ExponentialDecay

Which program at Harris? From what I remember, the PhD-level classes are reserved for MACRM and that quant-heavy policy program. idk if MPPs can get into them, even if they are technically allowed to take them. 
Regarding quantitative work, it's not only reserved for PhDs (especially the low-level stuff), but if you're definitely committed to it, I'd reconsider doing a policy degree at all. If you have a strong enough math and programming background as is, you can get a low-level policy quant job now (depending on the prestige of your undergrad, that will take more to less cold-calling, but it's totally feasible). Likewise, if you're fixated on getting another degree, I'd get a degree in stats, economics or DS. You can build a quantitative background at most policy schools right now, but the rigor is definitely geared towards humanities majors, which may work for you if you're very good at math or you're a humanities major, but if you're in between, I think you'll struggle to get a deep enough understanding to succeed in a quanty job. 
I wouldn't take out 6 figures for a policy degree. That's an unnecessarily high debt load for almost any degree. 

Assuming both programs cost the same, if your Harris program is the one that gives 3 years OPT, go to that one. 3 years OPT is a concrete benefit that no one can take away from you. All this network/internationalness/career services is handwavy bullshit that may or may not be true in your case. 
If SIPA works out to be considerably cheaper, go there. But be careful about how  you price extended OPT: you can always make more money, but no amount of money will buy you a work visa.

Thanks, OP, for taking the obvious one!
It may be more helpful to start a google sheet like they have on the philosophy board, where people put the name of the school and their award (including 0 values, for frequency calculations).

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.

For crissake dude it's one random elective. Just fucking drop it already.
That said, your attitude towards failure has got to go. You're obviously not doing well in this class, yet you can't even admit that to yourself. You know 70% isn't a good grade. You know that you failed a 25% assignment, and you know that getting the precise percentage on your paper isn't going to make a difference to your outcome because that F is already pulling you down significantly. Instead of doing something proactive to fix your situation, such as dropping the class or asking for extra credit or meeting with the professor and having a frank discussion without hints and insinuations and fortune-telling on tarot cards, you're focusing all your energies on denying that this is happening to you. It's okay to fail. It's okay to feel challenged. It's good that both of these things are happening to you because it means you're working to your potential. One of the big goals of graduate school is getting you to stop needing validation, whether for practical or emotional reasons, from grades and professors, and instead teaching you to make decisions based on your own thoughts and evaluation of the situation.

You're not arguing that a hobbyist shouldn't be admitted at all. You're arguing that a hobbyist shouldn't be admitted over a candidate who would see the PhD as a job. Do you think that a candidate who sees the PhD as a job is going to be easier competition for your internal funding or whatever else than a hobbyist?


I.. wouldn't care? As long as the person knows what they're doing and is easy to work with, I don't care what their motivation is. That's their private business. And like I said, I see no reason why the quality of scholarship should be impacted by lack of desire to turn scholarship into a paid job. There's certainly more than enough examples of terrible scholars who want a job in academia.
I think this is sour grapes. Like, if you're not fully committed to battling against impossible odds in obtaining TT, you can't sit with us. Your attitude is functionally no different to the attitude of some quasi-emeritus who looks down on people for having an alt-ac plan B. And your attitude is your private business, except I don't understand why you align yourself with a view that is expressly counter to stated beliefs and even interests. If you are a "serious scholar", more people getting your degree for fun is better for you in every possible way. These people represent a more (or should I say, de facto) sustainable source of demand for the training that you want to be paid for to provide, yet they at the same time are not part of your competition for those professional positions. The age of people getting generic humanities degrees to be more employable is over - so I think catering to people who get your degree for personal growth purposes only is in your field's future. And moreover, perhaps they'll be able to inject perspectives into the profession that people who are desperate for history jobs are disinclined to express even if they hold them. It may be uncomfortable to view your field as something people enter for fun, but why the hell not?

