Ben414

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.

Doing a job for 3 months is not the same as doing a job for 3 years. 
I know nothing about foreign service, but in my corner, people are advised to work for 2-3 years to see if they don't burn out from the field. A lot of people coming into this work are idealistic, talk about "making a difference", and are unprepared for how frustrating, bureaucratic, limited, and uncertain that making a difference is. It's also an uncertain career that requires a lot of personal sacrifice, in particular of the work-life balance and moving away from home type, which is not for everyone's personality and circumstances. Time in the field also helps with figuring out what problem you're trying to solve. Again, not sure how this maps onto FS, which is probably more like the CIA/FBI, and 22 year olds are indeed easier to teach regurgitation of the party line, but you can see the difference in policy essays between kids out of undergrad and people who have been in the workforce. The latter's are much more detailed and relevant to the actual concerns of the field.
That said, can someone out of undergrad be a brilliant applicant and know what needs to be done and how they will do it just based on 2 internships? Hell yes. There are some extremely smart and proactive people in the world. But by that same virtue, it's no more true that an undergrad with two state internships is ceteris paribus a better applicant than someone with foreign teaching experience than the reverse. There are a lot of important unknowns in either case, so it's an individual question. Is it a good idea to advise both people to wait before gradschool? Yes. Simply because it's a hella expensive degree with 0 application outside the policy world that any person without strong footing inside that world has a very high chance of never using. 

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.

Tbh you don't come off as a serious applicant imo. Did you misunderstand what the "interests" section is for (it's for your career interests), or do you seriously think that you're getting an MPA to learn languages? I also have trouble deciphering all the "bruhs" and similar.
The QGRE is too low. You need to get it above 160. The verbal is lowish compared to the averages that people at top MPA programs will have, and since you have an untraditional undergrad background, I'd pull that up as well. But the QGRE is very, very important - especially if you have no math. (which I recommend you take at a CC - I don't remember about SIPA, but most programs require at least one of microeconomics/statistics for admission). 
The work experience is also a problem. If you can swing the NGO thing as something other than "helping dad out at the office", that could be worthwhile. Just as a warning, folding clothes in your living room as a child can be a nice segue, but it will not carry your application - your parents being aid workers does not substitute for work experience in the field. 
I actually wouldn't depend too much on the name of your undergrad school or the name of the school at which you took electives (more on that later). Not a lot of people with a design background switch over into this career, and not many people who haven't been to design school understand how rigorous and how much work it is. That's not to say it will be a negative (you'll be surprised at how much adcoms enjoy novelty applicants), but you do need to show that you can read, write, and count, basically - which is why I recommend knocking out a really good GRE. Seriously, getting a good enough GRE score is vital in your case.
You're also suffering from a strong case of iviness imo. SIPA isn't better because it's Columbia. Fletcher (Tufts) and the Georgetown schools are a bit better for Foreign Service, actually. Some Ivy MPAs (well, all of them outside WWS, HKS, and SIPA) are not prestigious at all. When it comes to the graduate level, Ivy doesn't mean better. Likewise, it's not significant that you took language courses at an Ivy. What matters is how good you are at the language. Taking them at an Ivy doesn't necessarily make you more proficient than taking them somewhere else, and adcoms do recognize that. I wouldn't get a letter from your MIT prof just because he's from MIT and a department head. Get letters from people who know you well and can speak to your abilities on a deep level. Only get a letter from that guy if he fits this bill. Your Goethe instructor isn't the right fit, no.
Overall, I get a lot of enthusiasm from you, but not a lot of direction or maturity (not of you as a person, but of your knowledge/experience with this career path). Why do you want to work in Foreign Service? Why SIPA? (this is an application question, and if you don't have a good answer beside it being Columbia, you've just killed your application). You like learning languages, you want to help people, you've seen your parents doing it - these are all good reasons to try a career in IR, but you lack a vision for how you will contribute as a seasoned professional. This can be a problem, because these aren't entry-level programs. Most successful applicants will already have some idea of where they stand in the field. I do think you'll get in somewhere, maybe even SIPA if you get the GRE up; as for money - eh, I'm not so sure.

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.

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

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.

Honestly, I've heard that going the macro route for an MSW degree can get you into the same policy positions as an MPA. I interned with my state's Department of Human Services and the amount of social workers that are administrators in policy is crazy. I also think an MSW makes you more versatile if the public route is where you want to end up. Not to discourage you at all but my aunt received an MPA and she didn't find many career opportunities afterwards. What are your career goals if you receive an MPA? There are many ways to get to that goal. 
 
EDIT: I just read the last part of your OP. Yes, you can get into non profit management and local gov't with an MSW as well. Do what makes you happy! Experience is key with this career. 

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

Thanks for that link AAAAAAAA.  For pedantic number people like me, I'd also state that median numbers are probably more relevant than average numbers for what OP is looking for (i.e. what the 50th percentile accepted applicant looks like).  It only makes a minor difference, but I estimate it would take a point off WWS' quantitative score to arrive at 164 V and 162 Q.

Goldman has a 162 V, 159 Q average. HKS doesn't publish their numbers, and WWS only gives ranges with how much % is in each range.  Based off Berkeley's numbers, I'd guess HKS and WWS are around 163-164 V, 160-162 Q.

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.

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.

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.

The UCLA Extension courses do not require in-person proctors. I took the Microeconomics one several years ago, and it's "proctored online". This was a must for me as I was not in the US while I was taking this course, so if other international students are looking for something, I suggest going with them. You can check it out here: https://www.uclaextension.edu/search/publicCourseSearchDetails.do?method=load&courseId=162240

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.