ExponentialDecay

Out of interest, what's your plan for maintaining this resolve, outside of being a genius or marrying a rich citizen?

omg pls I'm not trying to turn this into the communist manifesto.
I meant, assuming you do plan to cling to a visa, and seeing as you're into the humanities, like, what's your plan?

Out of interest, what's your plan for maintaining this resolve, outside of being a genius or marrying a rich citizen?

I don't normally like to feed trolls, but I felt that this thread needed a woman statistician/mathematician.
I am a little late here but I felt like I needed to say something about my sample size of one.
I am a female math major.  No one has ever told me explicitly that women can't do math.   At my undergraduate institution, our department chair is a woman,  and we have a large percentage (for math anyway) of female faculty.  This does not mean that my experience was easy.  
It started in middle school,  where on more than one occasion I got some weird looks when they announced I won competitions.  The disproportionally small number of smart women in STEM in the media didn't help either.  In college,  when the professor announced what the high score was and it was mine some guys would always ask the other "smart guys" if they got the high score but no one ever thought to ask me.   I have gone to office hours and felt like I wasn't viewed by the professor as smart as the guys who would go in before and after me and that I had to prove myself.   I felt like I was fighting a constant uphill battle.  I didn't consider applying for external PhD programs until I was pushed by some great mentors who saw me not as a woman, but as a great statistician.  And in this December I read reports of sexual assaults among female graduate students and young faculty at conferences for my subfield.   Yes, I did well in my cycle but I doubt it was *just* because I don't have a Y chromosome.   I had to fight to get here,  and I am sure your female undergraduate friend had to as well.  I have had to endure people like you my entire life,  and I probably will for the rest of my life.   I would trade any advantage I got because of my gender (which probably wasn't much) in a heartbeat to not have to deal with the disadvantages.  You are trivializing the success of others because they did better than you.  Like everyone said you don't know that gender was the only reason you didn't do as well as a female applicant.  You didn't see the rec letters for the both of you and you didn't apply to the same schools.  
 

The person is not invalidating anyone's experiences by asking more questions, but by not listening to the answers.
I'm glad I stayed out of the debate since it went precisely as I had predicted. But a short version of my reply to some of the more outrageous posts above would be as follows: I don't have a penis, and don't expect to grow one any time soon (nor would I want to). Any system that inherently advantages men simply by virtue of them being men is one that I would fight against, because it inhibits my own growth and development, as well as that of my students and friends. The idea that I should "adjust" to a system that disfavors me by its very nature could only be uttered by someone blinded by their own privilege. The (wrongheaded!) belief that e.g. women aren't good decision makers or whatever other bullshit was written above is a symptom of this ailing system. Recasting the debate in terms of "evidence" (male) vs "emotion" (female) is likewise misguided. But in my experience having this kind of discussion is simply useless: it's too abstract. Young men, find a young female scholar (poc scholar, disabled scholar, etc) near you -- a fellow student, a postdoc in your lab, an assistant professor, etc -- buy her a coffee and *ask her* about her experiences. *Listen* to the experiences of women in your field. Do some reading. Develop an awareness. It's totally fine to be skeptical and ask questions, but you have to be willing to listen to the answers. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening. 

There's no such thing as "male" and "female" professions. Women are pushed to professions such as nursing and teaching because as infants we are conditioned to be "motherly and caring", while men are conditioned to be aggressive and build stuff. Men are not gifted with special math brains, they just grow up being more exposed to logic-based games and such. Also, competition over cooperation in science (and in most places) is bad for everyone.
Work environments are dynamic, but they change according to the views of whomever is in charge. The system has evolved organically to favor men because men have always been in charge of these fields.
Regarding your comment about men not being regarded with more respect, it is not true. Various studies have shown (some were posted here if I'm not mistaken) that men get more credibility than equally qualified women. You may not notice because you are a man and are blind to the microaggressions women in academia suffer in their everyday lives, but please stop denying our experiences, you're part of the problem.