I've seen many of the users represented here lament the overproduction of history PhDs and the state of the history job market, not to mention shepherd hopefuls towards reconsidering their PhD ambitions, so I'm curious at the viciousness with which you receive someone who has admitted that the PhD would be a hobby. Isn't it good that they've already decided not to compete for increasingly rare TT positions with the rest of y'all? Isn't it good that they'd be taking up the chair of a young person who will spend 10 years on this "career" only to be cheated out of it by the job market?
Why decry the myopic attitude of history departments to alt-ac opportunities and the recruitment of fruitless strivers on one hand, and engage in this self-defeatist gatekeeping on the other? Statistically,the majority of history PhDs are doing the PhD as a very long and stressful hobby until they are forced to leave academia and get a job that only uses their PhD training in a very perverted sense of "use". How are the majority of the posters on this forum different from this hobbyist? In that you don't admit to yourselves that your chance of getting TT is miniscule and that you're going to treat the PhD as a consumption good from the outset? 
Why not admit people who see the PhD as a retirement project? Nothing says they can't produce compelling research, and they might actually be useful to the department in the form of cheap TA labor that then don't grow bitter when they can't get any practical benefits out of it. That's probably the only kind of PhD admit that in this climate could be called ethical. Sure, it's not prestigious or whatever for the department - but what's your incentive to protect bullshit exploitative academic practices? 

I've seen many of the users represented here lament the overproduction of history PhDs and the state of the history job market, not to mention shepherd hopefuls towards reconsidering their PhD ambitions, so I'm curious at the viciousness with which you receive someone who has admitted that the PhD would be a hobby. Isn't it good that they've already decided not to compete for increasingly rare TT positions with the rest of y'all? Isn't it good that they'd be taking up the chair of a young person who will spend 10 years on this "career" only to be cheated out of it by the job market?
Why decry the myopic attitude of history departments to alt-ac opportunities and the recruitment of fruitless strivers on one hand, and engage in this self-defeatist gatekeeping on the other? Statistically,the majority of history PhDs are doing the PhD as a very long and stressful hobby until they are forced to leave academia and get a job that only uses their PhD training in a very perverted sense of "use". How are the majority of the posters on this forum different from this hobbyist? In that you don't admit to yourselves that your chance of getting TT is miniscule and that you're going to treat the PhD as a consumption good from the outset? 
Why not admit people who see the PhD as a retirement project? Nothing says they can't produce compelling research, and they might actually be useful to the department in the form of cheap TA labor that then don't grow bitter when they can't get any practical benefits out of it. That's probably the only kind of PhD admit that in this climate could be called ethical. Sure, it's not prestigious or whatever for the department - but what's your incentive to protect bullshit exploitative academic practices? 

I've seen many of the users represented here lament the overproduction of history PhDs and the state of the history job market, not to mention shepherd hopefuls towards reconsidering their PhD ambitions, so I'm curious at the viciousness with which you receive someone who has admitted that the PhD would be a hobby. Isn't it good that they've already decided not to compete for increasingly rare TT positions with the rest of y'all? Isn't it good that they'd be taking up the chair of a young person who will spend 10 years on this "career" only to be cheated out of it by the job market?
Why decry the myopic attitude of history departments to alt-ac opportunities and the recruitment of fruitless strivers on one hand, and engage in this self-defeatist gatekeeping on the other? Statistically,the majority of history PhDs are doing the PhD as a very long and stressful hobby until they are forced to leave academia and get a job that only uses their PhD training in a very perverted sense of "use". How are the majority of the posters on this forum different from this hobbyist? In that you don't admit to yourselves that your chance of getting TT is miniscule and that you're going to treat the PhD as a consumption good from the outset? 
Why not admit people who see the PhD as a retirement project? Nothing says they can't produce compelling research, and they might actually be useful to the department in the form of cheap TA labor that then don't grow bitter when they can't get any practical benefits out of it. That's probably the only kind of PhD admit that in this climate could be called ethical. Sure, it's not prestigious or whatever for the department - but what's your incentive to protect bullshit exploitative academic practices? 

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

What do you mean, they're no longer reachable due to job changes? Unless they also went into witness protection, I'm pretty sure it's possible for you to find out where they work now (e.g. by asking the department secretary or simply googling their names) and reaching out to them via their new email.

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.

