Ben414

Actually I did ask him, and he said he didn't take those courses and doesn't use them. WhatAmIDoing is currently in a public policy PhD program, and he agrees with what he said. Most (maybe even all) of the MPP/MPA grads on here agree with what he said. You're the only one who's pretending you "need" Calculus 1-3 and Linear Algebra and that any modeling done by public policy PhD's without them should be discounted. You sound uninformed. It's ironic that someone who "wouldn't trust my models" is displaying such poor formal logic. I certainly wouldn't trust your reasoning capability based on your showing here.

I had a chance to talk with some MPP admissions and faculty recently, and they corroborated what you said above. Statistical software can do the math you need, and you just need to know how to use it. The faculty member who I talked to had a PhD in public policy, and he said calculus and linear algebra are not necessary for many PhD's in public policy. It would be if your concentration is in economics and it could be depending on your sub-field within other fields, but there are a lot of areas that don't. The school is a well-regarded R1 institution and top 10 school in public policy, so they definitely disagree with what publicaffairstsudent is claiming.

I wouldn't bother. A sample size of 1 outlier means nothing for the vast, vast majority of candidates. HKS, WWS, and Yale are out. I would think SIPA and SAIS are out. I can't imagine your chances would be good at Tufts or Georgetown. Maybe American University? Honestly, I'm not sure. Regardless, I cannot overstate how much I recommend that you improve your Q and take at least one stats or micro course (good catch, chocolatecheescake). Not only will it help you get into better schools, but it will help you get more scholarship money. Going into large amounts of debt for a MPA or MA in IR is a very questionable decision. As I already said, you have some unique experience--don't allow that to help you sneak into schools, allow that to help you get some $$$ to go along with your acceptances.

I would definitely recommend improving that Q score. Your experience won't be proof that you have good analytical skills, so, combined with a below 50th percentile score, I think you are out of the running for all top tier schools at this point. Shoot for a 160, but even a 155 will look much better than a 148. You have unique-enough work experience that could prove valuable to admissions if you can prove to them that you can handle the economics/statistics.

So you think an alumni network that is 10-20 times as large in the multilateral org sector is an insignificant factor? Because my opinion is based on hearing many people's first-hand experience that disagree with you. I can't think of anyone that has said to ignore the size and strength of the alumni network.

They don't place well into multilateral orgs. Alumni network matters a lot, and yours will be at a severe disadvantage for multilateral orgs if you go an aforementioned program. There's also fewer international-focused classes. Assuming you only asked the question because you disagree, what is your reasoning for concluding that it's a good idea to go to a program that is designed primarily for domestic work and places very few grads in the multilateral orgs if your goal is to work with a multilateral org?

Don't worry about the MPA/MPP distinction. However, I would make a distinction between MPA/MPP and an MA in an IR field (e.g. SAIS, SIPA, MSFS, Fletcher, Elliot). The latter have more international students, focus their curriculum around international fields, and place more students into international-related jobs. HKS and WWS seem to place well everywhere, but I wouldn't get an MPP/MPA at Duke/Chicago/GWU/GU if I wanted a career in a multilateral organization.

Yes. They will give you some combo of first job titles, geographical distribution, and industries. The ones that give you full data for full years are especially relevant so you can estimate your likelihood of getting the jobs you want.

I had already scheduled to meet with some professors, but I was curious if you had differently. Thanks for the help.

This type of advice tends to be under-appreciated from my experience, but it's very good.

I would recommend looking for the schools' posted first employers, rather than the school's location. HKS, WWS, SIPA, SAIS, and Tufts seem to be strong at placing students into multilateral organizations, but some schools place better into certain organizations.

I would likely be pursuing a Political Science concentration with the PhD, but I had read that the field has become more quantitative-focused and it is now recommended to have 2 or 3 semesters of calculus and possibly a semester of linear algebra for admission to a Top 20. Have you heard differently? I would not mind being wrong on this matter.

I'm not sure if I will eventually pursue a Public Policy PhD after a Masters, but I'd like to be able to do so if I changed my mind during the program. Assuming I have only one semester of calculus and several Masters-level courses (e.g. 2 statistics/methods courses, 2 microeconomics courses), I'd probably want to take Calc II and linear algebra before applying? Maybe Calc III as well? For those who are in or have graduated from an MPP/MPA, did you know of other students who were planning for a Public Policy PhD and, if so, how were they preparing for it?

In no particular order: https://www.usajobs.gov/ http://gogovernment.org/ http://www.publicinterestcrossing.com/ http://www.idealist.org/ Check the MPP/MPA/IR schools' websites--they often contain a list of websites to check.

But schools don't require it. The most competitive school--Princeton--matriculates multiple applicants every year who have no work experience. Work experience is a huge "plus," but it is not a requirement to any school I know of. The reason the vast majority of matriculants at the top schools have work experience is because many applicants have good profiles so work experience becomes a defining factor at the margins because it's valued highly. Even if you go down to the level of UChicago,15-20% of their incoming class has no work experience.