I think calling those things "masculine qualities" is right at the root of the issues. 

(emphasis added)
To me, this is a description of one of the ways gender discrimination is indeed happening in STEM settings. We (well, the people in power) get to decide how STEM settings work and the choice to organize them in ways that favour traditionally masculine qualities is one of the ways discrimination manifests itself. And when the field (especially the group of people in power, which are often more senior) is over-represented in one gender, it creates possibilites for that gender to choose to favour traits that they have themselves instead of valuing diversity/differences.

That's my story. 
I finished my Fulbright and decided to come back home and try to make an impact in my state. About 8 years of policy work later (with some international experience in between) I'm towards the upper end of the $70 - $100k range...in the U.S. South...doing the work I've always wanted to do. I've been able to do some really high level stuff and really put myself out there in ways I would never be able to do so in a D.C. or New York, but I'm definitely not some savant or anything. Just really went after what I wanted. The most important of advice to anyone though is work. You'd be surprised how you can have any job be exactly what you need it to be in the long run.
The stuff isn't rocket science, yet some of the most brilliant people I know struggle with all of this. Folks who are much smarter than myself, yet I've been able to get through all levels of education without having to take out a single loan. Ever. I'll be able to go to HKS without having to take out a cent in loans. In fact, I didn't even have to pay the dang deposit nor application fee. It's not to big myself up at all. I don't have some secret formula. I just have good experiences and the right background, which I crafted over time and very strategically. I guess I put all that stuff together in a cohesive enough manner with my application. You can too, though! Probably better than I can. Just trust the process.
So to more directly answer the original question. No, taking out all that money to pursue this particular type of education is not worth it and never will be. I believe you can always find the right school who will give you the right money. I encourage you to reevaluate your approach to this process, whether it be the testing (I didn't study much for the GRE and was going to really concentrate on retaking if I didn't get in), essays (I told stories that wrapped around both my work and what I envision being able to do), and coaching up my recommenders (make sure you don't duplicate your resume and help them dig deep).
I encourage you all to simply not rush any of this. It will work out to your benefit if you don't.

@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.

If the school you'd really want to attend is on that list, it's worth giving them a call and asking about deferring and being reconsidered for funding next year. Otherwise, if you'd like to apply to more/other schools next year, I'd recommend just reapplying. None of the awards you got are spectacular and you can get them again.

You have time, take it again. I think you’ll regret not doing it if your results or the funding associated doesn’t turn out the way you wanted it to. It is totally doable to bring it up even just 5 points. While there are always exceptions, that quant score is much lower than average, enough that it will be a red flag. You do not need just a strong application to make up for that score, you need an exceptional one (I’m thinking of the perspective of top 10ish ranked policy schools). Maybe you have that, in which case an improved GRE score can only make it better and make you more competitive for fundng. Time is on your side though!! Good luck. 

Out of interest, how did your cohort do? 
Also, you know why physicists/mathematicians/biologists/whatever discipline you fetishize get PhDs? Because they love research and they're getting paid to do what they love. There are no academic jobs for anybody (save a few specialities in economics/business and engineering). Yes, these disciplines have exit opps that don't leave you destitute and starting over in a new career with a boss who is 10 years younger than you, but nobody serves 7 years in a basement at Harvard to work at a quant hedge fund or Pfizer either. These people could've worked up to those jobs out of UG, and would probably be further ahead in their alt-ac careers had they done so. Most if not all of them are doing it for no reason other than that they love research and want to take the one in a million chance to make it their career.
The reason you and that other ass-clown aren't being taken seriously is because you've formulated some overly hysterical narrative of "oppression", the responsibility for which you then, in full contradiction to the fundamentals of your argument, try to pin on the individual. Like, I'm sorry, but not getting your dream job doesn't constitute exploitation. What, is every kid who worked really really hard in high school but didn't get into an Ivy exploited now? There are definitely programs that exploit their graduate students by not paying them a living wage or saddling them with insane teaching/service commitments, but your $25k/year fellowship summer stipend conference and archive funded gig is emphatically not that. You played the game and you lost, a game that most people will lose, a loss the financial and emotional devastation of which is impossible to imagine when you're just starting to play the game. Don't dress it up as some universal injustice. 