@elmo_says Perhaps unsurprisingly, it's a lot easier to make it anywhere if you come from money.
My issue with you is that you're perpetuating the mindset that gets people suckered into these programs in the first place. You dispel the notion that these programs are exclusive and what you need to succeed only to replace it with another similar one - actually, what you need for success is to be a "rich international type" with a PhD in engineering from MIT. (As an aside, I will never forgive you for that phrasing. As someone who works in development, you purport to help developing countries and then you turn around and disparage the very people coming from those countries, often(!) at great personal cost, to participate in that work and make sure that not just your imperialist perspective gets heard - how dare you). This is unhelpful for two reasons: because few people can will themselves into becoming a rich international type with a PhD in engineering from MIT, and also because it's bullshit.
More people are funded in these programs than you think, not only via internal scholarships, but via external scholarships or by their government or employer. The money is out there and you can get it. It is good practice to get it now, because the public sector, if we come down to brass tacks, is fully about convincing different groups of people to give you money to do socially important things. The scheme for getting money is simple and the same for everyone: 
Get your hard stats in order Have work experience that you can make relevant (NB: this is an exercise in storytelling, not an exercise in asking Daddy to get you a position at State) Pay attention to fit: know what you can offer a program Apply widely Negotiate And if you don't get money, here's what you can do to build a successful policy career without a degree in public policy. I'll start with the other degrees you can get, but the rest of the list is more interesting and arguably more impactful.
Get a degree in something else: business, area studies, economics, etc. The specific MPA/MPP title does not matter in 99% of cases. Get a degree somewhere else: Canada, Europe, Asia. The network at the top policy schools does help, but I also meet a lot of people who are tired of the cookie-cutter SAIS grads and want to hire people from new perspectives and experiences. GET A JOB. Get a job in the Parks and Rec department of Pawnee, Indiana. Get a job in the Kafkaesque government of your tiny third world state. Get a job at Goldman. Get a job at a tiny nonprofit. It's bullshit that you need to live in DC and work at State or the World Bank in order to do anything in this field. State and the World Bank are where impact goes to die. The real work and learning happens on the ground, often among people without advanced degrees but with lots of enthusiasm. I meet so many people in their late 20s-early 30s who are considered top in their field who graduated Podunk State and started their careers as low-level bureaucrats in flyover country. Most of them got their advanced degrees 6-8 years out of college; some don't even have them.  Do your own thing. You don't need a degree to start a small business or an after-school activity for low-income children. You already know what your community needs, and I bet you're smart enough to figure out how to help them get it. This knowledge is more valuable - including to employers - than whatever Dani Rodrik will lecture at you for 2 years at Harvard. Do something other than policy for a few years. Lots of people come in from other backgrounds in business, health, engineering, whatever.  Meet people. For my part, I am continually amazed at how many people in my dog-eat-dog callous and jaded field have taken their time, effort, and not infrequently money to help me out for nothing in return (although gratitude is a nice touch). So many busy and important people want to mentor and guide you (sometimes pay you) - but you do need to reach out. Most people get broken by this field eventually but few forget why they're even in this thing, and if you're a promising young person who has something to offer, they get really excited. There is such an incredible variety of policy careers and policy backgrounds. You don't need to be a rich international type to be in policy, and you don't need to follow a single prescribed path. If you're a young person with a bachelor's level education and some idea of how to position your perspective within the context of the field, you have so many opportunities to work, travel, and make an impact. It's a shame to chain yourself to a DC office job straight out of college.

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.

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.

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

...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. 

