Ben414

I occasionally visit the Government Affairs forum out of intrigue, but I haven't felt the need to post in quite a while. Although I'm going to echo what everyone else has said, it's worth repeating: Don't go to law school to become anything other than a lawyer. Don't go to law school because you think you will get paid more because of your degree. Don't go to law school to become an international development/human rights/etc. lawyer unless you have done extensive research on how to become one and the realities of what being one looks like, you are able to get into a law school that gives you a relatively good chance of reaching that goal, the school's COA is significantly reduced for you (or you have an incredible LRAP like Yale), and you are willing to become a lawyer in a different area if it doesn't work out.

1) HKS is stingy with financial aid. 2) The starting salaries among these places are mostly comparable. It matters what field you go into; not which university you came from. WWS places better than SIPA for many positions, but it's to a moderate rather than incredibly high degree. 3) Many people from HKS may be well off enough to eventually pay down their debt, but for many the $120K+ debt will severely affect their finances for years to come.

I would add Harvard's MPA/ID program and rank it somewhere in the top 3. It's by far the most quantitatively rigorous of the programs listed, considered similar to the beginning econometrics sequence in a econ PhD. It has a small cohort but places them really well.

I think you're unlikely to be admitted to a government affairs program if your application states that you want to get a PhD or MS. Also, because your applications will most likely be sent to PhD and MS programs. EDIT: I see that you already posted this information in the Chemistry thread. It's not going to help you to spam every thread asking about your admission chances.

The best way to gain more money is to work a couple more years. Barring that, a higher score could help to a small degree. However, since you're competing for a small number of scholarships with many other applicants, the fringes can potentially matter in an out-sized way. If you believe that you can score at least 5 points higher on the next test, I'd say the potential benefit is worth the small cost.

Other than your GPA, everyone else in your profile is the epitome of what these programs are looking for. Work as a program analyst for 2-3 years, and you should be in good shape regardless of your GPA. I don't think the course you signed up for will make much of a difference one way or the other. Schools want to see that you have some economics and some math or stats experience. If you've taken micro and macro economics in undergrad, that's enough.

Based on what you wrote, don't get a JD or PhD. A MPP might be worth it down the road if it's at a top school at a low cost. Start by working. You seem like a thoughtful person, so you're going to have to trust me when I say that you have zero idea what you're going to want to do for a career until you've tried it. With a HYPS (Stanford really should be in that grouping) undergrad degree, you should be able to corral enough connections to get a relevant (or at least partially relevant) starting job. Work for 2-4 years, potentially switching jobs if a better opportunity becomes available. Understand what it means to do the same thing 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year for multiple years. This will give you some idea of what type of job skills/areas you might enjoy. You cannot understand this until you've been forced to do the same thing for at least 1-2 years; it's not at all like undergrad. If your career goals remain the same, re-evaluate at that point whether a MPP is worth it (hopefully you'll have garnered good enough work experience to make WWS or Yale or high scholarship at SAIS/SIPA/Fletcher/etc.) If your career goals change, re-evaluate what options might be worth it while acknowledging that PhDs and JDs are bad choices for foreign policy careers.

HKS has in recent years increased their standards for admission. It's hard to get into compared to other policy programs (I believe the acceptance rate is around 15-20%), but they're known for being stingy with scholarships. WWS is the hardest to get accepted to (I believe it's around 8-10%), but it's by far the most generous program for giving out scholarships. Their scholarships are entirely need-based, with around 80% getting full tuition plus stipend and around 90% getting full tuition. We can't recommend schools without knowing what your goals are, but the cheapest base tuition ones will likely be state schools. However, even low tuition plus cost of living can add up to a lot of money for a degree that may not be as helpful as you're thinking.

I can't speak for anyone else, but that's not what I thought you believed. I merely wanted to show that I disagreed with and However, I do agree with your suggestion that people look at other routes other than a MPA. In some situations, a macro SW degree is better. In many situations, getting neither is better.

