ExponentialDecay

Not to be the dirty economist, but I suspect that, if becoming a DC staffer wasn't such a long, arduous, and viciously underpaid process, most of the HKS grads that are going into consulting would elect to go to Washington. Sigh, people need shelter and food and to pay off those 6 figure student loans. And not to be a let down to vaunted public service, but sometimes I sit at my desk and wonder if the private sector wouldn't be more effective at doing what we do. But then I remember that we are satisfying an externality and not just throwing public funds after the ghost of JFK.

Looks like they're sick of receiving personal statements that mostly talk about how their grandmother inspired them to go to grad school and how hard it was to get Bs while partying every night, so they're trying to hand-hold you through what an SOP is supposed to be.

Nonprofits actually prefer to hire MBAs for management roles, OP. You shouldn't rule out that possibility. MBA programs like military guys, too.

@firefightergirl So, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you're applying straight out of undergrad, correct? (in that case, your years of work experience are 0 - full time work experience, not internships). The lack of econ courses may or may not be problem, but you definitely need to raise the QGRE to the low 160s at minimum to become competitive at the top tier programs you are targeting. You don't really need fancy internships or even work that relates directly to policy, but it is advisable to have work experience going in, both for admissions and personal purposes. As it stands, your profile isn't particularly cohesive: your work experience is in the forest service, but you want to focus on social policy and inequality? The forest service is pretty cool experience, dude, and a way to really use that to advantage is to tie your post-MA goals to it. But also, you actually have experience with the forest service, but not so much it seems with inequality etc. How do you know you want to work with that direction? You really don't want to be in the position where you pay out of pocket for an MPA degree and come out just as confused about where you're going and how as you were before. It reflects on your employability. Speaking of employability, it is impossible to get a job in the public service without relevant work experience (certainly at a high level - at the local level, it may be different, but there, I don't imagine an MPA is necessary for entry-level positions). You won't be eligible for the higher-level positions an MPA technically prepares you for for the lack of work experience, either. It's really a mid-career-ish degree rather than something you get out of undergrad. But you'll probably get in somewhere anyway, if that's what you want to hear.

...why? If you want to be a lawyer, the MPA is useless. If you don't want to be a lawyer, the JD is useless.

*conform to the stereotype I don't appreciate your patronizing implication that I am "conforming" to some "stereotype" or otherwise acting out of anything but my own free will. I chose to shoot OP down - but bear with me. I and many other regulars on this and other forums have utterly wasted hours of our time over many years fielding sloppy, naive questions from newbies because we somehow enjoy it. If you take a look at my record, you will see that I usually take the time to write out long, detailed responses to people. I do the same for layman questions about my field elsewhere on the internet. Most of the other people here do. But that is for substantive questions that cannot be answered by an elementary google search. This has been stated all over these forums over and over and over and over. Pick a thread at random and you will come across one that mentions these ideas by your third try. If OP had bothered to do even the most preliminary reading before butting in with stupid questions, they wouldn't have been confused by what to do about their quant score, or why people don't think it matters that much in admissions or employment, or why I am vaguely annoyed. I'm not an art historian, but I suspect that if I were, I would be considerably less annoyed by naive questions about my field rather than incessant queries regarding the location of the bathroom from people who can't interpret a WC sign. As a general point, though I hope it doesn't apply in this case, I am actually doing these people a kindness. Being a respected professional in a highly competitive field takes a lot of social intelligence. Everyone is a little clueless sometimes, but people for whom cluelessness is a habit are ostracized and are then confused when no one wants to work with them. And almost no one will go out of their way to tell you about your weird social quirks, because people don't want to be mean or rude, and it becomes a sad catch-22 from which some never emerge. At the end of the day, PhD programs exist to produce professional scholars, not to educate naive, sloppy laymen about some field.

Welcome to academia!

I don't think you get it. This isn't law school admissions (where you got "splitter" from). The connection in your head - high GRE leads to acceptance to top grad school leads to TT job - is so tenuous as to be essentially void. Nobody is poring over your GRE score trying to decide if your GPA and URM status make up for the damage you're going to do to their USNews ranking. They look that you've tested over a certain threshold and if you have, they forget about it. For the humanities, the math portion doesn't matter except in cases where funding is awarded by the graduate school conditional on GPA/GRE minima. Your acceptance to better schools is entirely contingent on your writing sample and references.

