ExponentialDecay

@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.

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.

Look, they're not going to sit there and count your a's and the's. 500 words is about a page, 2 pages double-spaced. So stay roughly within those boundaries. 700 words is about a page and a half, which is probably too long.
Length guidelines exist to suggest the volume of information that a text should contain, and how that information should be presented. So I would suggest situation your statement within those two perspectives. Maybe you're including stuff that doesn't need to be there (e.g. regurgitating information that is already on your resume, such as "I am a 2015 graduate of Armpit University who majored in Political Science", or stories about your childhood). I would also suggest looking at how your statement is structured. I bet you could rephrase some of it more concisely, lose filler words, streamline the syntax, eliminate any repetition, and so on. See if you can get a second pair of eyes on it.

I'm not saying that a PhD in public policy is uninformative. You yourself have set up an axis of comparison between the PhD in public policy and your master's in economics. I'm telling you that you're disappointed because you are expecting a public policy degree to be an economics degree by another name. The academic study of public policy is very valuable and can produce incredible specialists with top skills for both research and implementation, but its scope is much wider than economic analysis. If you want to exclusively focus on economic analysis, you should be getting a PhD in economics. I'm not sure why you're getting so defensive about the strengths of public policy when you seem to have no appreciation for any of the non-economic perspectives or skills that your program is teaching you.
Finally, it does seem from your responses like you didn't research your program or what a PhD is in general. A PhD is not about the classes. If the classes are easy, good for you - you can start on your research. Between you and me, you should probably also get a full-time job in some kind of policy outfit, because you'll be grateful for the work experience and network more than you are for your piece of paper. I don't necessarily agree that you think you're too smart for grad school, but I do think it's rather myopic of you to lord your economic background over a non-economics program. An economist coming into a policy program is obviously going to know the economics at a high level, just as a swimmer who starts training for a triathlon is already going to know how to swim. This should not have been a revelation for you. If you want to lord your economic background over the hoi polloi, you should consider switching back to the economics track - but keep in mind that there you will be competing with other economists instead of picking on the history majors.

I'm not saying that a PhD in public policy is uninformative. You yourself have set up an axis of comparison between the PhD in public policy and your master's in economics. I'm telling you that you're disappointed because you are expecting a public policy degree to be an economics degree by another name. The academic study of public policy is very valuable and can produce incredible specialists with top skills for both research and implementation, but its scope is much wider than economic analysis. If you want to exclusively focus on economic analysis, you should be getting a PhD in economics. I'm not sure why you're getting so defensive about the strengths of public policy when you seem to have no appreciation for any of the non-economic perspectives or skills that your program is teaching you.
Finally, it does seem from your responses like you didn't research your program or what a PhD is in general. A PhD is not about the classes. If the classes are easy, good for you - you can start on your research. Between you and me, you should probably also get a full-time job in some kind of policy outfit, because you'll be grateful for the work experience and network more than you are for your piece of paper. I don't necessarily agree that you think you're too smart for grad school, but I do think it's rather myopic of you to lord your economic background over a non-economics program. An economist coming into a policy program is obviously going to know the economics at a high level, just as a swimmer who starts training for a triathlon is already going to know how to swim. This should not have been a revelation for you. If you want to lord your economic background over the hoi polloi, you should consider switching back to the economics track - but keep in mind that there you will be competing with other economists instead of picking on the history majors.

I'm not saying that a PhD in public policy is uninformative. You yourself have set up an axis of comparison between the PhD in public policy and your master's in economics. I'm telling you that you're disappointed because you are expecting a public policy degree to be an economics degree by another name. The academic study of public policy is very valuable and can produce incredible specialists with top skills for both research and implementation, but its scope is much wider than economic analysis. If you want to exclusively focus on economic analysis, you should be getting a PhD in economics. I'm not sure why you're getting so defensive about the strengths of public policy when you seem to have no appreciation for any of the non-economic perspectives or skills that your program is teaching you.
Finally, it does seem from your responses like you didn't research your program or what a PhD is in general. A PhD is not about the classes. If the classes are easy, good for you - you can start on your research. Between you and me, you should probably also get a full-time job in some kind of policy outfit, because you'll be grateful for the work experience and network more than you are for your piece of paper. I don't necessarily agree that you think you're too smart for grad school, but I do think it's rather myopic of you to lord your economic background over a non-economics program. An economist coming into a policy program is obviously going to know the economics at a high level, just as a swimmer who starts training for a triathlon is already going to know how to swim. This should not have been a revelation for you. If you want to lord your economic background over the hoi polloi, you should consider switching back to the economics track - but keep in mind that there you will be competing with other economists instead of picking on the history majors.

