ExponentialDecay

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.

I thought a lot about this response, because I thought that my initial reaction was silly. But it's not. 
The question you are asking is basically (also) how we –international students– come to the US to do a PhD. As I read responses and think of my own experience, I picture more and more the transition from abroad to a US system, with its history, its tensions, its tacit rules... Language is not the issue, but they way you present ideas is. I have been writing in English since I was 8, and I still struggle with several awkwardness in my work. Similarly, the American historical tradition is different from the one that influenced the production and teaching of history in my home country, which means that when I arrived I hadn't read "obvious" authors (like WEB Du Bois) and that many others were "basic" to me. 
Maybe the best response to your question is: immersing oneself in the other culture –either as a historian, a journalist, an observer, a traveler– is probably the most efficient way to overcome any distances. 

This may have been said and I missed it... but based on how the OP was worded, just to say it explicitly: I would not mention your institutions reputation under any circumstances. It is either evident to adcomms, or irrelevant. The real estate you have to pitch yourself is limited. Spend your time talking about your research puzzle, career goals, etc... the things unique to you and your hopefully-new institution. Again, as an echo, solid training comes through in writing, not in mentioning rankings/reputation.

@heyitsme the thing is, economists are cliquey (as I'm sure you know), and an applicant coming from an MPA program is going to be viewed with suspicion - even if you take a lot of quant classes. fwiw, the quant classes you most need (multivariable, linear algebra, diff eq, real analysis) you can't take through an MPA program and would be a waste of per-credit tuition dollars in an MPA program. the vast majority of MPA programs (except for, like, the MPA-ID) just don't go anywhere near mathematical enough for your needs. you are a few classes short of being good for a master's, but you're better off taking the math you're missing non-degree at a community college. 
MPAs are professional degrees. They are explicitly not geared towards setting you up for academia. They state as much. if you have time and money to burn, by all means get an MPA and learn about the thought process that goes behind etc etc, but it'll set you back for the PhD imo.

If I were you I'd stick with neuropsychology, but...
international work experience or work experience with policy (can be public sector, can be NGO, private sector), better, with the type of policy you want to study in your degree. international work experience in policy is best, unless you plan to focus on US issues.
take intro macro/micro and statistics
good GPA/GRE, strong work experience, strong letters, good essays. the usual.
in the vast majority of cases, it's important to show programs you can do basic math by e.g. taking a college level math course or scoring 160+ on the QGRE. a small spectrum of programs like to see more math preparation, e.g. linear algebra or multivariable calc. never more than that.

important
You're going to be okay. Don't forget to enjoy being young.

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.

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.

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. 

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

My 2 cents: turn down the Cornell offer, stay at your competitive leadership program at the pharmaceutical MNC, work your way into management, and check back in when you're 26/27/28. Cornell is not that great of a school, particularly for public policy and I see your current situation as superior to studying an MPA in upstate New York with an uncertain job future ahead competing for low paid NGO jobs. When you do re-apply, if it's for a public policy degree, I would suggest you exclusively apply at Harvard Kennedy, Princeton Wilson, and Yale Jackson. I would also strongly suggest you take another look at doing an MBA. That route will lead to much better renumeration and far better options on the job market. A top 10 program (think Harvard/Wharton/Kellogg/Columbia/Yale/Michigan/Chicago/MIT/Berkeley) - even with debt - would certainly be preferable to a fully funded Cornell MPA. 

Hi Revolutionary,
I understand your desire to work in the US as I experienced something similar when I decided to study in the US for college. I became interested in policy/development during college but ended up taking a private sector job on an H1-B visa. The visa situation definitely impacted my decision, and I could not see many non-profits being willing to sponsor a visa for someone like me straight out of undergrad. But there may be options for you given that you will have a graduate degree and have Cornell's connections. I'm not entirely sure of Cornell's specific connections to employers or your specific interests, but here are a few options I can see for you after graduating:
- Work for a large NGO/non-profit willing to sponsor your visa. Eg, I spoke briefly to CARE (in Atlanta) about a job and they do sponsor lots of international candidates. I suspect that international development organizations are more likely to do that, for obvious reasons.
- Work for an IGO. I believe IGOs like UN, World Bank and IMF have easier rules around hiring international candidates due to the nature of their work. Do verify what I'm saying with your own research! I believe there is a more generous allocation of visas to employees of these organizations.
- If you somehow become interested in academia, you could continue with a PhD on an F1 visa
- Transition to the private sector. As noted above, I'm not sure of Cornell's specific connections, but it's likely that even after an MPA, you could land a private sector consulting job and the organization would be willing to sponsor your visa. Note that federal consulting would have its own restrictions since they require a certain background. Not sure how likely you are to want to go back into the private sector, but that's an option.
Yes, the path is a little less "certain" and being on a visa is quite annoying, but even if you decide to return after a few years in the US, employers in your home country will probably view your overseas experience as a plus. If you really desire to experience living in a Western country, I think you have a great opportunity to do so, and I hope the options listed above provide you with some idea of what you can do going forward. Finally, I hope that living in a more developed country will provide you with a more nuanced perspective of both your home country and "developed" countries, which have their own struggles as well. 

