Stephen33

I vote for the Princeton Review's "Cracking the GRE". I had only 5 days to prepare, and found it a very efficient study aid, particularly for the Q section.

Current Chicago (MPP) student here. In answer to your question, I would say that Chicago definitely has a more domestic focus than, say, schools like Columbia or Johns Hopkins. There is certainly opportunity to take several IR courses (primarily through the Political Science Department), but for development I don't think the offerings are very extensive. As for "soft courses", you can avoid them pretty much entirely if you wish. Several of the more "quant-focused" students take the advanced stats sequence, and report it to be very challenging. Also, you can test out of the standard economic theory sequence and move on to advanced courses, both within the policy school and in the Economics Department proper. Some of the MPP students are taking the PhD economics price theory course (which I believe Gary Becker still teaches) this fall. I think pretty much everyone finds that sufficiently "challenging". Other than stats and econ, the only other substantial requirements are the political economy sequence, which I found very interesting (and by no means "lightweight" or "soft").

Johns Hopkins does have an MPP program, but it is not at SAIS. Their MPP is offered by the Institute for Policy Studies, which I believe is located in Baltimore. The MPP program is small, but I've read some positive things about it. It might be worth a look.

Steiner-5 I don't know much about either Columbia-SIPA or NYU, but you might consider adding Chicago, Michigan, Duke and Carnegie-Mellon to your list of 'possibles'. From everything I have seen and heard, these programs are strong and well-respected; also, I believe they all have a substantial econ/quant emphasis (Chicago certainly does). This would seem to play to your strengths/interests.

Unless the program requests a writing sample, I would not include one (they are generally overwhelmed with paper, and may not welcome more). On the other hand, you could certainly mention your policy analysis class in your statement, and discuss how the class clarified/reinforced your interest in a policy-oriented career. Given your strong GRE scores, I think your main challenge is to make a convincing case that you are committed to a "career shift". In my own program (Chicago-Harris), I know at least a few people who came from the private sector. Write a good statement, and I'm quite confident that you will be fine.

I think you should be a competitive candidate for most of the programs mentioned. Your GRE scores are certainly better than "decent" - they are excellent. If you provide a compelling statement of purpose, I suspect that you will receive serious consideration almost everywhere. Your GPA might disqualify you at KSG, but I doubt that it would do so at any other of the schools listed. As for academic references, they are not always expected for candidates who have been out of school for an extended period. I was admitted - with substantial funding - to a number of good MPP programs last year, with no academic references. I had been out of school for over a decade. Good luck.

I think you should be competitive. A 600 verbal should still be 80th percentile or better, and your 770 Q is excellent for any policy-oriented masters program. On balance, I suspect your GRE scores should help, rather than hurt, your chances.

biohazard99, welcome to Harris. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions.

Baltar: Your current thought process appears sound to me. Washington and Minnesota are good programs within very good universities. Given this, I think there have to be very compelling reasons to assume substantial debt in another program. Based on what you have written about yourself and your objectives, I do not think the "case for debt" is at all compelling. I think a number of people on this board are treating their choice as a very expensive lottery ticket - as in, if I attend super-prestigious school X over good school Y, there is a slightly higher chance that I might obtain my dream job. Perhaps so, but the difference in odds is likely quite small. If you go to any large government department or agency, you will find numerous graduates of both types of schools. Once your career is underway (in the public sector, at any rate), your superiors will judge you - and your career opportunities will be determined - almost exclusively on the basis of what you do, rather than where you went to school. School prestige is certainly a nice bonus, but for those determined on public service career, it won't likely do much for you financially. If you think you may end up in the private sector, the calculus may be different, but in this case an MBA and/or Law degree would generally make more financial sense than an MPP.

Sorry, but I think this is pure wishful thinking. Competitive programs do not need to offer funding to wait-listed students, because there will always be "takers" without funding. The programs make their waiting lists long enough so that they never have to "bid" for students. I'm not trying to burst anyone's balloon, just trying to encourage a sense of realism so that everyone can proceed with their decisions on an objective basis.

I think the only way this would happen is if ALL students in a program receive funding. Think about it: if you were a student admitted in the initial round without funding and accepted the slot, would you not have serious cause for complaint if a wait-listed student were subsequently admitted WITH funding? Programs will not do this to first-round admits, because it is so obviously unfair.

The Ford building is very nice (he writes somewhat wistfully). The Harris building is functional, not unlike a lot of government offices. It is not new; I'd guess that it has been around about 30 years. A new building has been approved, but it won't come in time to benefit this year's entering class. On the other hand, the University of Chicago campus overall is very beautiful, and it is small enough that it a few minutes' walk will take you to numerous study/relaxation spots that are as nice as can be. So: Building: Advantage Ford Campus: Advantage Harris City: You decide .

Pearl, I do not know enough about Georgetown to offer an informed comparison. I do recall, however, that another current Harris student who frequently posts on this board ("xxnormajeanxx") took a close look at Georgetown last year. You may wish to check her previous posts.

Pearl, two comments: I think you are over-stating the "quant" emphasis. Harris provides a very solid foundation in quantitative methods, but I have not found it excessively quantitative by any means. There are plenty of high-level quantitative courses offered at Harris, but most are electives, not requirements. You are correct about the pervasiveness of economics here, but I consider that a major plus. As a long-time policy professional, I can assure you that an ability to apply economic reasoning is a huge asset throughout the policy world, including in many areas where you may not presently consider it relevant. In this area, I doubt you will find better training ground than Harris.

for your sake, I hope the Fels financial aid people aren't reading this board.