ExponentialDecay

Can you check with someone who verifiably has a job as a military analyst in real life? Most people here are applicants or not in your field (not your field specifically - any field). I was in the OP you posted previously and the guy with 15 years military experience seems to have unequivocally told you that getting a degree in security from anywhere that isn't a war college won't make you more qualified to be a military analyst.
I think this forum is great for researching programs and how to handle applying, getting moral support and occasionally education-specific advice, but I wouldn't ask for career advice on here. I don't know who anyone is on here, but I suspect that few people here have enough experience to develop worthwhile insight - but there are a lot of well-meaning folks who talk a lot of total bullshit.

SAIS is a professional program. It explicitly does not prepare students for PhD, there is no required research component, and to my knowledge, you cannot do a thesis - honors are granted via an oral exam. Some people do go on to PhDs, mostly in public policy (which is a different field from political science), but they need to put in the extra legwork in getting the right preparation and research experience because again, this is not what the program is for. 
Columbia, on the other hand, is a cash cow. Rock and a hard place.
What specific weaknesses are you hoping to address in a master's? I would urge you to consider area studies programs if that weakness can be addressed in them because they are slightly better-funded. I would also urge you to apply in Canada. You can do just as well with a master's from a competitive Canadian institution, and you'll save $$.

I'm not how the debate devolved into a shitstorm about what Ivies are known as Ivies, but, speaking specifically to the Brown MPA:
Generally in policy hiring, either the name of your MPA institution matters a great deal or it doesn't matter at all. The prestigious schools in policy are Harvard Kennedy, Princeton Wilson, Chicago Harris, Columbia SIPA, Johns Hopkins SAIS, and Georgetown (I don't know which specific program bc they are outside my professional area, but in their professional area they are good). I'm probably forgetting a couple and some otherwise non-prestigious schools may be well-regarded in niche specializations, but that's the list and basically I'm saying that Brown is not on it (for now, perhaps - but idk that Brown has the precedent to become a policy powerhouse). Taking those two priors, if you're aiming for a prestige-oriented career, getting an MPA from Brown won't help you, and if you're aiming for a career where prestige is not a factor... getting an MPA from Brown won't help you.
If they're covering a substantial proportion of your costs and you like the program, go. But I wouldn't pay physical money, out of pocket or loans, to attend.

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).

lol dating in DC.
Which one is cheaper? Go to that one. I am tired of saying this shit over and over in all the threads.

@elmo_says I don't think I'm being critical of these programs. I'm being critical of the decision to take out 100k to attend one of them. From what I recall of your post, I disagreed with your proposition that only rich international types can afford a career in DC and the many other similarly ridiculous generalizations you made.
Policy masters are useful and teach useful stuff. Some specific policy masters are a pipeline into certain careers, and if you want one of those careers, it's not a bad decision to attend one. It's a bad decision to pay 100k for one because, in the careers they prepare you for, you will never pay that investment back and because it's an investment you never need to make. In the real world, policy or otherwise, your value is in what you can do really well or in who you know. In my view, if you want to learn to do something really well, you should specialize as much as possible in that thing. That may mean a degree, or it may not. If you have a compelling reason for why a policy master's will teach you to do something really well (who am I to know all the use cases?), by all means - but I struggle to see how anything cannot be taught for cheaper. If you want to know people, meet people. Work with people on real deliverables, not as a student in school. The notion that you can't have a career in policy without a policy master's, or without a prestigious policy master's, is bullshit. If anything, people from non-traditional backgrounds - STEM, entrepreneurship, the private sector - are considered more attractive by policy employers than career bureaucrats because they have experience on the other side of the table. They can put themselves in the stakeholders' shoes. When it comes to design, the bottlenecks are often surprising - and not so easy to see unless you're directly affected by them. 
It's also bullshit that these schools don't give out significant funding. If you're competitive, you'll get money. If you aren't competitive at this stage, you will struggle later (a struggle that can be overcome, but do yourself a favor and overcome it ex ante rather than ex post). This is a good lesson to learn early: don't work for free, and don't pay to work. You want to be somewhere where your time and your contribution is valued, because those places will invest in your potential and not just use you and throw you out. This is also why I say don't go even if you can afford 100k out of pocket: education is an opportunity, not a consumable. A place that is interested in paying your way is interested in giving you opportunities (and if you've ever had to fight tooth and nail for those, you will know the force behind that statement).