Respectfully, this is demonstrably false. The reason economists do policy jobs is that a large part of policy design, in almost all fields these days, is applied economic theory. The distinction here is important: economists are not statisticians. Statisticians can run the numbers, but they are at a disadvantage for policy design jobs because they don't know the models.
I don't know how many friends you have at IFIs, but your sample is not representative of degree attainment in these organizations. The majority of people at the IMF are either economists or financiers. Because of the nature of Bank work, it hires people from a variety of backgrounds, but economists are very well represented. It's true that you can hold an economist title with a policy or other non-economics degree, but if OP is sure that they want to be an economist, getting a degree in economics is the most straightforward way to achieve that.
OP, your choice here largely depends on what you want to do. If you want to be an economist, I'd go with PSE. It's a pipeline to the EBRD and OECD, and among economists it's well-known as a top program. Among non-economists it's obviously hit and miss (think carefully about how much economists' vs non-economists' opinions will be weighed in your intended career path). Economics as a field is very cliquey and you'd have to spend some time proving that you're not a monkey if you come from any program this is not "MSc Economics" or "MSc Finance", so if you're certain that you want to be an economist, just get the economics degree. 
Chicago is more well-known stateside and to non-economists, but it's also a relatively new program, there is little alumni network and more importantly, people don't really know what to expect from its graduates in terms of ability. I hear you on the practical applicability, but keep in mind that data analytics is a different thing from economics. If you just want to do data work, this is fine. If you want to build economic models, I'd check that the curriculum actually teaches those. They're harder to learn (indepth) than coding.
Consider also whether you want to work in Europe or the US after graduation. If you have work permission in both this is moreso a consideration of what professional network you will build (although it's hard to build a professional network in DC from Chicago and on as intense a study schedule as Chicago degrees usually have); if you need a visa, this should be one of your primary concerns. Further, if Chicago isn't giving you serious money, it's not really worth the extra 50k over PSE imo.
Either way, you can get into IFIs with whichever one you choose and both will benefit your career about equally in the long run. You'll be fine if you just go with the one you prefer.

I do think the gender bias in the mathematical sciences (and especially theoretical branches and pure math) is disproportionate relative other STEM fields, but OP, coming in here with aggressive one-sentence arguments and no evidence will not lead to a productive discussion. If you're upset about your results and want to rant, this likely isn't the place because you will get shot down (as you can already see), and you'll probably feel even worse.
fwiw at least on the applied math side, every woman I know who has wanted to get a PhD has gotten in (programs of their choice or of similar caliber). That said, I think the bias starts way earlier than grad school applications (you're lucky if it starts in college), and I think it continues in perpetuity after them. Part of it is that nobody wants to address gender bias or sexual harassment (which disproportionately affects women) because it damages the reputations of people and institutions in myriad ways, and part of it is that mathematical science is still a boys' club. It's not limited to STEM. This is an article on gender bias in economics. I tried sharing it along my institutional channels and nobody gave a shit.

I do think the gender bias in the mathematical sciences (and especially theoretical branches and pure math) is disproportionate relative other STEM fields, but OP, coming in here with aggressive one-sentence arguments and no evidence will not lead to a productive discussion. If you're upset about your results and want to rant, this likely isn't the place because you will get shot down (as you can already see), and you'll probably feel even worse.
fwiw at least on the applied math side, every woman I know who has wanted to get a PhD has gotten in (programs of their choice or of similar caliber). That said, I think the bias starts way earlier than grad school applications (you're lucky if it starts in college), and I think it continues in perpetuity after them. Part of it is that nobody wants to address gender bias or sexual harassment (which disproportionately affects women) because it damages the reputations of people and institutions in myriad ways, and part of it is that mathematical science is still a boys' club. It's not limited to STEM. This is an article on gender bias in economics. I tried sharing it along my institutional channels and nobody gave a shit.

