ExponentialDecay

My friend did this program. MIPP students take the same courses as the MA students; I think the salient difference is that it is one year vs two. MAGP is a completely separate program with a separate cohort that has if I recall 6 hour sessions every Saturday and lasts 1.5 years. The curriculum is the same for all MAGP students whereas MIPPs can choose whatever classes they want, so they can make their program of study more quantitative by choice. In regards to career options, you're better off speaking to people in the departments/jobs you're interested in. There's economic policy people who need an economics PhD to do their job, there's economic policy people who are economists only in name and really are selling their business connections or somesuch, and there's a lot of space in between.

@Tako you know you're posting in the chance thread for policy masters, right?

Firstly, read carefully: it's not a requirement. It clearly says you can apply without one, but that most accepted students have one. Secondly, if your standard for an attainable program is one that says "we love kids out of undergrad, please apply out of undergrad", you won't find any programs to apply to. PP is not an academic field. PhDs in this field all (ime) have prior relevant work experience, a master's degree, and often both. Most policy PhD programs are designed for working professionals who want to get the PhD done with and move back into industry or who want to use the PhD to move into public policy academia (which is extremely rare). There is virtually no academic employment for PP PhDs, so they are structured fundamentally differently to academic PhDs. They're not preparing you for academia, so they're looking for people who can get a non-academic job. That's usually not fresh undergrads. I don't know anyone doing this out of UG, but I haven't looked and maybe they exist. But if you're going to apply, I think you need to realize that this degree isn't like most other PhDs.

"Chance me for programs I won't name". solid logic bro

Those with previous finance experience can use it as a stepping stone to careers in social finance and impact investing or finance-related careers in the public sector or multinationals. A lot of people use prestigious public policy schools as a backdoor to analyst/associate roles at the usual suspects (although usually in their consulting arms). If you're looking to stay in finance, as you know, prestige matters, so I would be careful about picking schools (i.e. I wouldn't go to GWU). Big corporates are pretty broad as entities, so people do a broad range of things, from more obvious fits like CSR or innovation/entrepreneurship to standard middle management stuff. If you're looking to stay in the private sector, an MBA is also an excellent and arguably more prudent choice. The coursework is similar and most programs these days offer concentrations in sustainable business. The main distinguishing feature of MBAs imo is that the on-campus recruiting efforts are a lot stronger, whereas at MPAs you have to hustle.

The obvious question in my mind is, do you know what you're getting into? What is it that you think we do here, hold hands and sing kumbayah? Banks and big corps are the biggest players in this arena, second only to governments (and that's only in certain areas). If you have a disdain for corporations, don't go to public policy school, quit your job, go work at a small-time NGO or get a humanities PhD, and you will find yourself in excellent company. If you're ready to join us in the real world, your banking experience will be extremely valuable. But think carefully about whether you can see yourself advancing the same interests for half the money.

Don't ask us. Ask the admissions department.

Your career goals have nothing to do with MPP/history/political science programs of any sort. So, if you have money to burn, attend whatever program makes you happier. Otherwise, I'd take your "typical two year stint" and for example work as an Au Pair in England if it's calling your name, then when you're done fucking around, go to law school.

ayyyyyy naming names! Spicy! Srsly tho I like this new development. I hope future don't-go ranters take up this tradition instead of vaguebooking about "a top IR school". I wouldn't dismiss OP out of hand. I have no experience with Fletcher (to add salt to the wound, I haven't even heard of it until I started reading this board), but speaking to top IR schools generally, they do provide a very general education that's not worth the sticker price. I wouldn't say these degrees are only for the wealthy - there is a non-trivial number of people on full scholarships, whether from the government, an employer, or the school itself, getting them - but there's definitely a lot of considerations for anyone thinking of getting one, some of which OP touches on. Firstly, if your first response to breaking into the field is to get a graduate degree, that's probably a bad start. Getting your foot in the door doesn't mean you'll easily get a job. Secondly, taking on large debt often contradicts the goals for which you'd be getting the degree. If you want to work in development, you need field experience. That usually means doing twoish years at some shitty NGO in sub-Saharan Africa making shit money (it's not the 70s, nobody's gonna pay you an expat salary unless you're ridiculously skilled). You can't do that with any kind of USD-denominated loans. Thirdly, it's finishing school. People who get the best outcomes from IR grad school are like investment bankers transitioning into impact investment. I see the utility for humanities majors looking for an analytical skillset: the better option is a specialized analytical masters, but those are taught for the benefit of people who like math, whereas policy math is taught for humanities majors. You can get a decent skillset especially if you select based on quantitative exposure and apply yourself, but the transition will be easier, I think. For everyone else, eh. Apply for jobs.

https://www.hks.harvard.edu/educational-programs/masters-programs

Come on OP. They're not going to run LORs through Turnitin. This is a situation where you need to sit down and think whether your fear is rational or it's your anxiety talking. Professors reuse letter structure, have letter templates they use for all their letters, and so on. Relax.