@elmo_says I don't think I'm being critical of these programs. I'm being critical of the decision to take out 100k to attend one of them. From what I recall of your post, I disagreed with your proposition that only rich international types can afford a career in DC and the many other similarly ridiculous generalizations you made.
Policy masters are useful and teach useful stuff. Some specific policy masters are a pipeline into certain careers, and if you want one of those careers, it's not a bad decision to attend one. It's a bad decision to pay 100k for one because, in the careers they prepare you for, you will never pay that investment back and because it's an investment you never need to make. In the real world, policy or otherwise, your value is in what you can do really well or in who you know. In my view, if you want to learn to do something really well, you should specialize as much as possible in that thing. That may mean a degree, or it may not. If you have a compelling reason for why a policy master's will teach you to do something really well (who am I to know all the use cases?), by all means - but I struggle to see how anything cannot be taught for cheaper. If you want to know people, meet people. Work with people on real deliverables, not as a student in school. The notion that you can't have a career in policy without a policy master's, or without a prestigious policy master's, is bullshit. If anything, people from non-traditional backgrounds - STEM, entrepreneurship, the private sector - are considered more attractive by policy employers than career bureaucrats because they have experience on the other side of the table. They can put themselves in the stakeholders' shoes. When it comes to design, the bottlenecks are often surprising - and not so easy to see unless you're directly affected by them. 
It's also bullshit that these schools don't give out significant funding. If you're competitive, you'll get money. If you aren't competitive at this stage, you will struggle later (a struggle that can be overcome, but do yourself a favor and overcome it ex ante rather than ex post). This is a good lesson to learn early: don't work for free, and don't pay to work. You want to be somewhere where your time and your contribution is valued, because those places will invest in your potential and not just use you and throw you out. This is also why I say don't go even if you can afford 100k out of pocket: education is an opportunity, not a consumable. A place that is interested in paying your way is interested in giving you opportunities (and if you've ever had to fight tooth and nail for those, you will know the force behind that statement).

@elmo_says I don't think I'm being critical of these programs. I'm being critical of the decision to take out 100k to attend one of them. From what I recall of your post, I disagreed with your proposition that only rich international types can afford a career in DC and the many other similarly ridiculous generalizations you made.
Policy masters are useful and teach useful stuff. Some specific policy masters are a pipeline into certain careers, and if you want one of those careers, it's not a bad decision to attend one. It's a bad decision to pay 100k for one because, in the careers they prepare you for, you will never pay that investment back and because it's an investment you never need to make. In the real world, policy or otherwise, your value is in what you can do really well or in who you know. In my view, if you want to learn to do something really well, you should specialize as much as possible in that thing. That may mean a degree, or it may not. If you have a compelling reason for why a policy master's will teach you to do something really well (who am I to know all the use cases?), by all means - but I struggle to see how anything cannot be taught for cheaper. If you want to know people, meet people. Work with people on real deliverables, not as a student in school. The notion that you can't have a career in policy without a policy master's, or without a prestigious policy master's, is bullshit. If anything, people from non-traditional backgrounds - STEM, entrepreneurship, the private sector - are considered more attractive by policy employers than career bureaucrats because they have experience on the other side of the table. They can put themselves in the stakeholders' shoes. When it comes to design, the bottlenecks are often surprising - and not so easy to see unless you're directly affected by them. 
It's also bullshit that these schools don't give out significant funding. If you're competitive, you'll get money. If you aren't competitive at this stage, you will struggle later (a struggle that can be overcome, but do yourself a favor and overcome it ex ante rather than ex post). This is a good lesson to learn early: don't work for free, and don't pay to work. You want to be somewhere where your time and your contribution is valued, because those places will invest in your potential and not just use you and throw you out. This is also why I say don't go even if you can afford 100k out of pocket: education is an opportunity, not a consumable. A place that is interested in paying your way is interested in giving you opportunities (and if you've ever had to fight tooth and nail for those, you will know the force behind that statement).