It is so bizarre to extrapolate employment likelihood from GRE scores. I don't think I can take this OP seriously.

As art and cultural policy is a bit exotic, why these schools?

I wouldn't dismiss concerns about departmental rigor as mere undergrad complaining. When it comes to grad school acceptance, unless the person whose advice you are soliciting has the power to accept or deny your application to a program, what they can give you is just an opinion, and some opinions are certainly more informed than others. It's fair to assume that a professor at a top PhD-granting program knows the profile of a typical admitted student and can give you an accurate assessment, even if you're not applying to their program specifically; the further you get from "top PhD-granting program", the less that assumption holds. Professors at top SLACs may have excellent standing in the discipline and may regularly send their undergrads to these coveted programs, but they don't have recent first-hand experience of admitting PhD students. They don't know what the competition is like. At the majority of US institutions, which may send an undergrad to a top PhD once every decade, if at all, professors have even less experience. You can't expect them to cogently reason from a sample of one. This is not to say that OP shouldn't apply to the T20 (they should if they want an academic job). That's to say that it is possible that OP's professors *don't* know how competitive they are. As for the thesis, that is another valid concern. Few schools have enough strong faculty to supervise the great variety of dissertation topics that students come up with. That is, a professor can monitor that the research is done properly, the argument is cogent, and similar technical things, but if they're not a subject matter expert, they're not going to know whether you raised questions that are compelling in the context of the literature, not least because they can't evaluate if you surveyed the literature properly. The only thing I wouldn't worry about is discussion-heavy classes and OP's (implied) disdain for those of their classmates that they perceive as not having done enough work. Lower and intermediate level classes may have a heavy lecture component, but upper-level stuff (seminars) is almost always done in a discussion format, at all schools I am familiar with, because its major goal is to teach you to do your own research and construct your own arguments (the difference, I assume, being that, at stronger programs, the goal is to assess your ability to do research and construct arguments, as you will have been doing that in your lower-level classes already), and because it's assumed that you're mature enough to have more control over your learning. This is the crucial part. The reality is, you can scrape by in any major, at any school. If you're content doing the minimum to stay afloat, you shouldn't be going to grad school. If you feel that you haven't been challenged, find ways to challenge yourself. Try to get someone who is an expert in your specific area to take a look at your diss (it's a longshot, sure...). They'll be able to tell you if it's good work content-wise.

@cowgirlsdontcry cultural fit as in work/department culture.

ayyyy OP you are the type of troll that makes this forum worth staying on #crying

You seem to be doing a lot of things out of a sense of obligation to some shadowy unnamed force. I don't think that working at a place for less than 2 years reflects badly on you (unless it's a pattern, and at a later point in your career), I don't think that having worked at 3 places means you need to get a master's, and I can't even fathom why you'd think that working at 4 places versus 3 will reflect badly on you. You should critically analyze the source from which you are getting this bs.

Unless you have a very good reason, you shouldn't be applying to PhD programs in multiple fields. It indicates a lack of focus. Do you have work experience in the field(s) where you want to get a full-time job?

For a PhD applicant, a 3.5 GPA is not a very good GPA. It's just enough to not raise eyebrows - assuming this is cGPA, not GPA in major. Average admitted GPAs in PhD programs range from A- to higher. 5 or 6 acquaintances of mine graduated with their education masters in this most recent class. All of them from top programs. Those of them who are not working at entry or mid-level positions in run-of-the-mill schools and districts are all on temp contracts or doing internships. The ones who are doing work that I, an outsider, perceive as more prestigious have previous relevant work or academic experience (e.g. one got a nice opportunity in POC empowerment, and she has been doing race work since her undergrad thesis). I get the feeling that the field is competitive and a degree doesn't guarantee you a job. I think you're right. You don't say what your field is, but it seems like you've gotten a lot of unrelated degrees, not just subject-wise, but in terms of how they connect to your career. It seems like you got a degree in one professional field, but didn't work in that, then in another, didn't work in that either, and so on. Rightly or wrongly, you seem flaky. I struggled to get my first job out of undergrad as well, it is NOT easy out there, but I think, at a point, it may be worthwhile to stop getting degrees and consider if it's something else, like your soft skills, that needs attention. Another factor is that, and I'm trying to put this nicely (I really am, mods!), your expectations are unrealistic. It is not possible - it is almost certain that you will not become a professor. That you would be "content" with a director role anywhere is likewise out of touch. These are all extremely competitive positions that aren't just handed out to people with 3.5 undergrad GPAs. They aren't handed out to people with 3 publications in top journals and a PhD from MIT either. You need to be an expert in your field, an exceptionally hard worker, and well-liked by your colleagues to get them. There is also a not-insignificant element of luck. Most people with PhDs don't end up in those jobs. lol To quote something I read on the internet, the DC metro sets itself on fire every day.

