bsack

i'd either want to apply to US programs afterwards (unless i got extremely generous funding in the UK), or go straight into industry (also probably in the US). so either way, i'm looking for something that'll work for me in the US. in this sense, i think oxford is somewhat more recognizable. however, i have a hard time justifying spending double for this bump. moreover, i think the master's program at cambridge makes for a superior personal fit.

what about oxbridge? LSE's clout makes sense given its social science/government specialization. i've heard sciences po does well in NGO and multilateral circles, dont know how well it does outside those areas

I've been fortunate enough to receive offers to study at both universities (MPhil in International Relations and Politics at Cambridge and MPhil in Comparative Politics at Oxford). However, I'm having difficulty in deciding between the two, as there are real financial implications involved with the decision. For politics, Oxford seems to have a slightly stronger reputation between the two. However, the Oxford course is two years long while Cambridge is one year. Since the costs of both universities appear to be the same, going to Oxford would entail paying literally double the amount I would currently have to pay at Cambridge for essentially the same degree. So I guess my main question is whether Oxford's better departmental reputation is worth paying double for. I mean, this is the department of Bill Clinton and basically every post-war PM, but it doesn't come for free without a Rhodes. Any advice would be quite swell.

i'm already a member of LSE's alumni associations for major northeast cities. i studied abroad there for junior year, which is why i was curious about that one. more importantly, i currently hold offers from cambridge and oxford for IR mphils (not MPP, sorry if i was ambiguous) and i am trying to decide between the two. i'm leaning towards cambridge because it is a one year program while oxford is two, but i would like to ascertain whether oxford would be worth paying the associated costs of an extra year. thanks for the advice, i'll definitely check the local alumni chapters for both schools

depends on what you're willing to pay. if you're a big dollar baller, you can try "the avenue" on I street, which is luxury level and located within campus right next to foggy bottom metro. something a little less ostentatious but still on campus like "the statesmen" (just a couple of blocks from elliott) would be about $1700 for a studio. there are a bunch of other options that are off campus but still within foggy bottom. nonetheless, despite a few complaints, DC has pretty good public transport, so don't feel obligated to live in the immediate vicinity of the elliott school/foggy bottom. reaching school by metro is in fact the norm for many grad students in DC since the distances are fairly short and quick (the main part of DC isn't particularly big geographically speaking). adams morgan for example is a bit more affordable and ideal for a 20 something. also, keep in mind that since GW is basically in the southwestern chunk of DC (the address for GW is technically in the northwestern "quadrant" of dc, but GW is in the southern edge of NW), many neighborhoods in Virginia like Rosslyn and Alexandria will be geographically closer to the Elliott School than many parts of DC proper, so don't hesitate to apartment hunt in VA. You'll be fine. You're in Foggy Bottom 5 blocks away from the White House. Crime isn't really a huge issue in Foggy Bottom and much of NW. just stay away from anacostia and you should be good. you'll know intuitively what the bad neighborhoods are once you get there, so i wouldn't stress out too much about it. just don't do anything dumb, keep your wits about you, and you should be fine undergraduate career services are handled by one central GWU office for all majors, so i can't really speak to what the graduate elliott career services are like.

I'm particularly interested in how employers in the United States (DC and New York especially) operating in the international relations/government sectors, as well as the private sector more broadly, view postgraduate IR degrees from outside of North America (i.e. how well do they compete against top American IR schools like SAIS/SIPA/Fletcher and how well do they generally place?). Specifically, I am curious about the following universities in the UK: London School of Economics University of Cambridge University of Oxford I know my question is broad in scope, so feel free to be as broad or as detailed as you like. I have already contacted the aforementioned schools for placement info and poked around linkedin, but I would like to get some additional thoughts and perceptions beyond that from you guys. All of the aforementioned schools rank in Foreign Policy's top 20, but unsurprisingly, info on them seems to be more scant than larger IR/public policy schools based in the United States like HKS. Also, I am aware that there are people on here applying to other foreign IR schools: I've seen Sciences Po and National University Singapore mentioned in other threads. So if you have any info or thoughts on other foreign IR schools, feel free to post to help out future readers or curious lurkers.

go to LSE brah, one year master's, cost you way less than hopkins, and you'll have access to a pretty baller network. my dean at the lse used to call it the "lse mafia." if it's your dream, go for it

i've been admitted to the same departments as you at oxbridge (mphil international relations at cambridge and mphil comparative government at oxford), and i did part of my undergrad at the LSE. initially, i would have recommended that you follow the money and go with the dual degree+fulbright. fulbright looks pretty sexy on a CV and free money is usually a good thing. however, you point out in a later comment that your fulbright doesnt cover your full tuition costs. also, you stated that the 20k tag at lse doesnt include accommodation, which will cost you a pretty penny (or i guess a pretty pence in this case) in london, especially if you want to stay in relatively close proximity with the university and not stay in a student dorm. if you're gonna end up paying wherever you go, you might as well pick based on your convictions. you should know that regardless of what you pick, you're gonna be getting an elite IR education. lse, oxford, cambridge, and science po are ranked 9th, 14th, 18th, and 21st respectively by FP, so you would be good to go at any of these schools. if you're concerned about experience, you have some diverse options in front of you. at oxbridge, you'd get a really unique university experience with all their crazy traditions, "ancient" atmosphere, etc etc. plus, i think you'd get a real sense of community. at lse, you won't get that same sense of community, as students tend to be a bit more aloof/do their own thing, and they dont have a lot of school spirit. however, lse comes with tremendous perks. you're smack dab in the middle of basically the capital of planet earth (after new york city), and there's always fun stuff to do in london. also, i dont know how old you are, but from my experience the postgrads and undergrads tend to mix pretty well socially. you won't be a social pariah as a grad student as you might be at other grad schools. can't speak too much for sciences po, but i hope that helped with some of the academic, experiential, and financial aspects of your decision. if you decide on an oxbridge school, we might meet in the fall! best of luck with making your call

got into oxford, feeling pretty good!