At the risk of causing more offense, it's whatever is keeping you from winning scholarship money in spite of such great priors. If I met you and knew your profile in more detail, I could probably tell you; as it stands - well. Are you bad at selling yourself? Do you have some critical flaw, like being difficult to get along with, or phoning it in at jobs (although tbh I am both of those things and I do okay) ? Are you networking? It could also be something outside of your control - maybe you're simply unlucky. I do know for a fact that the few truly entry-level IR jobs recruit at "fancy" US schools (though fancy is a stretchable concept), and if you have a good GPA from a good school and a good GRE, you're already in good standing to receive some small funding at some of your programs at least. 
I agree with @devpolicy that you should ask your real life network for advice. You never know - they may be able to offer more than advice, even. I disagree that IR is all about grit. There's a non-trivial element of luck involved as well. I struggle to consistently motivate myself to perform at the level where I need to be to successfully take advantage of those rare chances because I'm afraid that all my effort will be wasted on a chance that never comes, btw, which is a casualty to consider for y'all who are looking into the field.

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.

Given your work experience and assuming you can present yourself well in writing and in person, you should be fine wherever you go. IOs are huge organizations that are hard to generalize across, but the Harvard MPP isn't really held in higher regard among the technical staff than any other reputable MPP. It's your background as an entrepreneur in the environmental space in a client country that will be of interest to people (if you can sell it well/there's something to sell, it would be of great interest). If you're serious about the WB, it's regretful that you didn't apply in DC.

Unless you can pay for this degree out of pocket, I'd strongly urge you to wait out the year, improve your application, and apply again. 

Unless you can pay for this degree out of pocket, I'd strongly urge you to wait out the year, improve your application, and apply again. 

These two things are concerning. Why aren't you getting any scholarship money? These programs aren't super competitive, so as long as you're not a functional idiot, you should be able to. Take a look at the results pages for the various schools, SAIS, SIPA, HKS, etc. - people are getting 50, 60, 70k. So it's possible. Why aren't you?
Like - and stay with me until the end of the post, because this next part is going to sting - when it comes to hypercompetitive fields, be it academia or IR, if you're failing, so to say, at the first hurdle, the field is probably not for you. IR may seem glamorous, but doing something you're not built for becomes really old really quickly. Career outcomes are path-dependent, which means that, if you're starting at a disadvantage, barring some deus ex machina shit, you're going to stay at a disadvantage - and in a hypercompetitive field, that disadvantage will quickly catch up to you and leave you high and dry. 100k in debt, btw, is one hell of a disadvantage. That'll preclude you from taking most interesting entry-level jobs and will trickle down to seemingly innocuous stuff like not being able to attend networking happy hours because you have to catch the last train to Largo - stuff that cumulatively makes a big difference.
All of this isn't to say that you'll never amount to anything, but rather to say that you should avoid starting at a disadvantage. There's lots of reasons why somebody doesn't get scholarship money, and most of them are fixable. Do you lack work experience? Do you need to retake the GRE? Are you not applying widely enough? Is your application not telling a coherent narrative for what you want to do in the field and why School X is the best place to prepare yourself for it? If you don't know the answer to these questions, find out. Go on LinkedIn and set up some informational interviews with people in the field. Pick something you don't know about and learn about it, ideally by doing it. Immerse yourself in the field as a professional, not a starry-eyed child.
A note on work experience in IR: as someone who got a job in IR out of UG, don't get a job in IR out of UG. The entry-level stuff is all bureaucratic support (so, not the people who get to even touch policy with a 3 foot pole). It's a good way to learn about how the sausage is made, but that's about it. If I were to do it again, I'd get a job in something competitive, like consulting, that will teach you grit and concise analysis while also paying well and looking good on a resume, or I'd move abroad and do something crazy, e.g. start a beach bar in Trinidad, and learn from the ground up. Or work at an NGO that does fieldwork on the actual ground. You can arrive at policy from any background: I know former engineers, MDs, stock traders, artists, activists and so on who have successful careers in IR. It's all about what skills and network you can bring to the table. All this bullshit about what degree you have and where it's from and how much it cost is so fucking secondary.