I don't think you understood what my arguments were. You have still yet to posit a convincing argument why this form of discrimination is bad. If work experience has a good correlation with an applicant's future ability to fulfill the goals of the institution, why shouldn't it be a factor that is considered equally among all applicant since the institution wants to best further its goal? I'm not saying these reasons don't exist--some possible example might be diversity or making up for historical discrimination--but you still have not made this argument. And you have yet to give an argument as to where it should end that is based off why that discrimination is bad. People with rich parents who coddled them will have a more difficult time finding the motivation to focus on their schoolwork. Should admissions not require any academic prerequisites? As of now, your argument states that as long as any group of people do worse than another group because of the characteristics of their group, then it shouldn't be used for admissions. Surely you can see the issue with this? How are you defining a "good MPA applicant" that doesn't have experience? By GRE or GPA? By their coursework? By motivation to pursue the public good? By their writing ability in a few essays? By their letters of recommendation? I can't think of any possible admissions criteria that doesn't have some correlation with race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or socioeconomic status. In case people get the wrong idea, I like the idea that education should be more inclusive and that schools need to be considering if their admissions process uses unnecessary criteria. However, I fail to see how ignoring work experience specifically is a practical or preferable option. Work experience gives students beneficial experience that improves other student's educational experience through interactions with each other, gives the person a clearer idea of what they want to do post-graduation and how they will do it--important for a short 2 year degree, and gives them the work skills that you can't pick up with an internship. I think great work experience should be a large "plus" for someone's admission, so when you're looking at the elite schools with many elite applicants it's natural that work experience would become a distinguishing factor even while the other factors were still important.

Because your arguments are specious. 1st Argument: It's discriminatory. Based on the definition of discriminatory, yes it is. However, you seem to be implying that it shouldn't be this way. I think this argument is specious. Because you don't set forth any limits on your argument and you don't differentiate the employment history/disability relationship from others, your argument could also justify the following: Blacks do worse on the GRE than do whites. (I don't actually know this, but I know it's true for the LSAT so I assume it's true for the GRE.) Therefore, it is discriminatory to base admission on the GRE. The same is likely true of GPA. What admission criteria has no relationship between different groups of people? Like I said, your argument carries little weight without at least a limit and a differentiation that makes this issue fall within the limit. 2nd Argument: It's discriminatory based on the ADA. Have you looked up any court jurisprudence over this issue? Until you have, there is no reason to give your argument any weight.

EDIT: I posted a fairly flippant response because I thought you were a troll given your username. On the chance that you aren't, I'm editing to show the gist of my prior message: I think your arguments are specious.

There may be people more knowledgeable in this area than me, but I would leave it off. I don't think the STEM degree is hurting you, but your youth and lack of full-time, post-graduation work experience probably is in the way you mentioned.

No, it's not like a PhD: a lot of people go unfunded. However, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. $100,000-$150,000 is a lot of money to be in debt for a career that is not known for paying well.

It's disappointing I couldn't find this information anywhere on schools' websites, because this is very helpful and I'm sure plenty others would agree. Thank you.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm sure positions as a program officer, policy advisor, director of government relations, operations manager, etc. wouldn't, but there are some that I'm not sure about. I'm not sure what level of math I would need for the positions similar to the following (I don't imagine you will know the answer to all of these, but if you know some I'd appreciate the help): - Policy Analyst for a nonprofit or government - Research Analyst for a nonprofit or government - Analyst for the CBO or GAO

I wonder if it depends heavily on the specific school. From that SIPA professor's blog, he said SIPA's Development Econ track comes close to using the same math as the first year in their Econ PhD. I assume that means at least calc I and II (and maybe some linear algebra or multivariable calc). I imagine schools like Berkeley, Chicago, Princeton, Harvard use similar levels of math in their quant-heavy tracks. Harvard requires multivariable calculus for their Public Policy PhD program, which leaves me wondering which MPP/MPA degrees are preparing students to use that level of math.

I have AP credit for Calculus I and am considering taking Calculus II before applying to MPP/MPA programs next fall. Doing some research, it seems that many schools use single variable calculus for their core curriculum in economics to some degree. My question is: for those who were not on an advanced linear algebra/multivariable calculus track, how often did you use calculus in your courses? Would you recommend taking Calc II, or is Calc I enough for the non-advanced quantitative tracks?

Okay. I'm surprised Heinz doesn't fit that description I'm also surprised MSFS does fit that description. I haven't looked at their private placement numbers, though. Looking at your profile, I'm not sure it'd be worth it for you to apply to HKS. I'm not trying to be curt, but I think your chances of being accepted are very low. Your chances at WWS are probably lower than HKS given that they are more selective and also tend to prefer public service-oriented candidates. If you want to cut two, I'd recommend these schools. If you want to cut three, I'd also cut one of American or Trachtenberg.