Ben414

Carnegie Mellon has one that might fit your interests.

A number of things: Everyone I've talked to says getting is a poor use of your money and time. Most jobs will want either the analytical skill set (from the MPP) or the legal skill set (from the JD), but few will substantially care if you have both. Having isn't bad and you see a decent number of them among top positions, but that's more because a) they're older and a JD was more broadly valued 20-30 years ago than it is today, even at YHS schools, and b ) those people are over-represented among the high-achieving/striver mentality that would have allowed them to get high-level positions regardless of whether they had the extra degree. Instead, use those years to work full-time and advance into higher-level positions; use your extra time to network, build your skill set, keep abreast of your field, etc.; use your money to maintain your financial independence so you can literally take whatever job you want without having to worry how the salary might be a bit too high or the organization might not quite fit the list of accepted ones, etc. Federal clerkships are not easy to get at CLS (6%) or HLS (19%). You should absolutely not go to law school if you're banking on getting a federal clerkship, unless you're going to Yale (or maybe Stanford). You mentioned clerkship rather than federal clerkship, so a state clerkship should be a more reasonable hope if you go to HLS or CLS (depending on your state). None of your STEM ties, scholarship stuff, or MPP/MPA degree will boost your law school admission chances in any substantive manner. Nobody makes partner anymore, so absolutely don't bank on that no matter who you are or where you went to law school. How would you have eliminated your GU debt so quickly? If you're really interested in this field, there's a few people on toplawschools.com that do this line of work. They should be able to help you out, and I'm sure they'll tell you to pick either the MPP or the JD. There's a lot of cynical assholes over there that you'll want to avoid, but you'll find good advice if you can find the right people.

Nice try, bsack. You're going to have to be more inconspicuous than that, though. Creating a profile who just happens to only upvote your own posts isn't going to fool anyone.

The usage of strict rankings for MPP/MPA seems dubious to me, so I'm not sure how you'd determine which schools are "elite" versus "just really good." From what I'd consider "elite," Yale and Princeton are very generous. Berkeley doesn't seem especially generous in terms of scholarships, but its lower tuition and availability of TA/RA positions make it more affordable than many. Tufts seems to give out a solid amount. I have no idea about Stanford. I'm not sure if you'd consider them elite, but Duke and Michigan seem to offer a good amount.

I don't think schools care if the courses are online or in-person as long as the course content is the same, but I know some schools don't count courses that don't have a grade. Auditing probably isn't the way to go.

The best way to evaluate the aggregate of factors that determines employment is to see where the grads of each school end up. The school that sends the highest proportion of its grads into the types of jobs you would want is the probably the best for you, all things equal. If that state school places well into the jobs you want, I doubt it would be worth an extra $100K to go to Georgetown.

It might be different for the IDEV program, though. HKS' MPA/ID, for example, is quantitatively rigorous even though the MPP can be completed with little quantitative rigor. That said, I'm not familiar with SAIS' IDEV program, so it'd be great if someone with more knowledge of the program can step in here.

In my non-expert opinion, the quantitative/economic rigor of SAIS' IDEV seems like the obvious choice given your goal. Economics PhD's are heavily quantitative (as I'm sure you know), so you'd be best served to go to a program that will best develop those skills. Based on what I've heard, it sounds like you should also take multivariate calculus (and probably linear algebra) if you haven't already. Finally, I do not think it's correct to consider pursuing SIPA's MPA and pursuing HKS' MPA/ID as both being on the "Chris Blattman route." The latter--which is what Blattman did--is much more advanced quantitatively and requires multivariate calculus for admission. Blattman said it came close to what would be expected in the 1st year of an econ PhD program.

I believe I've read numbers from a prior year that showed WWS' MPA as 8%, HKS' MPP as 20%, and SIPA as less selective than HKS (although I don't know the exact figures).

For a PhD program, you factor faculty into the decision because 1) you want some with similar interest areas and methodological preferences so they can assist you with your thesis research; and 2) they can use their academic network to help place you with schools. Neither is relevant for an MPP/MPA/MA IR, so I wouldn't recommend basing your decision on them.

IMO it depends which schools you're specifically talking about. Regardless, you can always pen a request for more funding without having to explicitly mention you want them to match the offer of another school. You can merely mention you appreciate the offer, you think you're a good fit for them because of so and so, and you'd love to go there, but unfortunately money is an issue that has to be considered, and more funding will make it more likely that you can afford to choose them. There are plenty of templates if you google for them.

Right, and many templates don't explicitly mention the other offers they've received. I can see the pros and cons of different approaches, and my decision would probably be based on several factors. Some schools don't offer stipends to anyone, so if I received a full ride and stipend to WWS, it's going to be hard to convince Indiana that I would seriously consider them if they offered me a full ride. If I received a full ride to Duke and Michigan offered me nothing, saying I received a full ride at a peer school and that I really think Michigan is a good fit but I can't justify the $80,000 difference--I think that would be very effective. If I didn't have any offers that I thought the school would find convincing, I would not state my other offers. The same thing goes for mentioning a specific amount you would want. If I was 100% not willing to attend a school unless I received a specific level of funding--and I didn't think I would get more than that amount--I would state that in the letter. If I was just trying to get more funding from my choices in a general sense, I would not mention a specific amount. OP, I think there's a number of questions you would need to ask yourself before writing the email. Think about the different approaches and which works best for your situation. You may even decide you need different templates for different schools. Good luck!