Dude no OP this is insane. 50% of your income is the maximum you should be spending on housing. If you are in NYC (or any east coast metro area), moreover, you are underestimating how much everything costs, even if you don't eat at all. Ask current students about how they deal with housing. It is unlikely that many full-time PhD students also work full-time jobs.

Unless you are an exceptionally bad test-taker or ESL, I'm not sure of the utility of treating GRE prep like a full-time job. All you need on the GRE is to get a respectable score. The WS deserves all the extra time you have to spare.

There's a small chance that he has some brain tumor pressing on some node or other that's making him lose all semblance of common sense (although I don't remember whether I read that in a paper or saw it in a movie...) For the rest of it, even if he's having some sort of depressive episode, mental illness doesn't cause bigotry - it is a filter that amplifies certain feelings. Even if you get him on meds, you'd still be married to a bigot whose bullshit is manageable on meds. As for him not being anything like this before, speaking from experience with someone who was in a situation similar to yours (actually, several someones), we are only able to see what others show us and what we are willing to pay attention to. It's unlikely that he just developed these ideas out of thin air. More likely, he didn't show them to you or you didn't notice them.

There's a sticky thread for these questions, dude. I don't think your application hinges on the volunteering. In fact, it (and the general lack of extracurriculars) would probably matter more if you were applying for MBAs. For MPAs, it's a little out of left field - volunteering isn't really relevant to professional civil service, especially in econdev. Volunteer if it's something you want to do for yourself or your community, but if you're just doing it to get into grad school, I'd advise you to invest your energy into better strategies. You're actually not as special a case as you believe. Lots of people get MPAs after working in the private sector (and go right back to the private sector afterwards). Lots of people come from a consulting or a government contractor background, which you could tie into public service somewhat, but people come from straight-up private enterprise as well. More importantly, a lot of people come from low-level admin or research assistant work. This is so you know the level of competition (it's not that high). I suspect you're also suffering a small misunderstanding of the purpose/scope of the MPA: it teaches you to be a bureaucrat. It has nothing to do with volunteering. If you want to work in econdev doing actual econ (and not legislative reform or development consulting), you need to be careful about what programs you choose. Firstly, it's difficult to get hired (these days) without a PhD, and even if you do, there's no telling whether you'll get to do actual economics (which is to say you won't, even if you have superior data analysis skills and know something about the theory - the field is dominated by economists, and we're cliquey). Most MPAs (with rare exceptions like HKS-ID) don't remotely prepare you for a PhD in econ. In this field, getting the masters is the first and the smallest hurdle. The GPA is low, but if you asked me to choose one program where it's okay to have a 3.1, I'd say UChicago econ. You should probably have at least one academic letter, but it's a professional program, so supervisors are fine. Write a great personal statement about how the public sector would satisfy you or whatever and you should be in the running for SIPA or anywhere else. duh. that's why they exist.