A macro SW degree can get you into most of the same policy positions if the position involves a traditional social work field (Assuming we're holding the amount of tech/quant skills standard. Good MPA programs more often teach more tech/quant skills, so if a job requires those skills it may be harder to take courses in them via a macro SW.) It does not make you more versatile; it's either the same or less versatility depending on how you want to use the degree. I would only recommend OP choose a macro SW over a MPA if they have decided they want to work in a traditional social work field. I agree with the others, though, that neither may be a good idea for OP. Don't go unless you will graduate with little debt; don't go if you don't at least have an idea of what you want to do with the degree; don't go if your job provides some connections for your desired career and you aren't planning on switching fields (unless a masters is required for promotion).

Personally--and others may disagree with this--I wouldn't spend another year of lost income and tuition to get another degree when it's very likely that one or the other will more than suffice. There are many situations where getting either isn't worth it, and very few where getting both would be worth it.

By "administrative," do you mean handling work requests and grants, assisting with production of reports and presentations, etc for the entire organization? Or do you mean working for a specific part of the organization where you have an expertise in that area, such as overseeing research projects in child welfare because you've been a case worker and you know research methodology? In general, the benefit of a MSW is to gain specific knowledge of whatever field you're learning. This will be most useful if you are planning on directly applying those skills in your desired career. Most of the skills learned in a MSW or MPA can be independently learned fairly well, so you could combine the specific knowledge and skills to have a good chance at landing a job that requires or prefers specific knowledge. The benefit of a MPA is that it's more general; if you take the right classes, it will teach you the most of the skills that are needed by most all admin positions. This will be most useful if you are not sure whether you want to go into a specific field or if you want to not lay all of your eggs in one basket. I would guess a vast majority of admin jobs won't care that much about specific knowledge of a certain field (even those that work in a specific area and not for the entire organization); having a familiarity may be strongly preferred, though. For these jobs, the general skills will be most important for you to land the job.

What type of career do you want? We can give you a general idea of the difference between the two, but you can get more personalized advice if you can tell us what you're planning to use the degree for.

Buy A Mathematics Course for Political and Social Research by Will H. Moore and David A. Siegel. This is the intro book used by Duke's Political Science PhD program. If you want to feel confident in your quantitative skills, read through Chapter 5. If you want to feel extremely confident in your quantitative skills, read through Chapter 11. If you want to get your Economics PhD or study political science at NYU, read the entire book.

Good to know for anyone still deciding. I chose UT because I wanted to start immediately, but UCLA looks to probably be the best choice if you're fine with its set timeframes.

I'd recommend the University of Texas' micro and macro courses. They're $550 each; they're entirely self-paced; and they can be started at any time rather than waiting for a list of scheduled start dates. They require two proctored tests each course, but I assume the others mentioned do as well. Test proctors aren't hard to find (nearby community colleges are your best bet), but they're the biggest hassle.

For those straight out of undergrad, top programs will want great academic credentials (which you seem to have) and work experience deemed relatively excellent for someone coming straight out of undergrad. You say you did some volunteer work; did that include formal internships? If not, I think you would be hard pressed to gain admittance to some top programs. UCLA may not be one of those schools that cares more about work experience, though, so it's also possible you have a great shot there. It would help for you to look at their website and see if you can figure out what percent of their incoming classes tend to be straight out of undergrad.