Re: PSLF  As someone who is cautiously hoping to receive forgiveness and been submitting my certification forms, I will say it is an awesome deal.  Paying 10% of your income over 10 years is significant (after 5 years of raises my husband and I are paying a combined $1,000 each month, and boy would we love to be able to do other things with that money), but the forgiveness is a massive benefit and fortunately tax free.  Laugh if you like, but my understanding is that there are people who have received forgiveness, just not many because of the intricacies of the repayment plans available in 2007 (if you think I'm being foolish, bear in mind the money I'd otherwise spend paying off my loans faster is going straight into my 401k, which is a much better bet than throwing money into loans that might be forgiven).  If you're starting now, the rules are pretty clear for someone working in government (nonprofits is a bit dicier), and if you pay close attention (don't rely on your servicer, know which repayment plans qualify and make sure you are on one of them), I don't think there's a huge risk of being denied.
For people considering grad school now, there is a very real possibility the program will be eliminated soon for new borrowers.  That being said, if you start grad school in the fall of 2018, you might still qualify.  The proposed House bill to reauthorize the Higher Education Act (the PROSPER Act) effectively eliminates the program for people who take out their first loans in July 2019, but if you start borrowing before then, you can keep taking out qualifying loans until 2024. (see https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/student-loan-ranger/articles/2017-12-13/potential-effects-of-prosper-act-on-student-loans )
There are definitely still risks that they will turn around and eliminate the program for everyone or otherwise change the terms I've described above.  But another major risk is that you'll finish grad school and realize you really want to work in the private sector, or for another non-qualifying organization like the UN, the World Bank or the IMF (surprisingly employment at international organizations does not qualify for PSLF).  That's why I would not recommend going into grad school counting on PSLF - grad school should open up career options, not limit them.

These two things are concerning. Why aren't you getting any scholarship money? These programs aren't super competitive, so as long as you're not a functional idiot, you should be able to. Take a look at the results pages for the various schools, SAIS, SIPA, HKS, etc. - people are getting 50, 60, 70k. So it's possible. Why aren't you?
Like - and stay with me until the end of the post, because this next part is going to sting - when it comes to hypercompetitive fields, be it academia or IR, if you're failing, so to say, at the first hurdle, the field is probably not for you. IR may seem glamorous, but doing something you're not built for becomes really old really quickly. Career outcomes are path-dependent, which means that, if you're starting at a disadvantage, barring some deus ex machina shit, you're going to stay at a disadvantage - and in a hypercompetitive field, that disadvantage will quickly catch up to you and leave you high and dry. 100k in debt, btw, is one hell of a disadvantage. That'll preclude you from taking most interesting entry-level jobs and will trickle down to seemingly innocuous stuff like not being able to attend networking happy hours because you have to catch the last train to Largo - stuff that cumulatively makes a big difference.
All of this isn't to say that you'll never amount to anything, but rather to say that you should avoid starting at a disadvantage. There's lots of reasons why somebody doesn't get scholarship money, and most of them are fixable. Do you lack work experience? Do you need to retake the GRE? Are you not applying widely enough? Is your application not telling a coherent narrative for what you want to do in the field and why School X is the best place to prepare yourself for it? If you don't know the answer to these questions, find out. Go on LinkedIn and set up some informational interviews with people in the field. Pick something you don't know about and learn about it, ideally by doing it. Immerse yourself in the field as a professional, not a starry-eyed child.
A note on work experience in IR: as someone who got a job in IR out of UG, don't get a job in IR out of UG. The entry-level stuff is all bureaucratic support (so, not the people who get to even touch policy with a 3 foot pole). It's a good way to learn about how the sausage is made, but that's about it. If I were to do it again, I'd get a job in something competitive, like consulting, that will teach you grit and concise analysis while also paying well and looking good on a resume, or I'd move abroad and do something crazy, e.g. start a beach bar in Trinidad, and learn from the ground up. Or work at an NGO that does fieldwork on the actual ground. You can arrive at policy from any background: I know former engineers, MDs, stock traders, artists, activists and so on who have successful careers in IR. It's all about what skills and network you can bring to the table. All this bullshit about what degree you have and where it's from and how much it cost is so fucking secondary.

