seen your parents doing it - these are all good reasons to try a career in IR, but you lack a vision for how you will contribute as a seasoned professional. This can be a problem, because these aren't entry-level programs. Most successful applicants will already have some idea of where they stand in the field. I do think you'll get in somewhere, maybe even SIPA if you get the GRE up; as for money - eh, I'm not so sure.

I mean, you know best, but if you made it through an econ MA in Singapore, your math is probably not too weak for a mid-ranked econ program, which is still a better value proposition than even the top PhD in public policy. Unless, of course, you don't want to sit comps - which I totally understand (and anyone understands, really). In terms of the work you will be doing, you can do general empirical work in either public policy or a mid-ranked econ PhD. Of course a better-ranked policy PhD will place you better. That said, how you place will depend heavily on your research agenda and the reputation of your supervisor (and, if you plan to go into industry afterwards - which you should, because academia is a no-go with this degree - work experience in your specialization). If you are planning to basically do economics research, apply to econ programs and save yourself a lot of sweat and tears come job time.

I don't find career fairs and suchlike to be particularly useful myself. If you know more or less the schools you want to apply to, another option is to sign up for some online webinars. They're pretty thorough, you can ask questions via webex, and you don't have to go anywhere.

@not@prof_yet rigor is nice, but these people fundamentally want to know that you can feasibly write a dissertation with your adviser that the department can accept. You can be the best mathematician, or be fluent in 12 languages, or a synchronized swimming champion - and they are all impressive things - but if it's not relevant to your research interests, it's not relevant. Likewise, who in a pure math department is going to write a credible letter of recommendation to a poli sci program? If this were econ PhDs, it'd be a different story - and even then, on a subfield to subfield basis.

Why would you get a master's in pure math if you want to study political science? Why would you get a master's in pure math if you want to do anything but pure math (and some areas of finance or computer science)? Public policy is a professional degree without much of a research component, but I do know people who went from top policy programs to PhDs. In general the spread of your master's interests indicates a serious lack of research focus. I mean, going from pure math to SEA studies..? Like, how are those two similar at all?

Score-wise, your actual problem is the 153 QGRE. It is way too low for many of the programs on your list. Application-wise, your problem is the lack of work experience. Language-wise, your problem is the lack of Russian.

Yeah I don't think getting your scores to 90th percentile is going to help significantly with scholarship money

Am I way off-base, or is it really infuriating that an institution that purports to nurture new perspectives in economics is governed entirely by old white men? Seriously - among all its board members (like 50 people), I counted 2 women and a few Asian dudes. The institutes for, I presume, old economic thinking that I am familiar with at least pretend to honor the idea of supporting new perspectives by hiring people from diverse backgrounds to serve in leadership positions. Anyway, if you want a fellowship (i.e. be given money to do your own research), you need a PhD.

The answer is the same for Phi Beta Kappa graduates of HYP as for everyone else: get 2-3 years of work experience first. If you like, approach it less from the perspective that you don't know squat about this career or whether you'd be a good fit for it (which is also true), and more from the perspective that nobody is going to hire an untested person whom nobody knows in a career as sensitive and soft skill-heavy as foreign policy, no matter how many 4.0s that person has. See you in 2020!

You can get an MPA if you want, but without an internship on the Hill, you're not getting a staff position there.

A job doing what? The poster above, albeit under the impression that policy is limited to social work, makes a good point: if you can get a specialized degree, it may be more worthwhile to do that. So, if you want to do economic policy, it's better to get a master's in economics, and if you want to do data analysis, it's better to do a master's in applied math, etc. Certainly, if I were trying to break into the field, that's the route I would go - the more evidence that you're competent at the specific thing they're hiring for, the better. Both the asset and the flaw of the MPA is that it's very general. Many early and mid-career people are looking for something that can enhance their existing skills and knowledge in a variety of disciplines, and the MPA works for them. At the same time, you have to contend with the issue that you appear unfocused and not really good at anything, as well as the stigma that the degree has with some employers. The value of the degree depends on what you want and where you are. In your position, I wouldn't do it: you can get an entry-level local government job with a BA.

What I want to know is why OP thinks he is too good for the sticky thread.

I'd put money that, on a forum for and about grad students, everyone is going to tell you to pick grad school. But this is, like, a deeply personal decision. I wouldn't forgo any professional opportunity to stay with a girlfriend of some weeks or months (I'm guessing) in my 20s, but the reasoning behind that is also why I'm not doing a PhD in the humanities. I also think it's a good idea to take a year or two to "cool off" after college and test if you actually want to dedicate your life to chronically underpaid and undervalued humanities research (or research in general - I've met a lot of people who would have benefited in a big way by realizing that they shouldn't do a PhD in their year off rather than 5 years into a program). You don't know what's going to happen, they're both good opportunities in their own way, and you don't know what you'll end up regretting, so pick the one you want more.

To show that you can do math, you need to get 160+ on the QGRE. You can absolutely achieve this with a couple months' concentrated studying. 90% of the math on the QGRE is pre-calc, it's nothing you can't learn, even just by rote. Taking macroeconomics is nice, but there isn't typically a lot of math in the intro course (by my memory, there was none), and plus, adcoms can't evaluate the quantitativeness of your course as well as they can evaluate your performance on the GRE. You do need to do fairly well on the GRE to offset the GPA, I agree with the other person. But, if you do so, I think you can apply even higher than what you're targeting. You have a lot of languages, your work experience is pretty good, and if you write good essays and get good letters, you might do pretty well. These programs become a lot less competitive once you start hitting the right metrics.

why would this boost your application? Public policy PhDs that are full-time are fully funded upon acceptance to the program irrespective of your gender or national origin. What programs might be a good fit for you depends on your research interests and a bunch of other pertinent information that you don't include here. I'm wary of the existence of safeties as a concept in PhD admissions.

Get 3+ years of work experience then apply Why do undergrads think they can be "fairly certain" of things like this? When I was an undergrad, I wasn't fairly certain of anything. This attitude has served me well. Also, no it won't.

According to that conversion, you're not competitive for top tier MPAs either tho. I'd retake the GRE.

So, tbh, all of these sound like buzzwords. Let's dispense promptly with the notion that 3 years in North America, in which you hope to complete 2 academic programs, will allow you to hone your language skills to anything close to usable in a real-life business environment. Secondly, if you don't already have "solid business acumen", you won't have the work experience to get in. I'm not sure why you need theoretical knowledge of the world economy. I suggest you look at the alumni profiles of your target programs. Do the alumni of your MBA programs go on to work for international companies? If you're looking at top programs, I'll go ahead and answer that for you - yes they do. That implies that that given program might be sufficient to get a job in an MNC. If alumni of regional programs don't, that's because the programs are regional, not because they're insufficiently specialized in international business (which isn't even a real thing, dude). In general, that you want to build your such-and-such skills is something you'll put in your SOP, but in reality, that's not what the MBA is for. You're there to build your resume and your network. I suspect it may be detrimental to do 2 programs at once for that purpose, but it certainly wouldn't help.