You should take any comments by went_away on Fletcher with a very big grain of salt since he is known to make wild exaggerations about the school.

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.

@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. 

I wonder if Harvard will have to close down now.

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.

You're over thinking this.
1) I don't think it matters whether you are conservative or not. 
2) The campaign work isn't going to get you admitted. In fact, it may not have any bearing whatsoever. Ph.D. admissions are about academic experience. 

This forum was extremely useful during my application process, and my results were far better than expected, so hopefully I can be of use to others through this post:
Program Applied To: MPP/MPAs (also MPhil Econ @ Oxford, MSc Econ & Phil @ LSE and MSc Behavioural and Economic Science @ Warwick)
Schools Applied To: WWS, HKS, Duke Sanford, Chicago Harris
Schools Admitted To: all -- WWS (tuition + stipend), HKS (full tuition), Duke Sanford (90% tuition), Chicago Harris (no funding)
Interests: applying behavioural science to social and microeconomic policy in developed countries
Undergraduate institution: 'top' Australian university
Undergraduate GPA: 3.98
Undergraduate Major: Economics and Psychology
GRE Scores: 170 / 170 / 6.0
Magoosh was extremely useful for this, particularly on the quantitative side. For both the quant and verbal I did a lot of Magoosh practice questions. I also got a copy of the Official GRE book and did all the practice exams (one before I started preparing). On AW, I watched the Magoosh videos and also picked a few (maybe around 5) essays to write at random from the list on the GRE website whenever I felt up to it. Quizlet was super helpful in building my vocabulary: I'd add a flash card with a definition whenever I encountered a word I wasn't familiar with during my Magoosh practice. That being said, I've done a lot of standardised tests in my time, so was probably more comfortable than most during the actual test. I was also very lucky.
Years Out of Undergrad (if applicable): 6 and a bit
Years of Work Experience: 6 and a bit 
Describe Relevant Work Experience: ~5 years in analyst roles at central bank and ~1 year developing and briefing on policy at a federal treasury department.
Strength of SOP (be honest, describe the process, etc): I can't self assess overall strength, but I felt like it was strong on detail and motivation (i.e. I could convincingly use examples to show my motivation was genuine and sustained over many years). It was also probably a bit on the dry side. The process I followed was:
Used coggle.it to create a mind-map of all the policy issues I was interested in, going from general (e.g. 'education', 'well-being', 'consumer protection') to specific (e.g. 'best ways to allocate funding', 'difference b/w decision and experienced utility', 'making disclosure more effective'). I then used the mind-map to figure out what I really wanted out of grad school, and to select and consolidate interests to mention in my SOP. Gathered all the different aspects I needed to cover across each SOP (re: motivation, interest, skills, experience). I then drafted a 'master SOP' that included everything on this list. After selecting the programs I was going to apply to, I spent a fair bit of time going through the website of each university/faculty and identifying the courses and faculty members/research topics that aligned with my interests. For each program, I tailored the master SOP to fit the requirements of that specific application, and weaved in details of specific courses and faculty members to demonstrate why I had chosen that program at that university. Some unis required 'special' essays but I was mostly able to use material from my master SOP. I also asked my partner to proof read each SOP.  Strength of LOR's (be honest, describe the process, etc): I have no idea how strong my letters were, but I had some variety both in terms of seniority and background: one very senior manager from my current organisation, an immediate manager from a previous organisation, and my thesis supervisor from undergrad (an Assistant Professor in econ). I had a very good relationship with my previous immediate manager, so I emailed her straight out explaining my plans and asking if she had time to write a letter. With the other two, I used this strategy:
Emailed saying I was interested in grad school but wanted to get their advice. Met in person to talk about what I was interested in learning about, what I wanted to get out of grad school, and to ask about recommendations of programs/universities. My thesis supervisor assumed he would be writing a letter for me, and the senior manager got very excited about a common interest and offered to write a letter without me having to ask. I followed up with each by emailing: a list of programs I was applying to with short description of each; resume; transcripts; GRE scores; and my draft 'master SOP'. I had to send multiple email reminders and some of the letters ended up being submitted at the last moment. Decision: HKS. This was really tough, and ultimately came down to personal reasons. On paper, HKS was my top preference. But I ended up visiting Duke, Princeton and Harvard and was impressed by them in that order (most to least). Duke was impressive and welcoming, but didn't feel cosmopolitan enough; WWS felt like the safe option with lots of great people; HKS felt less personal, more daunting and with a less consistent mix of new admits. In the end I chose HKS because I thought I would grow more by being out of my comfort zone, getting to know people I wouldn't normally get to know, and because it had the most opportunity for someone interested in applying behavioural science to public policy. My partner will be moving with me, and Boston seemed to have the best job opportunities for her outside of NYC.
Words of Advice:
Before even deciding on a specific type of program, think about what you're really interested in, what you want to do with your life, and why. 80,000 Hours is extremely useful for this -- check it out! For example, I was considering PhD vs. academic masters vs. professional masters, in economics, psychology and public policy. This will really help with making your SOP sound coherent and convincing. Ask for help and advice from people in your network that might have gone through a similar process in the past. I was amazed at how willing people who I hadn't really kept in touch with were in helping with my applications and providing advice and tips. Don't be afraid of aiming high. I am not at all like the super humans described in the bios section of top schools. I got good marks at undergrad because I was genuinely interested in what I was learning, and managed to land a good job afterwards, but I am also shy, anxious and quiet. I haven't founded a start-up or non-profit, haven't held many official leadership positions and only did a few (low-key) extracurricular activities during undergrad. The length of my work experience and consistency of volunteer experience probably helped balance this out, but the point remains -- don't be intimidated by the descriptions of the students they choose to put up on their websites! Take care of your mental health. I found that practicing mindfulness through meditation to be really helpful in managing stress and in embracing whatever results end up arriving (check out apps like Headspace or Insight Timer).  Hope this helps!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Some points in no particular order:
Although I hold my AB from Harvard Extension, I wouldn't recommend it for a AM if your goal is a humanities PhD for a variety of reasons. Yes, an online MA will be looked down on. But more importantly, the reasons why you would need an MA in the humanities go well beyond the simple credential. Consider not only what admissions committees will think of that online MA, but also if it will actually help you acquire the skills you need to be competitive in a PhD program. You don't need a PhD to teach high school. In fact, a PhD is entirely useless if you want to teach high school. If your interest wanes over the next five years, that's not a bad thing. As you get older, you change. That's a fact, not a failure or a missed opportunity. One of my friends started his PhD in Byzantine history at Harvard while in his mid-30s. I wouldn't worry about your age.

I am in no way justifying the unprofessional behavior of your cohort but part of growing up is learning how to deal with people you don't like. You probably won't want to be friends with with most of the people you encounter in your career. That's okay. You're there to do good research, learn as much as you can from your mentor, and be polite to those around you. It's a shame your peers are less ambitious and not the type to encourage you to do you best. Let their comments bounce off of you. Keep working hard and getting funding awards. It's better not to disclose funding to peers, anyway because it breeds jealousy and greed. My boss recently obtained a $12M grant and professors are coming out of the woodwork, giving me their sob stories as if I can somehow relay that to my boss and get them a sympathy grant. The real world doesn't work that way. The best way to handle your cohort is professionally. Kill em with kindness. You'll probably be their boss someday.

...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.

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.