At the risk of causing more offense, it's whatever is keeping you from winning scholarship money in spite of such great priors. If I met you and knew your profile in more detail, I could probably tell you; as it stands - well. Are you bad at selling yourself? Do you have some critical flaw, like being difficult to get along with, or phoning it in at jobs (although tbh I am both of those things and I do okay) ? Are you networking? It could also be something outside of your control - maybe you're simply unlucky. I do know for a fact that the few truly entry-level IR jobs recruit at "fancy" US schools (though fancy is a stretchable concept), and if you have a good GPA from a good school and a good GRE, you're already in good standing to receive some small funding at some of your programs at least. 
I agree with @devpolicy that you should ask your real life network for advice. You never know - they may be able to offer more than advice, even. I disagree that IR is all about grit. There's a non-trivial element of luck involved as well. I struggle to consistently motivate myself to perform at the level where I need to be to successfully take advantage of those rare chances because I'm afraid that all my effort will be wasted on a chance that never comes, btw, which is a casualty to consider for y'all who are looking into the field.

At the risk of causing more offense, it's whatever is keeping you from winning scholarship money in spite of such great priors. If I met you and knew your profile in more detail, I could probably tell you; as it stands - well. Are you bad at selling yourself? Do you have some critical flaw, like being difficult to get along with, or phoning it in at jobs (although tbh I am both of those things and I do okay) ? Are you networking? It could also be something outside of your control - maybe you're simply unlucky. I do know for a fact that the few truly entry-level IR jobs recruit at "fancy" US schools (though fancy is a stretchable concept), and if you have a good GPA from a good school and a good GRE, you're already in good standing to receive some small funding at some of your programs at least. 
I agree with @devpolicy that you should ask your real life network for advice. You never know - they may be able to offer more than advice, even. I disagree that IR is all about grit. There's a non-trivial element of luck involved as well. I struggle to consistently motivate myself to perform at the level where I need to be to successfully take advantage of those rare chances because I'm afraid that all my effort will be wasted on a chance that never comes, btw, which is a casualty to consider for y'all who are looking into the field.

These two things are concerning. Why aren't you getting any scholarship money? These programs aren't super competitive, so as long as you're not a functional idiot, you should be able to. Take a look at the results pages for the various schools, SAIS, SIPA, HKS, etc. - people are getting 50, 60, 70k. So it's possible. Why aren't you?
Like - and stay with me until the end of the post, because this next part is going to sting - when it comes to hypercompetitive fields, be it academia or IR, if you're failing, so to say, at the first hurdle, the field is probably not for you. IR may seem glamorous, but doing something you're not built for becomes really old really quickly. Career outcomes are path-dependent, which means that, if you're starting at a disadvantage, barring some deus ex machina shit, you're going to stay at a disadvantage - and in a hypercompetitive field, that disadvantage will quickly catch up to you and leave you high and dry. 100k in debt, btw, is one hell of a disadvantage. That'll preclude you from taking most interesting entry-level jobs and will trickle down to seemingly innocuous stuff like not being able to attend networking happy hours because you have to catch the last train to Largo - stuff that cumulatively makes a big difference.
All of this isn't to say that you'll never amount to anything, but rather to say that you should avoid starting at a disadvantage. There's lots of reasons why somebody doesn't get scholarship money, and most of them are fixable. Do you lack work experience? Do you need to retake the GRE? Are you not applying widely enough? Is your application not telling a coherent narrative for what you want to do in the field and why School X is the best place to prepare yourself for it? If you don't know the answer to these questions, find out. Go on LinkedIn and set up some informational interviews with people in the field. Pick something you don't know about and learn about it, ideally by doing it. Immerse yourself in the field as a professional, not a starry-eyed child.
A note on work experience in IR: as someone who got a job in IR out of UG, don't get a job in IR out of UG. The entry-level stuff is all bureaucratic support (so, not the people who get to even touch policy with a 3 foot pole). It's a good way to learn about how the sausage is made, but that's about it. If I were to do it again, I'd get a job in something competitive, like consulting, that will teach you grit and concise analysis while also paying well and looking good on a resume, or I'd move abroad and do something crazy, e.g. start a beach bar in Trinidad, and learn from the ground up. Or work at an NGO that does fieldwork on the actual ground. You can arrive at policy from any background: I know former engineers, MDs, stock traders, artists, activists and so on who have successful careers in IR. It's all about what skills and network you can bring to the table. All this bullshit about what degree you have and where it's from and how much it cost is so fucking secondary.