There are a lot of non-financial considerations, and their relative weight will vary a lot from person to person. Here's a few of them in no particular order: 1) Career aspirations: Some people place a higher value on their career and want by age 30 to be the CEO of a sustainable international nonprofit they founded themselves. Some people place a higher value on their personal life, decided policy analysis sounds vaguely interesting, and thought a MPA might help them get a mid-level state government job with good stability, little stress, and a comfortable 40-hour workweek. The first person will probably be willing to sacrifice more for the degree because they place a higher value on what the degree can give them. 2) Job Environment: Some people place a higher value on having a strong work environment (e.g. low-stress, get to be around people you enjoy being around, boss is supportive, schedule flexibility, etc.). If they're in a job that gives them this now, they may be less willing to give that up for a gamble on what their future job environments will be. If their desired job sucks in this regard, they may think twice about whether it's worth it to pursue that job. 3) Location: both in terms of where the school is and where your job will make you live. Some people have built up close relationships with friends and/or significant other, and they don't want to leave those relationships. Some people want a fresh start or an exciting adventure. Some people don't want to live in cities like NY or DC; some don't want to live in certain foreign countries; some don't want to stay in any one location for very long. 4) Timing: Some people want to do certain things like backpack through Europe or volunteer in Nepal or become an Olympic swimmer who vandalizes Brazilian bathrooms before they commit themselves to a more standard career track. Some people just want more unstructured time to figure out what they actually want in life before committing themselves to a policy career.

People shouldn't be offended. Opportunity cost is a relative idea that each person calculates differently, so you saying it's not worth it for you means nothing for anyone else. MPP/MPA degrees generally don't lead to high-paying jobs (at least in the beginning) and can cost quite a bit of money, which means the non-financial considerations have to outweigh that relative disadvantage. People should only get the degree if they have a good idea of what they want to do and have decided the degree is important for getting them there. That said, that's true for any degree.

You don't have to get a job with the White House, Senate, or top federal agency. There are many, many other jobs that can provide you with great experience. I'd recommend you look at Princeton's and Yale's student profiles to see how few students at the most competitive schools are represented at those three employment sources.

Whichever jobs that sound interesting to you. It's a good idea to find a job where you can develop and apply your technical skills, but there are a lot of jobs that broadly do that and I'd recommend trying to find a substantive area broadly defined that you find interesting. Just as, if not more, important as developing those skills, though, is allowing yourself to explore other substantive areas and other types of work experience. Take good opportunities that come your way regardless of whether they fit into a narrow idea of the work experience you wanted to attain. You may decide you love research and want to get a PhD, or you may decide you love working with external stakeholders to guide and manage large-scale projects and want to get a MPA. You may even decide you don't want to get a Masters. My point can be summed up to this: there are a lot of different jobs and organizations that can prepare you for a MPP and the differences in preparation between them generally aren't significant, so don't worry too much about the specific organization or role and use this time to explore your interests.

OK, I get what you're saying. Also, just an FYI I'm not the OP. I have heard from others there's a boost for top colleges, but I wasn't sure if you were suggesting there was a hard cutoff at 10. I agree there appears to be some boost for top colleges--probably only a minor boost, but when competition is so high a minor boost can be quite beneficial.

Where have you heard this? I've never heard of such an explicit cutoff.

I always found it funny how some STEM people see themselves as very smart, yet many of them show such obvious failures in basic logic. Obviously you're not saying you agree with that general perception, but it's genuinely dumb for anyone to believe non-STEM fields make no contributions to society. It's not even something debatable--it's just empirically wrong and an honestly dumb idea to hold.

1. Yes. MPP/MPA/MA IR programs relatively aren't that stringent on test scores and GPA, and IMO the rest of your profile still gives you a legitimate chance. 2. Maybe. How sure are you that you can improve it, and how high do you think you can get? If you can pass calculus and calculus-based physics courses, then you have the quant knowledge necessary to get a high score on the quant section. Quant knowledge is not sufficient obviously, but I would think a higher quant score is definitely within reach if you are decent enough at standardized tests and are willing to properly train yourself for the test. Your test scores seem fine for SIPA, and a bit low for HKS and Yale.Your military experience and GI scholarship will help you with admission, but your GPA will likely hurt you a bit. If you think there's a good chance you can increase your quant score 4+ points, then I'd say go for it. 3. You could consider taking micro. UT, UCLA, and BYU seem to have good options available for that. The big thing I would recommend is to work hard on your essays. Maybe other users can give you ideas on what else you could do. 4. Maybe. It's definitely not necessary, but it might help your profile a small amount.