ehhhhhhh
I appreciate that this is an attempt to warn recent Sarah Lawrence graduates that the real world works differently off campus, but imo all this kind of rhetoric accomplishes is entrenching young people in their idealistic notions and avoidance of "corporate drudgery". I really wish people would stop portraying the private sector as this monolithic, vaguely kafkaesque entity where everyone has to bend over and take it from the boss, who is in cahoots with Trump and probably has a pointy tail. That's not the case.
1. The private sector is really diverse. Evil corporations and investment banks are only a tiny fraction of the private sector. The majority of private sector entities are small and medium enterprises, like organic farms, mom and pop stores, restaurants, or small companies that make shit like some niche design software or imitation mini cacti. Most of these companies make little if any profit and are just trying to provide a good product and stay in business. Ultimately, being private just dictates how you file your taxes. An entity isn't evil just by virtue of being private, just as it is not good just by virtue of being a non-profit.
2. Most Americans work in the private sector, so, statistically, about half of them are Democrats. Some industry sectors are more right or more left than others - oil companies tend to be staffed by Republicans and startups tend to be staffed by Democrats - but just that you work in the private sector implies exactly nothing about what your workplace environment is like. Your coworkers may all be uberliberal, ubercool millennials who went to similar liberal arts schools. Your company may put up a booth each Pride. Your boss may host weekly #withher rallies. And you still, by the way, would need to STFU because that's part of being a person that other people want to work with and promote, whether in academia, non-profits, government, or a pre-language hunter-gatherer society.
3. Because of how diverse the private sector is, you can find a lifestyle similar to the academic one at a private company. It's not all navy suits and 9 to 5. Some companies have flexible scheduling. Some have work from home options. Some have cool childcare perks, amazing office amenities or big vacation time. Some companies have better employer protection than the antiquated, calcified and politically fraught grievance systems endemic to most academic (and other large, complex and old) institutions. How feasible any given option is depends on what industry you're in, what role you have and where you are geographically (just as what your daily life looks like will depend on your discipline and the type of institution you're at), but it is possible, and, what's best, you don't need to sacrifice 10 years and be a department superstar in order to get a slim chance at it.
 

ehhhhhhh
I appreciate that this is an attempt to warn recent Sarah Lawrence graduates that the real world works differently off campus, but imo all this kind of rhetoric accomplishes is entrenching young people in their idealistic notions and avoidance of "corporate drudgery". I really wish people would stop portraying the private sector as this monolithic, vaguely kafkaesque entity where everyone has to bend over and take it from the boss, who is in cahoots with Trump and probably has a pointy tail. That's not the case.
1. The private sector is really diverse. Evil corporations and investment banks are only a tiny fraction of the private sector. The majority of private sector entities are small and medium enterprises, like organic farms, mom and pop stores, restaurants, or small companies that make shit like some niche design software or imitation mini cacti. Most of these companies make little if any profit and are just trying to provide a good product and stay in business. Ultimately, being private just dictates how you file your taxes. An entity isn't evil just by virtue of being private, just as it is not good just by virtue of being a non-profit.
2. Most Americans work in the private sector, so, statistically, about half of them are Democrats. Some industry sectors are more right or more left than others - oil companies tend to be staffed by Republicans and startups tend to be staffed by Democrats - but just that you work in the private sector implies exactly nothing about what your workplace environment is like. Your coworkers may all be uberliberal, ubercool millennials who went to similar liberal arts schools. Your company may put up a booth each Pride. Your boss may host weekly #withher rallies. And you still, by the way, would need to STFU because that's part of being a person that other people want to work with and promote, whether in academia, non-profits, government, or a pre-language hunter-gatherer society.
3. Because of how diverse the private sector is, you can find a lifestyle similar to the academic one at a private company. It's not all navy suits and 9 to 5. Some companies have flexible scheduling. Some have work from home options. Some have cool childcare perks, amazing office amenities or big vacation time. Some companies have better employer protection than the antiquated, calcified and politically fraught grievance systems endemic to most academic (and other large, complex and old) institutions. How feasible any given option is depends on what industry you're in, what role you have and where you are geographically (just as what your daily life looks like will depend on your discipline and the type of institution you're at), but it is possible, and, what's best, you don't need to sacrifice 10 years and be a department superstar in order to get a slim chance at it.
 