These two things are concerning. Why aren't you getting any scholarship money? These programs aren't super competitive, so as long as you're not a functional idiot, you should be able to. Take a look at the results pages for the various schools, SAIS, SIPA, HKS, etc. - people are getting 50, 60, 70k. So it's possible. Why aren't you?
Like - and stay with me until the end of the post, because this next part is going to sting - when it comes to hypercompetitive fields, be it academia or IR, if you're failing, so to say, at the first hurdle, the field is probably not for you. IR may seem glamorous, but doing something you're not built for becomes really old really quickly. Career outcomes are path-dependent, which means that, if you're starting at a disadvantage, barring some deus ex machina shit, you're going to stay at a disadvantage - and in a hypercompetitive field, that disadvantage will quickly catch up to you and leave you high and dry. 100k in debt, btw, is one hell of a disadvantage. That'll preclude you from taking most interesting entry-level jobs and will trickle down to seemingly innocuous stuff like not being able to attend networking happy hours because you have to catch the last train to Largo - stuff that cumulatively makes a big difference.
All of this isn't to say that you'll never amount to anything, but rather to say that you should avoid starting at a disadvantage. There's lots of reasons why somebody doesn't get scholarship money, and most of them are fixable. Do you lack work experience? Do you need to retake the GRE? Are you not applying widely enough? Is your application not telling a coherent narrative for what you want to do in the field and why School X is the best place to prepare yourself for it? If you don't know the answer to these questions, find out. Go on LinkedIn and set up some informational interviews with people in the field. Pick something you don't know about and learn about it, ideally by doing it. Immerse yourself in the field as a professional, not a starry-eyed child.
A note on work experience in IR: as someone who got a job in IR out of UG, don't get a job in IR out of UG. The entry-level stuff is all bureaucratic support (so, not the people who get to even touch policy with a 3 foot pole). It's a good way to learn about how the sausage is made, but that's about it. If I were to do it again, I'd get a job in something competitive, like consulting, that will teach you grit and concise analysis while also paying well and looking good on a resume, or I'd move abroad and do something crazy, e.g. start a beach bar in Trinidad, and learn from the ground up. Or work at an NGO that does fieldwork on the actual ground. You can arrive at policy from any background: I know former engineers, MDs, stock traders, artists, activists and so on who have successful careers in IR. It's all about what skills and network you can bring to the table. All this bullshit about what degree you have and where it's from and how much it cost is so fucking secondary.

These two things are concerning. Why aren't you getting any scholarship money? These programs aren't super competitive, so as long as you're not a functional idiot, you should be able to. Take a look at the results pages for the various schools, SAIS, SIPA, HKS, etc. - people are getting 50, 60, 70k. So it's possible. Why aren't you?
Like - and stay with me until the end of the post, because this next part is going to sting - when it comes to hypercompetitive fields, be it academia or IR, if you're failing, so to say, at the first hurdle, the field is probably not for you. IR may seem glamorous, but doing something you're not built for becomes really old really quickly. Career outcomes are path-dependent, which means that, if you're starting at a disadvantage, barring some deus ex machina shit, you're going to stay at a disadvantage - and in a hypercompetitive field, that disadvantage will quickly catch up to you and leave you high and dry. 100k in debt, btw, is one hell of a disadvantage. That'll preclude you from taking most interesting entry-level jobs and will trickle down to seemingly innocuous stuff like not being able to attend networking happy hours because you have to catch the last train to Largo - stuff that cumulatively makes a big difference.
All of this isn't to say that you'll never amount to anything, but rather to say that you should avoid starting at a disadvantage. There's lots of reasons why somebody doesn't get scholarship money, and most of them are fixable. Do you lack work experience? Do you need to retake the GRE? Are you not applying widely enough? Is your application not telling a coherent narrative for what you want to do in the field and why School X is the best place to prepare yourself for it? If you don't know the answer to these questions, find out. Go on LinkedIn and set up some informational interviews with people in the field. Pick something you don't know about and learn about it, ideally by doing it. Immerse yourself in the field as a professional, not a starry-eyed child.
A note on work experience in IR: as someone who got a job in IR out of UG, don't get a job in IR out of UG. The entry-level stuff is all bureaucratic support (so, not the people who get to even touch policy with a 3 foot pole). It's a good way to learn about how the sausage is made, but that's about it. If I were to do it again, I'd get a job in something competitive, like consulting, that will teach you grit and concise analysis while also paying well and looking good on a resume, or I'd move abroad and do something crazy, e.g. start a beach bar in Trinidad, and learn from the ground up. Or work at an NGO that does fieldwork on the actual ground. You can arrive at policy from any background: I know former engineers, MDs, stock traders, artists, activists and so on who have successful careers in IR. It's all about what skills and network you can bring to the table. All this bullshit about what degree you have and where it's from and how much it cost is so fucking secondary.