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. 

When confronted with a binary, any graduate student worth their salt should reflexively deconstruct their binary. Effective, concise written communication is an art form, and precision is not incompatible with beauty. One needs only to look at scholars such as Peter Brown or Paul Fussell to see that. 

You're looking for general rules where none apply. 
How much you share with someone depends on that particular relationship, not some imaginary and enforced personal-professional divide. 
Many of my work colleagues are just work colleagues. Some are also friends. Some of my friends have no connection to what I do. 
I think of it in terms of a venn diagram with personal and professional overlapping with friends. Some friends are just personal, some are professional. Some of my personal and professional life overlap, some doesn't. 
I think you're going to have a really hard time in grad school if you make no friends with whom you can discuss classes, professors, advisors, exams... And moreover, I would consider that "professional", just like I talk to my colleagues about research woes, how our classes are going, etc. 

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. 

Yep, happens all the time.
I teach a lot of fiction and non-fiction writing by women and African-Americans, and I teach at a predominantly white institution, so I occasionally run across very hostile racist/sexist students. More frequently, I run across students who are just not all that acquainted with minority perspectives, and they feel that by being made to study women's and African-American literature, they are being denied "real literature" or being force-fed an "agenda." Naturally, many students now feel empowered to voice these sentiments (and uglier ones) since last year's election.
In any case, I've found it helpful to really structure class and writing assignments very, very carefully. When it comes to material that might be dicey for them, I don't ask open questions in class, and I don't ask them if they agree with this writer or that writer on the topic of sexism or racism. First, I make clear that we need to meet the authors where they're at in terms of their experiences, and that we take seriously their writing about racism/sexism without trying to impose our own experiences. (In other words, I tend to view derailing comments like "so-and-so is just imagining racism where it doesn't exist because he's paranoid" or "As a white person I'm the victim of reverse racism," or "but white people have it hard these days because of affirmative action, and black people have it really easy," as off topic and irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and I steer students away from them.) I also ask them to focus more on techniques the writer is using; their tools of persuasion; their blending of personal experience with academic prose, etc. etc. I occasionally ask my own students to write their own narratives, and to pattern their narratives after the essays we've read by minority authors. I find that when we take the focus off "do you agree racism/sexism exists or that so-and-so is just making all this racism stuff up?" and put it on what and how the author is actually writing, we have more productive and focused discussions. 
Now, I teach literature and composition classes rather than women's studies or feminist theory, so my approach may not be relevant to what you're teaching. But in terms of writing, I also urge you to structure assignments very carefully. Again, in my own class, I ask very specific questions and guide them to doing a really detailed analysis. Or I have them use one essay as a lens for thinking about the other. And then I lay out very specific criteria for how I'm going to grade the piece. 
Honestly, this heads off most problems. But you are still going to have students who sit down at their computers and write their own anti-feminist or alt-right screeds. And these essays can be troubling to read. But you just read them and grade them as impartially as possible according to the criteria you've established. These students generally fail themselves. When they do this kind of editorializing, they're usually so far off the mark that it's easy to fail them on technicalities or shoddy argumentation alone. Last year, a student of mine chose to write a paper about a Derek Walcott poem. The assignment asked for a researched, thesis-driven explication. What he gave me was an eight-page anti-immigrant and racist rant that quoted Breitbart, among other things. Well, that was an easy call--he hadn't done what the assignment asked for (nor the proper research), so F. 
Racism, sexism, heterosexism, and xenophobia are such illogical and intellectually bankrupt belief systems that they fail all on their own. Still sucks to read that stuff, though.

@MPP19
poor reading comprehension might be /:

@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.

This post is poetry about careerism and life. In other words, I love it. I was particularly reminded by one of my favorite speeches: David Foster Wallace's commencement speech to Kenyon College Class of 2005 aka "This is Water." He says:
In the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And an outstanding reason for choosing some sort of God or spiritual-type thing to worship ... is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things - if they are where you tap real meaning in life - then you will never have enough. Never feel you have enough. It's the truth. Worship your own body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly, and when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally plant you. ... Worship power - you will feel weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to keep the fear at bay. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart - you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. And so on.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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.

@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.