Am I the only one who thinks it's super weird for a early to mid-20s person to actively seek out teenagers to befriend/date? 
@Comparativist
you'd date someone just out of high school who can't even drink? Anyway, in my experience as a younger woman dating men your age, the problem with having a preference for younger women is that a lot of the time it comes from a place of immaturity or manipulation. Certainly if you articulate it as "younger women are more pleasant to be around". Because we don't have the wherewithal or courage to call you out on your bad behavior? 

@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.

What do you want to do with the degree? You already discovered the main difference: Elliot is professional and Chicago is pre-PhD. Obviously you can get a job after Chicago and you can get a PhD after Elliot (well, if you pivot that way early), but in terms of the natural advantages either program gives you, they are like this. If you go to Elliot, you'll have lots of opportunity and time to intern in the city while doing the degree, which for pre-professional is the more important thing. If you go to Chicago, idk how vibrant the local professional scene is for your interests, but it's a very intense and short program, so you might just not have the time to do anything substantial outside of school. Chicago is also seen as more academically rigorous than most programs, certainly Elliot - but that may not matter for you. Cost of living in Chicago is also 60% cheaper than DC.

@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.

My own message to people who are considering doing FIRE because these programs are expensive, from the heart: it's not about the money, and I don't mean it in a frou-frou follow your dreams kind of way. I've been an expat all my adult life, and the isolation, lack of community, and uncertainty is not fun. Money is part of it, but it pales in comparison to feeling like you don't belong and like these people aren't your people. It's been a bit of a torturous road for me, but in the econdev community I feel at home. This isn't meant to be an exoneration of the many flaws that OP identifies with this work: the field is highly competitive, underpaid, my organization is exploitative, my prospects are poor, my lifestyle is not conducive to sustaining romantic relationships or most friendships, and I don't feel more suited to this work than I would be to, say, academia or mopping the floors; but I like where I am. For me and I think for everyone else, it's not so easy as a choice between passion and money. Part of it is having the institutional platform to do the kind of work you want/are able to do, part of it is being surrounded by people who get you, part of it is culture and lifestyle. Part of it is falling into it. Part of it is then choosing to keep showing up. I'm passionate about many other things and I could be making the same money I'm making doing many other things. But I'm here.
I'm happy that OP found something they like (or is at least pretending to). I will admit that I bristle at them advertising what is essentially a cult. Like, there is limiting refined carbs in your diet, and there is paleo. There is being pro-market and there is libertarianism. There is being frugal and then there is writing blog posts about how to get enough calories and save on your grocery bill by putting olive oil on everything. These things seem less about living life and more about obtaining an illusion of control or filling up the emptiness inside of you with busywork. And, who knows, maybe that's what I'm doing. Economics is the cult of cults. I do think that, whilst taking a shit ton of debt for these programs is stupid, it's no less stupid to waste years of your life denying yourself the chance to try something you want to do. I've had difficulty getting over many of the same considerations OP puts forward, but in the end I got the right credentials/skills/network for this field relatively early, certainly compared to people who come here after 10 years doing something else. For some of these people, the transition is smooth. For most, they leave their lucrative doctor/lawyer/engineer/finance jobs and start comparatively or completely over. I don't know why they do it, they don't seem to have planned their lives like this, but they do. In the end, there's no point in being a slave to your mind/body/ambition/checkbook. Just try to do the best you can with what you've got.

@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.

Maybe we'll go back to a time when you could only study the liberal arts in prestigious schools and everything else is basically a glorified polytechnic.

so pay for it with savings.

Full ride at Georgetown >>>>>>>> HKS