Absolutely do try to get more funding. If you do it in a non-insulting manner, the absolute worst thing they will do is say, "Sorry, we think you're an excellent candidate for our program but unfortunately we do not have extra funding available at this time." I'd recommend through email because the decision isn't going to be made in the moment and will need to be discussed, and an email can be more easily sent to a group of people than a hastily-scribbled note. I haven't asked around for success stories for MPP/MPA/MA IR programs, but requesting more funding is a time-honored tradition for law school that includes many success stories. There are plenty of templates out there, so choose whichever one feels best to you (or you can make your own). One example from "The Art of Applying": Send the letter via email to whomever you received the financial aid package from. Subject: Funding decision appeal letter from recently admitted candidate Dear _______________, Thank you for the generous offer of admission and the fellowship aid in amount of $x. [Insert school name you are writing to here] is my top choice for graduate school, and I would love to join the incoming class. However, before I am able to commit to joining the class, I wanted to let you know about the other offers I received and request that you consider increasing my fellowship aid. My current financial aid package includes grant aid of $x and a stipend of $x. I also received the following offers for fall entry: Johns Hopkins SAIS: $x per semester + $x stipend Columbia SIPA: $x per semester + $x stipend [List the rest of the schools in descending order of generosity of award or in descending order of prestige. You may just want to focus on the most prestigious schools or the ones that gave you the most money] I request that [insert school name] match the offer made by [insert name of most generous school that is in the same general league of prestige] to grant aid of $x and a stipend of $x. Once again, I would like to emphasize how grateful I am to be offered a place in the incoming class. As I am committed to a career in public service after graduation, my financial aid package is a crucial factor in my decision making process. I have attached scanned PDF copies of my award letters from the aforementioned schools. [Make sure you actually attach the award letters.] Please let me know if I can provide any additional information to aid you in making your decision. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Olive H. Kayess

I believe that getting work experience is important for MPP/MPA programs not just for admissions, but for employment prospects afterward. IMO there is a boost to employment in your later career after getting the degree that benefits everyone in the program equally, but there is an additional boost that comes from the immediacy of being in the program--the connections from professors, research centers, alumni, etc. that are at their strongest while you're in the program. I think prior work experience helps you to reap the most rewards from this boost because you will have a wider range of opportunities that you will be eligible for if they're presented to you. As to the Pharm D, I don't have any knowledge about the degree. MPP/MPA programs would probably value the internships in them to a degree, but I don't think they would view them as equal to full-time, year-round employment. I'm not sure how they would evaluate the degree itself. I don't think you would get into HKS/WWS/Yale with only a Pharm D degree and the internships from it. If it were me, I would either a) go to the PharmD program and acknowledge that I will likely have to work for a couple of years afterwards before I could jump into an elite program; or b ) get some work experience and reapply in two years.

That is an interesting question. Looking at the Hertie School of Governance, here are the Masters held by the first 10 PhD students listed on the website: MA in Political Science with research specialisation from the University of Manchester Master’s degree at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa MPhil in Economics, University of Cambridge MA in Public Policy. Hertie School of Governance M. Sc. In Political Science, University of Gothenburg Studies of Political Science, Law, French Language and Literature. Freie Universität Berlin (MA equivalent) Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Magister in Sociology and Economics Master of Public Policy (Hertie School of Governance, Berlin) MSc in International Relations from the London School of Economics and Political Science Master of Public Policy at the Hertie School of Governance It seems like the vast majority received their Masters in Europe. This doesn't mean that a U.S. Masters would be devalued, but it seems more common to get both degrees from Europe (if Hertie is representative of other schools). Personally, I don't think it would be worth the extra money to go to Harvard.

I can't speak for Europe, but in the U.S. having a PhD is basically necessary to become a professor or highest-level researcher. I think you would definitely want to look at PhD programs, not Masters. Luckily, there are a number of great public/social policy PhD programs with great alumni and great post-graduate opportunities. Not all of them focus so heavily on economics like Harvard, so with some research you should be able to find some that fit your research interests well. The U.S. News rankings should be taken with a very large grain of salt, but they should give you a list of schools to begin looking into and identifying good fits. Once again, I can't speak for Europe, but in the U.S. the competition for tenure professorships has gotten very fierce, so it would behoove you to research the European market a little bit so you know which schools are most likely able to provide you with the type of career you will want.

Hey forum members, how do I report this member? The person has been downvoting all of my previous posts even though he had no interaction with them, and I'd like to get the troll banned.

If you want to be a professor, I think we can all agree an MPP from HKS is not right for you.

You're going to get a lot out of this forum with your trolling.