ehhhhhhh
I appreciate that this is an attempt to warn recent Sarah Lawrence graduates that the real world works differently off campus, but imo all this kind of rhetoric accomplishes is entrenching young people in their idealistic notions and avoidance of "corporate drudgery". I really wish people would stop portraying the private sector as this monolithic, vaguely kafkaesque entity where everyone has to bend over and take it from the boss, who is in cahoots with Trump and probably has a pointy tail. That's not the case.
1. The private sector is really diverse. Evil corporations and investment banks are only a tiny fraction of the private sector. The majority of private sector entities are small and medium enterprises, like organic farms, mom and pop stores, restaurants, or small companies that make shit like some niche design software or imitation mini cacti. Most of these companies make little if any profit and are just trying to provide a good product and stay in business. Ultimately, being private just dictates how you file your taxes. An entity isn't evil just by virtue of being private, just as it is not good just by virtue of being a non-profit.
2. Most Americans work in the private sector, so, statistically, about half of them are Democrats. Some industry sectors are more right or more left than others - oil companies tend to be staffed by Republicans and startups tend to be staffed by Democrats - but just that you work in the private sector implies exactly nothing about what your workplace environment is like. Your coworkers may all be uberliberal, ubercool millennials who went to similar liberal arts schools. Your company may put up a booth each Pride. Your boss may host weekly #withher rallies. And you still, by the way, would need to STFU because that's part of being a person that other people want to work with and promote, whether in academia, non-profits, government, or a pre-language hunter-gatherer society.
3. Because of how diverse the private sector is, you can find a lifestyle similar to the academic one at a private company. It's not all navy suits and 9 to 5. Some companies have flexible scheduling. Some have work from home options. Some have cool childcare perks, amazing office amenities or big vacation time. Some companies have better employer protection than the antiquated, calcified and politically fraught grievance systems endemic to most academic (and other large, complex and old) institutions. How feasible any given option is depends on what industry you're in, what role you have and where you are geographically (just as what your daily life looks like will depend on your discipline and the type of institution you're at), but it is possible, and, what's best, you don't need to sacrifice 10 years and be a department superstar in order to get a slim chance at it.
 

ehhhhhhh
I appreciate that this is an attempt to warn recent Sarah Lawrence graduates that the real world works differently off campus, but imo all this kind of rhetoric accomplishes is entrenching young people in their idealistic notions and avoidance of "corporate drudgery". I really wish people would stop portraying the private sector as this monolithic, vaguely kafkaesque entity where everyone has to bend over and take it from the boss, who is in cahoots with Trump and probably has a pointy tail. That's not the case.
1. The private sector is really diverse. Evil corporations and investment banks are only a tiny fraction of the private sector. The majority of private sector entities are small and medium enterprises, like organic farms, mom and pop stores, restaurants, or small companies that make shit like some niche design software or imitation mini cacti. Most of these companies make little if any profit and are just trying to provide a good product and stay in business. Ultimately, being private just dictates how you file your taxes. An entity isn't evil just by virtue of being private, just as it is not good just by virtue of being a non-profit.
2. Most Americans work in the private sector, so, statistically, about half of them are Democrats. Some industry sectors are more right or more left than others - oil companies tend to be staffed by Republicans and startups tend to be staffed by Democrats - but just that you work in the private sector implies exactly nothing about what your workplace environment is like. Your coworkers may all be uberliberal, ubercool millennials who went to similar liberal arts schools. Your company may put up a booth each Pride. Your boss may host weekly #withher rallies. And you still, by the way, would need to STFU because that's part of being a person that other people want to work with and promote, whether in academia, non-profits, government, or a pre-language hunter-gatherer society.
3. Because of how diverse the private sector is, you can find a lifestyle similar to the academic one at a private company. It's not all navy suits and 9 to 5. Some companies have flexible scheduling. Some have work from home options. Some have cool childcare perks, amazing office amenities or big vacation time. Some companies have better employer protection than the antiquated, calcified and politically fraught grievance systems endemic to most academic (and other large, complex and old) institutions. How feasible any given option is depends on what industry you're in, what role you have and where you are geographically (just as what your daily life looks like will depend on your discipline and the type of institution you're at), but it is possible, and, what's best, you don't need to sacrifice 10 years and be a department superstar in order to get a slim chance at it.
 

