ExponentialDecay

Having never applied to/enrolled in a masters program, I can't speak from personal experience about this topic. However, my cohort-mates who had completed MAs prior to beginning the program mostly agree that the value-added of the MA was that it helped them to define a potential research agenda, which in turn helped them to decide which PhD programs would best accommodate their interests (as well as helping them to write convincing SOPs). If it's really the case that you already have a good idea of what your research interests are, and you don't need to compensate for a horrific undergrad GPA, I would advise you to seriously weigh the benefits of spending x amount of money on a masters program simply because you didn't get an offer this cycle. There are other options, such as applying for RA positions, that might add value to your future applications without putting you in debt.

History and political science (even theory) are completely different. You are asking the wrong question here. You need to figure out which discipline best aligns with what kind of research you want to do and more importantly how you want to do it.
For reference, I don't think there is too much of a difference. History has less applicants but smaller cohorts while political science has more applicants but bigger cohorts. At the top places you are undeniably looking at under 10% (probably much less) admittance rates.

What do you want to do for the CDC/HUD/etc?  Do you want to do policy analysis?  Manage programs?  Be a budget analyst?  Have you thought about applying to jobs in state or local government health departments?  Doing so might give you a better sense of what you want to do with your career, and you might find you don't need another degree to get to where you want to be.  

Also, I think one thing that gets neglected on this forum is personality and the ability to network. Outside of test scores, work experience, GPA, etc. And that's something that, if you're confident in, can render a lot of the debate about whether you can make it in DC or NYC null and void. If you're confident that you can come in and make connections quickly then that's a giant part of the cost-benefit analysis of grad school that, objectively, people on this forum can't judge.

At "that" level, you're judged for your thought and organization above all. Grammar, if it's an issue, can be easily corrected. No one cares if you make mistakes as long as they are easily correctable mistakes. If your English prevents you from performing to the best of your ability in terms of your analytical capacities (e.g. if they make your writing a mess and difficult to understand), then there may be a problem. But honestly, if they've accepted you, then likely you are capable of doing exactly what they expect. You may work more slowly, but chances are that you're harder on yourself than anyone else will be on you.

What do you mean more severely? You're expected to write at a certain level, no more no less than native speakers. This comes naturally to some, with time, and for others it remains difficult throughout their graduate career. The best way to train yourself is to engage in speaking, reading, and writing, as often as you can. You might also want to have someone (preferably a native speaker) read your work and help you with style and grammar, and you might want to use the writing center at your new university. FWIW a lot of these things are also true for native speakers -- everyone can benefit from getting feedback from colleagues, and native speakers aren't always particularly good at academic writing. (In fact, in my experience, hardly anyone is when they start out; undergrads are terrible writers!) It's a skill you have to learn and develop. So yes, you'll be expected to reach a certain level by the time you produce publishable work, but no, you won't be judged more severely than anyone else on your writing. 

Tuck is a Marxist who taught classes in history of economic thought with an emphasis on Marx and standalone Marx classes, and Alexander Gourevitch refers to him as probably the best scholar on the topic in poli theory in US, even though his publishing has often been in other topics. 
Brown and Benhabib are critical theorists who have both taught Marx classes and are heavily influenced by him & have supervised Marx dissertations. 

Not sure what your issue is with Brown (which is now a theory powerhouse), Hopkins (which has always been), or CUNY (which is severely under-rated), but even if you put them aside other top theory programs (as I listed above) have trained Marx scholars and do have professors who directly or indirectly work on Marx. 
I don't know what the OP's application is like or what type of schools s/he is aiming at, but if it's top 10 -there is certainly people and programs where they would be more than welcome. Also, if you go below those, then there's even more choice (like New School, UMass Amherst, etc.). 

I think your statements about feminism or postcolonialism are equally wrong. Feminism especially (!!). Postcolonialism has indeed fallen a little out of fashion, but there are still top notch programs where you can do it with top people. 

This is all not to deny that other disciplines do these fields as well, some even more, but political theory departments (top ranked and lower ranked ones) in US certainly do the above mentioned fields.

Taking a course sounds like a great idea if you're trying to get into grad school. I did something similar for what I thought was a middling GPA. And the fact that you're a few years removed, did very well on the GRE and have pretty great work experience puts you in a good position. 
You're still going to have to explain that 2.41 GPA at some point, though. Was there some kind of family or mental health crisis? Did your grades improve throughout your years there? Were you just really immature and partying all the time? There should be a section in each application for "additional information," so you should think about how you're going to frame it so that they don't think that this is something that's going to happen again.
But my bigger question is this - why are you trying to get into grad school right now if you're just starting a GS-11 position? That's about the max level you can get straight out of a master's degree, and I know a few people who started at GS-9 after SAIS. You might find you need the master's eventually to advance, but if this is the kind of field you're hoping to go into, I don't think it would be worth it to quit your HUD position less than a year in to go to a full-time master's. Something part-time at night would be more reasonable, although again you will want to be super-certain that the degree is vital for you to move up because these programs are very expensive.

If I was in that situation I'd take the free registration, introduce myself confidently as a postdoc and then feign TOTAL IGNORANCE if called out. "Oh, my boss Prof X handled my registration."  (Honestly, given how cheap most academics are they'll probably be impressed with your ability to get something for free)
If it only costs $20 to register as a non-student or something like that then just tell your PI you'll pay for the registration yourself. If it costs something like $200 and the PI would otherwise be paying for your registration...then either swallow the lie or don't go. 
 