For the Michigan part, fine, my mistake. I don't know anything about their masters in economics. However, JHU states "All incoming MA students are required to complete introductory microeconomics and introductory macroeconomics courses, receiving a grade of B- or higher, before they can start course work at Johns Hopkins SAIS." if you're looking to avoid, in your own incredibly immature and disrespectful words, "baby micro, baby stats, and baby calc" you might want to pretend SAIS doesn't have basically the same core quantitative cirriculum as Michigan. I did find one difference, though: Michigan requires calculus for graduation while SAIS does not. Care to comment on that? Secondly, you're objectively wrong on the quant requirements for IR schools, furthering showing your ignorance. If you're willing to show some maturity--which seems doubtful at this point--you can ask the people around here who have actually gone to or are going to schools like these about the quant requirements. The vast majority of IR schools are not focused on advanced quant. JHU is known for being relatively quantitative, yet even it doesn't require calculus for graduation while advanced quant focus like HKS MPA/ID requires multivariate calculus for mere chance of acceptance. Thirdly, Peterson's is specifically known for not having up to date numbers on MPP/MPA/MA IR programs. I doubt you care about that, though, as it detracts from this false narrative you've built up. Regardless of Michigan's acceptance rate, though, your lack of experience would have held you back there. Your profile is not good enough for it to have been a safety no matter how many misdirected insults you throw at it to make you feel better about yourself. Fourthly, it's interesting that you're changing your argument now from "Why would someone go to Michigan when they could go to an Ivy League school" to "I've been saying all along it's not the Ivy League that matters!" Fifthly, I would guess you haven't heard about people not caring about the Ivy League after undergrad because you're still in undergrad and have already shown your ignorance about grad school so clearly you're not talking to the right people. Luckily, we're on a forum here where you can go ask someone whether all grad degrees from Ivy League inherently defer an employment advantage over schools like Michigan. I'd recommend you go do that, but, seeing as it would detract from your false narrative and runs the risk of making you seem overly immature in this thread, I doubt you will. From your very first post all the way to your comment on "baby micro, baby stats, and baby calc," it's obvious at this point you're too immature to heed our advice. I've done what I can, and at this point I'm not willing to spend any more of my time trying to help you become more educated about grad school.

I'm not going to spend my time arguing with you on this matter any further. You're making a false equivalence between an undergraduate label (i.e. Ivy League) and the quality and breadth of an alumni network for a specific program within a university. HKS and WWS place well because of the strength of their specific program and strength of alumni from their specific program. Getting back to you: 1) Michigan is too selective to be a safety school for someone with your profile. 2) Work experience will do you good in my and others' opinions. 3) SAIS might be a good fit for you. 4) Stanford is a long-shot if their admissions value work experience like others do. 4) Rather than doing whatever evaluation process you're doing, look at the grads' first jobs and see which are placing into jobs you want. That is the vast majority of what should be used to evaluate a school.

You have a strange focus on perceived prestige which isn't based in reality. Firstly, Ivy League prestige is exclusively for the undergraduate level. Secondly, SIPA and SAIS are not all that selective. You can check the acceptance threads yourself. They're strong schools, but for these professional programs it's foolhardy to equate acceptance rate with quality. Thirdly, Michigan is better than most Ivy League schools at the graduate level. At the PhD level, Michigan is probably better than all Ivy League schools except for Harvard and Princeton--maybe Yale would be tied with them. Fourthly, if your decision-making process is this guided by your perceived notion of prestige, I would definitely recommend getting some work experience before going to grad school. When you get a chance to work with people from top schools and you see they are just normal people like everyone else, I think you'll be more likely able to cut out the Ivy League nonsense and focus on the factors that actually matter.

I'm not sure if your quant background is deep enough right now to get you into Stanford. HKS MPA/ID requires multivariate calculus at the minimum for admission, and they prefer an applicant also have linear algebra. (If someone knows the quant requirements more definitively, though, please correct me.) SAIS isn't that difficult to get into relatively, and I think you would have a solid chance despite a lack of work experience if you achieve strong GRE scores. I'm not familiar enough with Stanford's program to chance you, but if it's comparable to HKS/WWS/Goldman, your lack of work experience will very likely keep you out (and possibly your quant background). I would think you'd have a decent chance at Michigan. The best thing you can do is get 2-3 years of work experience and take multivariate calculus and linear algebra. Not only will it greatly improve your profile and make your more likely to be eligible for the type of quant-heavy programs you want, but it will get you much better funding too. If you truly want to be economic about the decision, you'll take time off to get work experience. FYI: from the applicant threads over the past few years, I would guess Michigan's MPP program is harder to get into than SAIS. Michigan is not an appropriate safety school for someone with your profile.

I don't have anything additional to add to what Poli92 said, but I wanted to second that advice.

Based on your "Am I competitive" thread post, publicaffairsstudent, was your advisor from Cornell? Because they are specifically known for being extra quantitative-focused with their political science. If the advisor concentrated in economics or political science, that would explain why "most people there had completed all lower division math courses." It's not a great idea to extrapolate from one example to all public policy schools, especially when those with actual experience in other top public policy schools prove you are wrong. As the faculty member I talked to said, Calculus 1-3 and Linear Algebra are necessary for certain quantitative applications. Some fields use these applications extensively, so you will need more advanced math for them. Other fields don't need them. To pretend that they are necessary regardless of the quantitative applications that will be needed is ludicrous.