WWS is most selective because it funds everyone, so it has to keep the class very small. HKS is a bit more selective than the other ones because it's Harvard, but their MPP class is huge (I think the MPAID is more selective than the MPP but that's the natural result of the mathy prereqs). Then it's all the other ones. The real competition is for funding, not admission.

Technically all master's are cash cows by definition, but that doesn't mean the degree can't have value for you. The AAP are explicitly designed for "working professionals", i.e. they are very applied and not rigorous in the academic sense. You also don't need all that rigor to be a competent mid-level analyst in industry or government, which is one reason that you're not going much above high school math (another is that most people in these programs wouldn't be able to hack it). The applied economics course isn't meant to be preparation for a PhD, and last I looked, they explicitly say so on their webpage. No, it's not part of the JHU economics department, it's not taught by faculty from that department, and again, all this is explicit on their website. I guess my question would be why you need this degree when you already have an econ BA and MPA. Unless your MPA was very non-quantitative, I'm not sure that you will learn much that is new. So, clarify your goals, do your research, and you'll figure your dilemma out in no time.

I think Attiah's critiques of the development industry are exceptional because they speak to laymen concerns without annoying professionals (occasional outliers considered). I know few other people who can toe this line. I would be deeply surprised if an applicant with no development experience could. Regarding SOP. Naivete exists on a spectrum, and OP's level of naivete is certainly at home among the average policy program applicant. They are, however, applying to some ambitious programs (I do wonder whether they've carefully read program requirements before making this selection). Funded programs (and funded spots at unfunded programs) will expect to see more nuanced criticism than what OP is producing. The reality is, everyone in development is disillusioned about development. There are seasoned scholars (Pritchett, Rodrik, Duflo, Deaton) who have made their careers critiquing development along the axes OP suggests. When we say it's not new, we mean if OP's mother wrote this personal statement, it would not be new. And there's nothing wrong with mentioning some of these issues - as Attiah notes, many of them are unresolved - and OP is probably smart and can probably learn a lot in a short time, but it matters how they write this. Applicants who seem like they'll need to break down defensive attitudes and cover a 50 year gap before they're up to speed with everyone else in the program don't get funded much. Regarding going into development work with this attitude. A lot of people get disillusioned with development when they realize that problems in the development industry didn't arise because everyone is too stupid to have had ideas like community-based development, the weaknesses of the top down approach, and unequal power relationships. That it takes more than a woke white lady showing up with a scathing and innovative critique. As OP is partial to "nothing about us without us", they should consider that the development community has the features of any other community. Just like corruption in India didn't arise because Indians are inherently immoral and Liberia isn't a fragile state because black people are by nature criminals and can't govern themselves, the development industry isn't fucked up because development professionals are evil and dumb. Development is what it is because of inequalities that are systemically ingrained and backed by powerful stakeholders, and because social engineering is a very young field where we still don't really know what we're doing and don't have a good idea of how we could know more (but at least we've moved away from Nazism, so that's a plus). A big reason, I think, for reactions like J's is that people in development think about these issues all the time and, ime, thinking about it doesn't do shit. So they resent being told to do something that a) they already do, b) doesn't work. In practice, development models are less about thinking fancy thoughts and more about delivery. The reason international financial institutions and development consultancies etc exist is because they can deliver funding and expertise for development. If OP can operationalize a more equitable model, that would be a huge innovation. Yapping about how this and that isn't right? Nah. Another thing I want to say is about this: Especially if OP is averse to more interventionist approaches (such as conditional loans), they should be prepared that, as an educated outsider, they will be pretty much limited to "just" talking, writing and teaching about these topics. Their audience wouldn't be college kids, but OP should think about whether that's acceptable for them.

Another one who thinks himself too special for the sticky thread

Well, SIPA, SAIS, and Georgetown require intro economics courses for matriculation so... imperative? Also, you will struggle in an ID degree if you are this resistant to math. These schools also require you to take some intermediate economics courses with a B- or above in order to graduate. Frankly, the math in either the intro or intermediate courses is middle school level - if you belong to the human species, you can learn it. You just have to sit down and make an effort.

Do you mean another international affairs degree with a focus on trade/finance or a real degree in economics or finance? If the former, it would be redundant. If the latter, it would be a substantially different degree to the extent that, unless you have some significant exposure to math and economics already, you wouldn't be admissible for a lot of programs without first completing a lot of prerequisites. But like the others said, ultimately the only thing that matters is what you want the degree for.

So, the lack of linear algebra and multivariate is going to kill your application for any econ PhD (and for worthwhile public policy PhDs as well) but the good news is, you can take those at community college or online. Frankly you can't do anything statistically or mathematically until you take linal and multivariate respectively, so these classes are really important. Aside from that, get a research assistant job at a reputed place (JPAL, the Fed, etc), work there 2 years, and provided linear algebra and multivariate, you should have a chance for an econ PhD.

that's not a low GRE but yes

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.