These two things are concerning. Why aren't you getting any scholarship money? These programs aren't super competitive, so as long as you're not a functional idiot, you should be able to. Take a look at the results pages for the various schools, SAIS, SIPA, HKS, etc. - people are getting 50, 60, 70k. So it's possible. Why aren't you?
Like - and stay with me until the end of the post, because this next part is going to sting - when it comes to hypercompetitive fields, be it academia or IR, if you're failing, so to say, at the first hurdle, the field is probably not for you. IR may seem glamorous, but doing something you're not built for becomes really old really quickly. Career outcomes are path-dependent, which means that, if you're starting at a disadvantage, barring some deus ex machina shit, you're going to stay at a disadvantage - and in a hypercompetitive field, that disadvantage will quickly catch up to you and leave you high and dry. 100k in debt, btw, is one hell of a disadvantage. That'll preclude you from taking most interesting entry-level jobs and will trickle down to seemingly innocuous stuff like not being able to attend networking happy hours because you have to catch the last train to Largo - stuff that cumulatively makes a big difference.
All of this isn't to say that you'll never amount to anything, but rather to say that you should avoid starting at a disadvantage. There's lots of reasons why somebody doesn't get scholarship money, and most of them are fixable. Do you lack work experience? Do you need to retake the GRE? Are you not applying widely enough? Is your application not telling a coherent narrative for what you want to do in the field and why School X is the best place to prepare yourself for it? If you don't know the answer to these questions, find out. Go on LinkedIn and set up some informational interviews with people in the field. Pick something you don't know about and learn about it, ideally by doing it. Immerse yourself in the field as a professional, not a starry-eyed child.
A note on work experience in IR: as someone who got a job in IR out of UG, don't get a job in IR out of UG. The entry-level stuff is all bureaucratic support (so, not the people who get to even touch policy with a 3 foot pole). It's a good way to learn about how the sausage is made, but that's about it. If I were to do it again, I'd get a job in something competitive, like consulting, that will teach you grit and concise analysis while also paying well and looking good on a resume, or I'd move abroad and do something crazy, e.g. start a beach bar in Trinidad, and learn from the ground up. Or work at an NGO that does fieldwork on the actual ground. You can arrive at policy from any background: I know former engineers, MDs, stock traders, artists, activists and so on who have successful careers in IR. It's all about what skills and network you can bring to the table. All this bullshit about what degree you have and where it's from and how much it cost is so fucking secondary.

You can validate these claims by looking at job market data
 
tl;dr job markets in all of these fields suck and you shouldn't expect any academic job at all

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.

???? OP come on
tbh I'm having trouble mustering any empathy because I don't see what's wrong. You're taking easy classes, you're working in your field, you have a bunch of exciting travel coming up (I wish my grad school would take me to Sierra Leone ffs), and you get to live at home and save money doing it? Why are you upset again?
It seems like you were pressured by family into doing this despite not wanting to, and now you're suffering from making the wrong choice, even though objectively it turned out all right. So let that be a lesson to you. You're a big boy or girl now, and you are responsible for the decisions you make because you will be bearing their consequences. Don't let people pressure you into shit anymore.