coaks

Yeah, good call, if they're on there. Also, you can go to http://wagner.nyu.edu/cgi-bin/evaluation03NEWe.cgi and use your NYU ID and password to see the course ratings for most if not all courses over the past few years. If the teacher hasn't taught that core class recently, however, I suppose it would be less useful.

Well, the first thing I'd say you could do is to check out the hard stats for those programs. They should have a range of UGPA/GRE scores that they accepted in the previous year's class. That would give you a good sense of where you stand right off the bat. If you're above average for both UGPA and GRE, you're 100% competitive and stand a good shot to get in with average WE, recommendations and SOPs. If not, it's all about balancing out any weak spots in your application. If your UGPA is below average, you can take courses at a community college to show that you can get As at the high UG or low Grad level. If your GRE is low, you can try to take it a second time before the end of the year. If you don't think you can find good recommendations or if your WE doesn't show your commitment to ID, you can start volunteering this year and get a good rec from whichever organization you join outside of the office. There are myriad ways to raise your profile for grad school; it's all about coming up with a complete picture of you the applicant and show why, despite any blemishes, you're a great fit for the school. Just out of curiosity, have you considered business schools for what you're looking to do? Many of the top MBA programs have great faculty for ID/Econ and lots of connections to get you started with philanthropic or profit-motivated organizations.

Yeah, I completely agree with everyone else here. It's the same thing for people who choose to do MBA at night or part-time and continue in their current role, company and field versus those that choose to do it full-time and try to switch some combination of location, department or industry. The big name programs can be recruiting machines but if that's not one of your needs, the name on your degree means a lot less IMO.

I actually think this isn't true for the majority of programs although I do recall UMD specifically being an exception. Both myself and fadeindreams got into multiple top programs with a sub 3.0 GPA and there have been plenty of other posters that did the same. I'm not sure how UMD treats applications that ignore their arbitrary (and absurd) 3.0 cutoff. (I recall the business school had a mandatory 3.0 for applications but perhaps the governmental affairs program is different?) If it's one of your dream programs, I'd say call the adcom's office and ask to speak to someone about it. Make your arguments, mention how the vast majority of other top programs have no obligatory GPA requirement (only suggested stats) and how you think you're a good candidate for UMD's program despite your difficulties during your first couple of years of undergrad. Ask them specifically if they've admitted anyone with less than a 3.0 GPA over the previous few years. They might be able to give you some good information about what they're looking for. I'm sure you can get into a great program with your undergraduate stats. It's just an issue of applying to a wide enough range of schools, finding a good fit and, perhaps, getting a little lucky along the way.

I don't know why everyone keeps placing negatives on this post.I hope it's not purely because HKS ends up on the bottom of his/her list. nairus, I think this is an interesting way of looking at grad school choice. Looking back on my own application decisions, sometimes I wish I had taken a little bit more of an objective view of my potential schools and I think this is a pretty good way of doing it. I'm sure it would have yielded some thought-provoking results for me. I hope more applicants follow your example with their own personal decision. Best of luck when you do apply!

Congrats! Best of luck in the fall at Heinz!

Have you been accepted to those three programs and you're trying to decide where to matriculate? Or are you deciding where to apply? Where to visit before you apply? Why those three in particular and not others? If you're just targeting schools, why not plan to apply to all three and some others? You can worry about your best fit after you've gotten all your acceptances. That said, the stereotypes of Wagner and Korbel are essentially what you described, with the stereotypical focus at Wagner being city-state public/non-profit, and the stereotypical focus at Korbel being more national/international. Columbia also is stereotypically seen as more national/international but with slightly more quant, especially on the finance side. But those are just the stereotypes. You can get pretty much whatever you want out of any MPP/MPA program at any top school. Definitely visit and sit in on classes if you can afford to and absolutely try to get as much info as you can before you apply. It'll help with the SOPs.

It wasn't my primary interest when I was applying so unfortunately I can't be as helpful as I'd like to be, but check out the program at NYU Wagner to see if it sounds like something that would be a good fit. Also, people say Maxwell and UGA are real good general MPAs. You also can't go wrong with something from WWS/HKS/etc.