@MKPolicy I'll just be straightforward: I don't think you should do an MPA. First, I don't sit on any committees (and neither does anyone else commenting here), but that qGRE will preclude admissions to HKS and WWS, and potentially a few others, because it's a spectacularly low qGRE for those programs and also because your profile isn't exactly what they're looking to admit. On paper, you don't look like the academic type - low GPA from mediocre undergrad, and yeah you have a 3.75 in your master's, but it is generally expected that you will have close to a 4.0 in a master's program, plus, as anyone in finance will tell you, finance programs vary drastically in quality. The qGRE is kinda the nail in that coffin. Policy schools aren't as anal about prestige and other gold dust as law and business schools, but they still care a great deal about how glitzy you are, on an ordinal scale. Second, I'm not sure that an MPA is going to help you. You're already older than 99% of the people who already have their MPA and are applying for typical post-MPA jobs. You're actually older than a lot of the people who are a step above that. I don't pretend to know everything about all the employers that hire MPAs, but I'm trying to say that it's moreso an early-career degree than a mid- or late-career one, and the portions of the policy field that I am familiar with are very attentive to that. My organization gets a lot of CVs from people whom we perceive to be overqualified precisely in the way you would be overqualified for graduate entry-level positions, and I've only seen people prefer to hire the typical candidate over someone with too much experience. Third, I don't think you need this degree. An MPA isn't going to help you get elected into any kind of office. It's not going to teach you in-depth estimation techniques (HKS ID people, yes, this is the hill I die on). An MPA isn't going to make you any more qualified to work for the IMF or WBG - if you want to work with economics or finance, you are already qualified enough to do that (plus, people prefer to hire degrees that speak to someone's concrete skills, not generalists with MPAs who can code Stata but don't know how to estimate a regression with an interaction term - I am not kidding, people, this is why you don't get an MPA to learn statistics), and if you want to work with something that isn't economics or finance, you don't have enough field experience, period, and a 2 year master's isn't going to make up for it like at all. An MPA is what you get when you want to be a mid-level bureaucrat in a salaried position (seriously, the height of anyone's ambitions here). If you want to transition into this field, you need to network and transition in your career. It takes knowing someone more often than not, but it's feasible to transition from what you're doing now in the private sector to doing something similar in the public sector. I doubt that will scratch your itch of helping others, though (it scratches mine, but my itch is extremely particular and gets me thrown out of more liberal bars). If you want to get elected into office, I can't even begin to imagine what that takes, but an MPA isn't it. If you still want to get a degree, I'd recommend the 1-year executive MPA at Harvard.

I agree with @fuzzylogician. You don't seem to actually want a degree - you just want to live in Europe. If so, that's something you can easily do. Travel there, or do a summer school, or do some language-learning course, depending on what you're interested in. As someone with 2 degrees from countries other than my country of citizenship, getting a degree in a foreign country is 99% not fun. You shouldn't do it for shits and giggles.

Let's start with the basics: Europe is not a country. Different countries have different education systems. What European country are you interested in?

On the contrary, perhaps I should've phrased my answer clearer: jobs in the IR industry do not pay enough money to pay down that debt. You shouldn't be taking out that loan for a degree in money tree horticulture, if your goal is to work in IR afterwards. Caveat, this is my personal opinion, as someone who likes to have savings and doesn't want to live with roommates when I'm 40. This is America, not Cameroon, so of course you won't be living in a cardboard box in an alley, but you will most likely face significant financial sacrifices. NGO jobs pay 40-50. Fed jobs pay 50-60. Private sector jobs pay a bit or a lot more, depending on what private sector specifically, but if that's your goal, you're better off getting an MBA. I live in the District, where I pay a third of my salary in rent (and I make more than the numbers I quoted) and I live with roommates. Studios start at 1300 in Petworth and 1700 anywhere you want to live (without utilities). I found my place via Craigslist, where most of the other people in my price range were in their mid-30s. I have a friend in his early 30s who just got really excited at hitting the high 60s in salary, and he's in a quanty field. The metro costs ~$3 a ride depending on from and to, a taxi is $10-15 for short distances, a coffee is $3-5, lunch is $10 self-service or $25 sit-down, drinks are $6+ at happy hour, a quart of milk is ~$2, basic white eggs are $2, a big bag of Doritos is $5. Sales tax is 5.75%. You're paying 20-30% of your salary in various taxes before you take it home. Add a, what, $800 monthly loan payment to all that, and you're squeezed pretty tight.

Pay better attention to wording: not worth it for that amount of debt. They're good programs, but this industry won't allow you many opportunities to pay down that kind of debt. This is why people need to have industry-specific work experience before signing up for such a degree. You try living in DC on a 50k salary, and suddenly the financials become a lot clearer.