tairos

This is why I ended up doing an generalist IR master's, despite my well-informed misgivings: I would have had to return to undergrad for years to fulfill prerequisites. Even if I could do so inexpensively at a community college, what sort of applicant would I have made? A lackluster one at best I think.

My impression is: no. Consulting firms buy into academic prestige cargo cultism to a great extent, because it's part of how they market their services to clients. The problem for many of us here is that they prize the overall brand name prestige familiar to laymen -- not the arcane pecking order of professional IR programs. I've overheard similar sentiments at my government internship as well; in fact, there was an explicit expressed preference for Georgetown students (which didn't exactly make me feel warm and fuzzy). I suspect I got the spot largely due to my military experience. As an aside, it's curious how the graduates of certain programs seem to pool in certain areas. In my last security-related internship, the office was dominated by GW grads (interns and permanent staff alike). In my current one, the interns seems to be from Georgetown or American (no GW for whatever reason). Quirky.

I trawled this board (and elsewhere) ad nauseam before finally applying. In the end, I made my decision based upon two criteria: I wanted to start in the spring, and I wanted to do general international affairs (as opposed to security studies). That narrowed the field fairly dramatically. Moreover, while I would have preferred a non-urban, more residential full time experience, I felt at the time that being in DC for career development was the 'responsible' choice, so I did that too. As much extra money as I've blown just living here, I'm not sure that was really so responsible after all, but ymmv.

I'd certainly be interested to hear from anyone who's actually gone through one of these programs, if there are any around here: how difficult are they compared to a master's program, whether it was worthwhile, etc. I'm inclined to think that a lot of the conventional wisdom on PhD programs in general doesn't wholly apply to these, but I could be wrong.

The methodology behind these rankings is manifestly ridiculous. I reluctantly factored them heavily into my application decisions, only because they are, however flawed, one of the few ways to evaluate the prestige of the program in this saturated field (in hindsight, I would have looked more at overall institutional prestige, since that's what's appreciated by the great majority of the public). That said, these things tend to be self-fulfilling -- the higher rankings will attract more qualified students, leading to better outcomes and other metrics, boosting school status, and so on.

At the risk of sounding glib: I'm really no more of an authority on career success than anyone else here (and likely quite a bit less). All I can relate is what others have told me: internships, in demand skills (languages and quant/technical), security clearance (military reserve component is the easiest way to get one of those) and "networking." Despite having been in DC for years now, I still don't really know what "networking" means, although I have a close enough idea to know that I'm bad at it. I certainly understand where you're coming from. I had much the same attitude as you when I started -- in fact, all I really wanted to take was methods courses. As it happens, the notion that the more traditional academic fare is 'impractical' while 'policy-oriented' coursework is 'practical' is fairly erroneous. There are a number of reasons for this, mostly relating to the fact that degrees of this nature are intended to serve as broad-based signaling to a certain (nebulously-defined) type of employer rather than as pre-training for your first job (which is unlikely to entail writing big-picture policy memos on issues of your choosing). By way of example, the State Department's biggest issue with an older generation of graduates was apparently not their grounding in policy, which was considered adequate, but an insufficient base of historical knowledge with which to place current events in context. In short: the academic leanings probably don't make an appreciable difference in career outcomes, and may even help sometimes. Your practical experiences matter a great deal more.

Security is reputedly one of the more difficult sub-fields to break into, but I haven't had much trouble. Of course, unpaid internships are different ballgame entirely from getting a paid position later. The days of government agencies being able to easily hire their interns are long over.

Nobody asked me, but I'll share anyway. I'm finishing up GGPS this semester (security focus). GGPS is pretty much your standard, general MA IR program (more so than the other SIS programs). In contrast to USFP, it's less rooted in U.S. institutions and policies, being more broad in scope and academic (as opposed to policy-oriented) in nature. I've done a couple of government security-related internships (as well as a couple at lobbying firms before I started the program). I'm going to be going on orders for a long period of time after graduation (I'm a reservist), so I haven't really been looking for a job too aggressively. If anyone has more specific questions about it, I'll try to answer. As far as overall feelings about the program: no serious complaints. Mind you, if I could do it all over again, I would not have gone into this field or come to DC, a city whose yuppie monoculture and population of phony, conformist ladder climbers I've grown to despise. But that's not an issue with the program. If I had any specific complaints: large class sizes, and an unsatisfying quantity of concentration courses (only four). On the plus side, many of the professors are indeed very good, and the American/SIS brand is moving up in the world (from a pretty decent starting place). I have a theory that the AU-tier is at a sweet spot, where you're as prestigious as you can get before you start getting professors that are celebrity prima donnas with little interest in or aptitude for teaching (that thought and $3 will get you a latte).

Yeah, kind of wishing I'd applied after the election now.

I will say that my supervisor at a (very much security related) internship was a Fletcher grad, while being an AU attendee myself. There's at least one other AU grad pretty high up in my current (also very much security related) office. I don't dispute the point that these aren't the gold standards of security studies, but I do think it's important to keep the importance of minor variations between the perceived stature of graduate programs in perspective. I'd say it's a minor factor in career outcomes overall, mainly a tiebreaker when qualifications are otherwise comparable. I think this forum has a tendency to get mired in over-analysis about these things to an extent that's mostly divorced from real world results.

I don't think there's anything wrong with American in general. It just isn't known for security in particular. How much does that really matter in the professional world? Not much I'd expect. We're talking about a little known pecking order within a little known pecking order. Your internships/experience count for a great deal more. The main way I could see it mattering significantly is if you're planning to go on to a PhD, or perhaps in certain small niches (certain think tanks, consultancies etc). It might also matter for networking purposes -- different programs attract different crowds. AU definitely has more of a peace corps/bernie bro vibe, even in the security-focused programs.

Is there any consensus on how much work experience and other non-academic achievements factor in to admissions in these types of programs? Or even more broadly speaking, where they lay on the spectrum between 'professional' and 'academic' programs? My own research hasn't turned up many clear answers, but it seems like most of them are surprisingly similar to political science PhDs in practice.

Reserves/national guard. Be warned: will likely be more trouble than it's worth.

I imagine the damage (or boon, as the case may be) is done at this point. The old rankings are still on the web, and they're basically the only game in town. And these things tend to become self-fulfilling prophesies in short order. I know for a fact that my program recently tightened up its standards, likely in response to the virtuous cycle of a highish ranking.

I'd agree with the general thrust of the post. I elected to enter one of these programs with my eyes fairly open (and with consequent serious misgivings), but my case is a bit different than the norm here. If I weren't military affiliated, I wouldn't have done it. As it is, it'll serve as a slight boost to my prospects within the uniformed and non-uniformed DoD apparatus, and as a fallback should I finally have my fill of that benighted world. Unless you've already got an 'in' or edge like an active security clearance, military service, peace corps service, or some serious connections, I couldn't possibly recommend this career path. Even in my relatively propitious circumstances I worry about my prospects -- I certainly don't envy the majority of my cohort who are starting with considerably less. And as the OP said, the vague luster of the 'field' notwithstanding, there's little adventurous or glamorous about the administrative makework that most 'international affairs' jobs entail. I'm fairly surprised that these programs are able to attract as many applicants as they do, to be honest.