Hey I have no intention of starting an argument Octavia. I just hate to see people outright ridiculed online. It disappointed me to see someone picked apart. That all said, nothing you wrote changes my opinion in the slightest. Princeton makes it clear that their faculty will use best judgement in determining whether candidates are suited for the quantitative rigor. They also assure candidates that they will be given every opportunity to succeed: "Faculty evaluate the applicant's preparation for courses in economic and quantitative analysis. There is no prescribed undergraduate major for the M.P.P. degree, but familiarity with social science disciplines makes the learning curve less steep at the outset. A six-week summer program beginning in July is required for all M.P.P. students which prepares students for the pace of the curriculum. " (http://wws.princeton...p-requirements/) I couldn't find any micro/macro requirement for Georgetown's MPP program. All I see is the following making it clear that there is no required prior coursework: "While the GPPI does not require prior quantitative training, the program's core curriculum is rigorous in nature and completion of prior course work in pre-calculus or calculus, microeconomics, and statistics is strongly recommended. " (http://gppi.georgeto...ions/12492.html) Columbia states that most successful candidates have prior quant coursework but they make it clear that prior quant is not required. Note that they say most, not all, successful candidates. I'm not arguing that acing stats/micro/macro/calc doesn't boost your application but I just don't buy the idea that these schools would reject an otherwise incredibly compelling candidate out-of-hand simply because he/she lacked these courses. Is Bubal the otherwise incredibly compelling candidate? It might not appear that way but you or I don't know that and we shouldn't pass judgement. Finally, that syllabus at WWS assumes no knowledge of finance, economics or calculus, states that PhD candidates would probably prefer a more quantitatively rigorous course and mentions that it's modeled after a first year MBA course, many of which are noted for their lack of academic rigor when compared to other graduate-level courses. Look Bubal can read these threads. He/she can see what hard stats we have. He/she can see class profiles for some of the schools online and read what they suggest. But if after all that, he/she wants to throw in a few more apps this year and see what happens, he/she should go for it. I wish both you and Bubal the best of luck in your applications.

I don't buy the travelling and volunteer work not being experience for MPP. It shows passion and is easily marketable in the SOP. The OP says his/her SOP and recs were strong so I think it's way too harsh to say he/she has no strengths whatsoever. I also don't believe an MPP candidate needs to have an understanding of micro/macro/calc before starting. Most schools recommend them and some might make calculus specifically a condition of acceptance but you can always take that after finding out. They teach it to you as part of their core for a reason. If you already know it, why would you take it? I do agree that boosting the GRE and maybe more work experience could help but if MPP/MPA is what you want now, Bubal, you should go for it. You'll never know what's possible until you try. You applied to the three top Chicago schools -- are you located there? DePaul, UIC and IIT all offer public affairs degrees and seem to cast wider nets than the other three. There are obviously other programs in DC including George Mason. Baruch and the other CUNYs are good options in NY.

simplethings, you'll see people on these message boards run the gamut on their position vis a vis taking out large amounts of debt for grad school. It completely depends on your specific situation and the expected return on your investment for you individually. Since I know you're about to make a crucial life decision, I just wanted you to know that I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum from flyers29 and will be taking out more than $100K in loans for school.

I had a W, an Incomplete that I never completed, a straight-up D+ and several Cs. I was accepted at Michigan, NYU and Carnegie Mellon and waitlisted at Duke. I was rejected at Berkeley and Chicago.

I agree with the potential of the public shaming route but only if you can get the attention of someone that works for the school's newspaper or a regional/national daily to write about it. Or if you write a letter to the editor to get it published. Seriously, if you post the name of the school here, it won't do any good. Applicants will still apply next year; the rest of us applicants and admitted students will forget it ever happened in no time flat. But it is definitely a BIG deal that needs to be addressed internally at the school. Yelling/screaming on a phone call would be a much better way to effect change in this situation (IMO) than posting the name of the school here. However, obviously, a nice piece about adcom incompetence or an op-ed from you in the Lackadaisical University Daily would be even better.

Yes, absolutely call the admissions office and ask to speak to the Dean of Admissions or of the school itself. When you do, let them know that sort of thing is completely unacceptable for a program of their stature and you hope they closely examine the mistakes that were made to cause the error and prevent it from happening in the future. Really vent at the dean, if that'll help. It'll mostly be for your own benefit to get some of that negative energy out. Obviously if you have any intention of applying to that specific program again, I would be more diplomatic. But either way, you should contact whoever is in charge of the program and let your feelings be known.

ropeladder, interesting take. I made a somewhat similar decision recently in regards to Ford/Heinz but it was driven as much by other factors as by what you just mentioned. Where'd you end up choosing to matriculate this fall?