I'm not attacking you personally. I'm pointing out that you tend to make brash statements about inconsequential things and not back up what you say with any evidence, which is about as personal as saying that your methodology sucks and that's why your numbers don't make sense. 
I mean, you're the one who came in here and were like, Princeton is MUCH better than Harvard, with no justification whatsoever. You seem to be implying that people should trust you because you're you. So, for a change, how about you make a point? Not that I'd like you to further beat this spherical horse in a vacuum, because to me this seems like a completely pointless, baseless argument that you must be making because you're bored or something. They're both good schools that place people with good employers. I don't understand why you need to get in here with an investigation of differences that don't matter even if they do exist.

Don't get an MPA to work on the Hill, unless you have money to burn and just want the education.
Have you looked at the backgrounds of people who are currently in positions you might want? I deal with a lot of Congressional staffers for work. Those in the 22-35 range typically have no more than a bachelor's degree. If they have an advanced degree, it's usually a JD. And no matter what, the salary is pretty terrible. 

A macro SW degree can get you into most of the same policy positions if the position involves a traditional social work field (Assuming we're holding the amount of tech/quant skills standard. Good MPA programs more often teach more tech/quant skills, so if a job requires those skills it may be harder to take courses in them via a macro SW.) It does not make you more versatile; it's either the same or less versatility depending on how you want to use the degree. I would only recommend OP choose a macro SW over a MPA if they have decided they want to work in a traditional social work field.
I agree with the others, though, that neither may be a good idea for OP. Don't go unless you will graduate with little debt; don't go if you don't at least have an idea of what you want to do with the degree; don't go if your job provides some connections for your desired career and you aren't planning on switching fields (unless a masters is required for promotion).

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

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 guess my question is one of how serious you and the SO are. Do you see a real future for the two of you together, one where you can pursue your passions/interests plus be together? How will you feel about having delayed graduate school if you and your SO were to break up 3-6 months from now? Thinking about things in this way might help you have a good perspective on your relationship, which can in turn help with making a decision. Personally, I picked grad school when in a somewhat similar situation and I don't regret it. Why? Because the SO that wasn't that supportive of me moving across the country for grad school was being selfish and wasn't interested in what was best for me long-term, which means things would've ended disastrously at some point.

be., is your field philosophy? It's just not true that someone has a "reasonable chance of admission to a PGR-ranked program" with V159/Q152, or that GPA isn't a "great indicator[] of one's admission prospects." Some programs publish the average GRE scores of admitted PhD students. Even the lower-ranked PGR programs have average V scores in the 167-168 range, and Q scores much higher than 152. tbphilstudent deserves to know that before he/she spends 3 months working on applications and $1,000 on application fees.

Get 3+ years of work experience then apply


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

Get 3+ years of work experience then apply


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

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.

You know what else the taxpayers are funding? The military (nearly 50% of every tax dollar, btw). The interest on federal debt. Courthouses and the salaries of everyone that works in them. The infamous parks and rec. Road maintenance. Green energy subsidies. Farming subsidies, for that matter. Development aid to poorer countries. Politicians' airfare to international congresses. Etc etc etc. Which of those have anything to do with first amendment rights? Is good asphalt a right? Are solar panels a right? Is taking photos with African orphans to pad your Facebook page a right? The government doesn't just spend money on rights. If it did, it would be a lot smaller, and the smooth trajectory of your civilian life which you now take for granted would be a lot less smooth. The government also doesn't spend money on things you think it should spend money on. What you pay in taxes is money you give away to be spent at the discretion of the wider community, and sometimes it is spent in ways you don't agree with. Too bad, so sad.
OP, your line of argument is so incredibly stupid, and judging by how passive aggressive and rude you're being to the other commenters, I no longer believe that you're arguing for the sake of argument, playing devil's advocate, or even trolling. I think that your failure at getting accepted into whatever grad school inspired this rant is due to the fact that you spend too little time studying and too much time ranting on internet forums, rather than to some imagined miscarriage of justice.

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.

I didn't attend HKS, but I know people who did, and I hold a public policy master's (from Syracuse) and now work in government.  I disagree with some of the premises of in the article.  I don't think it's easy to teach leadership in the classroom, and I personally wouldn't want to attend a master's program that was primarily focused on teaching soft skills.  I don't think it's bad to teach economics or quant.  You need those skills for many jobs in government, and I think it would be foolish to attend a program that lacked those components.  From what I can tell, HKS doesn't require less political science coursework than other public policy programs.  Syracuse's MPA had one course in this area, and I thought it was very valuable and just the right amount of political science for the degree program.
There's nothing wrong with students going into the private sector if that's what they want.  If indeed HKS is actively telling students that "you can make more of a difference in the private sector" - yeah I would find that a bit problematic and simplistic.  Public sector jobs have their frustrations, and I can absolutely understand people who choose to go to the private sector, but we as a society need more good people in government, and good people can and do make a difference.  On a side note, one of the things I loved about Syracuse was being surrounded by students and faculty who were truly committed to public service.  If that's not the case at HKS, that could be a disadvantage - it's nice to be around people with similar goals.
The main piece I agree with is that, given how much tuition HKS charges, if you are paying full freight, it's not conducive to building a career in public service.  Entering government with $140k in student debt is absurd.  So I would say think carefully about what your goals are and your own financial situation before attending (and consider MBAs if you're private sector oriented).  I have heard amazing things about HKS's career services, but I also wonder how much of the success of their alumni (and the alumni of any public policy school) is based on who they accept rather than the value they actually add.

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.

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.

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.