Hi all. The wait is almost over, and Matt's team over in Admissions has been putting in long hours to get the decisions ready to post. It's true that we were able to make announcements on March 13 last year, but we didn't like the idea of doing anything so momentous on Friday the 13th *this* year - and our internal target date has been the 12th. Matt's team is testing out the computer code to generate emails. We really don't want to have some computer error notify applicants with the "wrong" outcomes. (There has been a lot of that at other universities lately, so we're making *sure* that our systems are working correctly.) That said... we are on pace for decisions on the 12th. And there's a chance (a small one) that we'll get everything ok'ed even before that.
A few other comments, responding to the thread. Yes, admission rates for the MCMPA are higher than for the MPPs, but they're nowhere near what people have speculated. We don't publicize our admission rates, largely because we don't think they're very meaningful. For this year's class of Mason Fellows (MCMPAs) for example, we will offer admission to less than a third of the applicants. We would love to admit a far higher percentage, but we just don't have the capacity, and our applicant pool is so strong. It takes a tremendous amount of focus and attention for us to read mid-career files, because test scores don't tell us very much about applicants who are in their 30s or above. And as many of you know, a lot of what we end up doing when folks look at HKS is to *discourage* people from applying if they're not a fit for the school. I think it's crazy that other schools work to encourage applications from folks who won't get in - just to boost their selectivity ratings. We're not playing that game, and we'd love to have a higher admission rate from a terrific pool than a lower admission rate from a less terrific pool.
Please also notice, as Matt has discussed so well on the admissions blog, that we have different criteria and expectations for the different programs. Of course, test scores matter for the MPP and MPA/ID programs. The average test scores for MPA2 applicants are virtually the same as for MPP applicants, but the MPA2 committee is looking for substantially more graduate-level experience that's consistent with our MPP and MPA/ID "core requirements." That's why we tend to think of the MPP and MPA/ID programs as places to "tool up" for a life in public policy, and we tend to think of the MPA2 program as a place to "integrate across professions." That said, test scores are *not* the be-all-and-end-all. We routinely turn down applicants with perfect test scores, and we routinely take applicants with far from perfect test scores. Not everybody tests well. We understand that, and we view files more holistically than you may expect. Letters and essays really *do* matter.
As for the MCMPA programs, we just want to see that you have "enough" quant and verbal skills to do well here. It's entirely possible for someone at the 50th percentile GREQ or GREV to get into the Mid-Career program - because if someone has been out of school for a long time, those standardized tests can mask or hide a lot of wonderful capabilities. That's one reason why we put in a new "quant" question on the application this year, and we'll probably make adjustments going forward, too. As with the other programs, we in the MCMPA program routinely say "no" to applicants with high test scores if their life stories (or career trajectories) don't fit what we're looking for. The Mid-Career program is, generally, designed for folks who've been making a difference in the world already, and they need some time here to really work on their leadership and management skills. Applicants to the Mason Fellows program don't have to take the GREs, and they do just as well as the other Mid-Careers in our classes. I hope that's a reflection of how much time we spend reviewing each application - looking for passions and competencies.
By the way, it is rare for an Admissions committee to recommend that an applicant switch programs, and we do it only when we think someone really would be a *much* better fit in another program. If you've been asked to switch, my *guess* is that you wouldn't have made it through in the first committee, and your odds in the second committee are around one in three - or less. But that's better than zero in three, so say "yes" when Matt asks if you'd like to switch programs.
Finally, a quick word about English... we're really serious about what we say regarding English test scores. If you're taking the computer-based TOEFL, for example, you will *not* get in if you have a sub-100 TOEFL. We use a lot of "case teaching" here, so English skills are crucial. Please, please, please, if you don't have an English score above the minimums that are highlighted on the Admissions site, please don't apply. (We don't need to inflate our selectivity ratings.... and your time will be better spent getting the English skills up to snuff.)
Best of luck to everyone. If you DO get in - know that the competition is CRAZY good, and we're counting on you coming. And if you don't get in - know that it won't be held against you for a future application. If you're applying to one of my programs (the MPA2 and the MCMPA), feel free to write me on my Harvard email (I rarely check GradCafe), and I'll be happy to give you some feedback. Meanwhile.... brace yourselves for a Thursday (the 12th) email. And the email *might* even come a bit earlier.
It looks like Goldman releases admissions on the first Friday of March according to the last few years. So, I will be checking my email compulsively Friday and TRY to be calm until then (easier said than done!).
I consider both HKS and Goldman to be my dream schools. I'll be ecstatic if either accept me!
As far as stats go, my GRE scores were in the top quarter for reading and writing and pretty average for math. I was an Economics major and PPIA Fellow that excelled in quant so I hope my track record offsets my GRE math. I have demonstrated leadership in a number of diverse capacities, have interned for a big think tank in DC, and have been working in the public sector domestically and internationally for 3 years. I'm looking to enter a multilateral organization or global consulting firm (public division) with interest in education, economic policy, and developing economies. My ideal work environment features being able to work on education/economic/developing economies policy projects and being able to get involved with site implementation (travel). If anyone has any ideas for this rough criteria, please chime in on possible organizations to look into! Greatly appreciated.
Funding aside, the community feel, small cohort, fast response time and availability of faculty and alumni, weather, diversity, music venues/cultural festivals, flexibility of coursework, the 48 hours policy project, mandatory internship, and the APA real-world client project during the final MPP term are all huge draws for me to UC Berkeley since I feel like I'd enjoy both Goldman and my life outside of it. I'm also a fan of Berkeley athletics and the greater Bay Area sports teams. Plus, the proximity to family in SoCal and Valley are great having been away for awhile. The opportunity to GSI to greatly reduce/eliminate tuition costs and make some pocket change is also a huge draw since, from what I gather, GSI's (Teaching assistant positions) are plentiful relative to many other schools. However, the main drawback for me is Berkeley's international presence since I'm considering working for multilateral organizations or global consulting firms in their public divisions. However, I'm thinking Berkeley has a strong enough alumni base to leverage such opportunities, but that'll be a question for Goldman's employment office and personal networking!
On the other hand, HKS has an unmatched employment resources, network, excellent internship/work placement, greater density of international classmates that can make for a great global network, a constant stream of big names coming in for talks, and the opportunity to take classes at HBS (I'm also interested in social entrepreneurship). The main drawbacks for me would be the relative lack of diversity compared to Berkeley and the freezing cold snow (temperatures less than Mars?). I'm a California native and having experienced two Far Eastern winters, I now know that I do NOT thrive extended periods of time in cold weather. And personally, I am in no way a fan of the Boston Celtics and New England Patriots (fair weather about the Red Sox) and I KNOW Boston folk love to talk sports. But in a way, it would be fun arguing. Last, funding is a make or break issue in and of itself and doesn't offer the same generous fee remissions Berkeley does.
With all that said, I'm ever so slightly tilted towards Berkeley. But alas, gotta see what admissions says! Good luck everyone!
oscarsson got a reaction from ReinventOneself in HKS 2015