ehhhhhhh
I appreciate that this is an attempt to warn recent Sarah Lawrence graduates that the real world works differently off campus, but imo all this kind of rhetoric accomplishes is entrenching young people in their idealistic notions and avoidance of "corporate drudgery". I really wish people would stop portraying the private sector as this monolithic, vaguely kafkaesque entity where everyone has to bend over and take it from the boss, who is in cahoots with Trump and probably has a pointy tail. That's not the case.
1. The private sector is really diverse. Evil corporations and investment banks are only a tiny fraction of the private sector. The majority of private sector entities are small and medium enterprises, like organic farms, mom and pop stores, restaurants, or small companies that make shit like some niche design software or imitation mini cacti. Most of these companies make little if any profit and are just trying to provide a good product and stay in business. Ultimately, being private just dictates how you file your taxes. An entity isn't evil just by virtue of being private, just as it is not good just by virtue of being a non-profit.
2. Most Americans work in the private sector, so, statistically, about half of them are Democrats. Some industry sectors are more right or more left than others - oil companies tend to be staffed by Republicans and startups tend to be staffed by Democrats - but just that you work in the private sector implies exactly nothing about what your workplace environment is like. Your coworkers may all be uberliberal, ubercool millennials who went to similar liberal arts schools. Your company may put up a booth each Pride. Your boss may host weekly #withher rallies. And you still, by the way, would need to STFU because that's part of being a person that other people want to work with and promote, whether in academia, non-profits, government, or a pre-language hunter-gatherer society.
3. Because of how diverse the private sector is, you can find a lifestyle similar to the academic one at a private company. It's not all navy suits and 9 to 5. Some companies have flexible scheduling. Some have work from home options. Some have cool childcare perks, amazing office amenities or big vacation time. Some companies have better employer protection than the antiquated, calcified and politically fraught grievance systems endemic to most academic (and other large, complex and old) institutions. How feasible any given option is depends on what industry you're in, what role you have and where you are geographically (just as what your daily life looks like will depend on your discipline and the type of institution you're at), but it is possible, and, what's best, you don't need to sacrifice 10 years and be a department superstar in order to get a slim chance at it.
 

It rather depends on what the degree is. An MBA from Harvard is a very different thing from a cash cow humanities MA from Columbia.

ehhhhhhh
I appreciate that this is an attempt to warn recent Sarah Lawrence graduates that the real world works differently off campus, but imo all this kind of rhetoric accomplishes is entrenching young people in their idealistic notions and avoidance of "corporate drudgery". I really wish people would stop portraying the private sector as this monolithic, vaguely kafkaesque entity where everyone has to bend over and take it from the boss, who is in cahoots with Trump and probably has a pointy tail. That's not the case.
1. The private sector is really diverse. Evil corporations and investment banks are only a tiny fraction of the private sector. The majority of private sector entities are small and medium enterprises, like organic farms, mom and pop stores, restaurants, or small companies that make shit like some niche design software or imitation mini cacti. Most of these companies make little if any profit and are just trying to provide a good product and stay in business. Ultimately, being private just dictates how you file your taxes. An entity isn't evil just by virtue of being private, just as it is not good just by virtue of being a non-profit.
2. Most Americans work in the private sector, so, statistically, about half of them are Democrats. Some industry sectors are more right or more left than others - oil companies tend to be staffed by Republicans and startups tend to be staffed by Democrats - but just that you work in the private sector implies exactly nothing about what your workplace environment is like. Your coworkers may all be uberliberal, ubercool millennials who went to similar liberal arts schools. Your company may put up a booth each Pride. Your boss may host weekly #withher rallies. And you still, by the way, would need to STFU because that's part of being a person that other people want to work with and promote, whether in academia, non-profits, government, or a pre-language hunter-gatherer society.
3. Because of how diverse the private sector is, you can find a lifestyle similar to the academic one at a private company. It's not all navy suits and 9 to 5. Some companies have flexible scheduling. Some have work from home options. Some have cool childcare perks, amazing office amenities or big vacation time. Some companies have better employer protection than the antiquated, calcified and politically fraught grievance systems endemic to most academic (and other large, complex and old) institutions. How feasible any given option is depends on what industry you're in, what role you have and where you are geographically (just as what your daily life looks like will depend on your discipline and the type of institution you're at), but it is possible, and, what's best, you don't need to sacrifice 10 years and be a department superstar in order to get a slim chance at it.
 

This was a really long and meandering description of your life so far. An SOP should be a statement of research interest, not a diary entry.