is there any distinction made between students who go a full 2 years in nanjing or bologna, and the students that spend at least a year in DC? and does every degree program have access to SAISWorks?

thanks, takeruk. i was just trying to make the point that i dont understand how a relevant post could possibly be misconstrued as trolling. if y'all wanna talk about whatever, it's cool with me, just try to keep it civil and substantive

i dunno if this is just for public policy guys, but i got an offer from cambridge for their masters in international relations! pretty stoked!

on that note, i'd like to mention another program i recently found out about: Vanderbilt offers a terminal masters in economic development. it is generally 2 years long, but it can be completed in a year if you are a particularly committed student. the program provides extensive coursework in micro, macro, econometrics, and statistics, as well as electives relating to finance and investing. the program seems best suited for individuals seeking to work in the non-profit or international organization sector. however, they also have many placements at banks and financial firms, so it can be useful for those who would like to work in the private sector as well. a full list of placements can be found here: http://as.vanderbilt.edu/gped/documents/GPEDPlacementMarch2015.pdf

you're accusing me of trolling while quoting a substantive post that is directly relevant to the topic of the thread. seriously? please do not make additional posts on this thread unless you have something to say about quantitative IR programs. if you continue to create harassing posts, i am afraid i'll have to report you

based on what i've seen, i think the key distinguishing difference is simply age and experience. as you point out, UK programs DO NOT require work experience, and if anything, might slightly discourage it. therefore, a lot of their masters intake are students matriculating immediately after completing their undergraduate degrees. keep in mind that undergrad is also generally 3 years long in the UK, as opposed to the standard 4 in the US. also, many masters take just 1 year in the UK, as opposed to the typical 2 in the US. i studied at the LSE during my junior year, and one of my flatmates was a european masters student. remember, his undergrad only took 3 years, and he also happened to be slightly young for his grade. so it turned out he was actually slightly younger than me, and here he was finishing up an effin postgraduate degree, while i hadn't even finished junior year of undergrad yet! point is, a majority of the kids from SAIS did 4 years of undergrad, have 3-4 years of solid work experience, and then spent 2 years of grad school on top of that. on average, they're about 28 years old when they finish their first masters degree. contrast this with the british LSEer, who spent only 3 years in undergrad, did not work full-time after graduating, went straight to grad school, and finished their first masters degree at 22. you can certainly get away with paying some kid fresh out of school $46k for their first job, especially when they are the same exact age as american students when they finish their bachelors. a 28 year old...not so much. they certainly have more experience and have more seniority when they finish SAIS, so they are entitled to their $55000. that is why you are probably noticing a slight difference in postgrad pay between the brits and the americans. if you were to compare salaries age-by-age, i am very certain the brits more than catch up. in fact, i would think the LSEer would eventually surpass the SAISer at some point, particularly because (1) the LSEer has a bit of head start over the SAISer, (2) earning in GB pounds gives you a slight boost (yes, even with its recent depreciation), and (3) the LSE network's strength internationally in both the public and private sectors (referred to affectionately as the "LSE mafia" by our dean).

correct, i should've clarified that the Sanford program is an MPP degree, which is distinct from the economics and economics-IR hybrid degrees i listed above. Duke also has its own straight-up terminal economics masters program, which is designed both for people that want to (1) go straight to the private sector or (2) get a PhD down the line, so it is fairly versatile. in addition to the core economics requirements, econ students are also allowed to take elective doctoral course in other disciplines (including political science, public policy, finance, and statistics), so it is a great way to get multidisciplinary experience in addition to your economics education.

You might also consider looking at placements for graduates, because the post-grad employment percentages aren't qualitative data, i.e. they don't tell you s*** about what kinds of jobs grads are doing, and how good those jobs are. perhaps make the excel spreadsheet that the user above suggested, put in those employment percentages, but also maybe put in a rating of good graduate placements are based on the types of jobs you're personally looking for. that way you can get an aggregate rating with a clearer overall picture of postgrad prospects

i've also just found a program at duke sanford with a decent amount of quant coursework. their degree is pretty big on microeconomics, statistics, and data analysis. it's a smaller sized program, and they do require applicants to have completed introductory microeconomics and introductory statistics with a B or higher prior to applying. link: https://sanford.duke.edu/academics/mpp/curriculum

okay, since i guess we're above meaningful discourse now, i'll do a little summary of what others have said and what i have found from own personal research...just in case someone interested in quantitative IR programs stumbles on this thread via google or the search function, and doesn't want to sift through a bunch of condescending slights. the majority of users made positive contributions in good faith if you're interested in quantitative IR programs, political risk analysis, and other internationally oriented private sector careers, you might consider looking at: Tufts: tufts fletcher has a two year masters in international business (MIB for short). it's sort of an MBA and an IR program mixed together. you pick one business concentration and one international relations concentration. the business half is essentially like the first year of an MBA program. tufts also has a terminal economics masters: M.S. in economics. it is only a one year long, and gives broad exposure to more advanced economics. it is the top ranked terminal economics masters in the US. Johns Hopkins: SAIS has a Masters of International Economics and Finance, or MIEF for short. it is a quantitative one year long program. it also offers the option of taking other elective courses within SAIS. the MIEF is designed for early career professionals, and it has a lower average age than the regular 2 year masters at SAIS The regular SAIS two years masters is also known to be one of the more quantitatively oriented IR programs. very econ heavy coursework, as all students are required to double concentrate in economics, in addition to one other international relations subject (e.g. security, development, east asia studies, etc.). however, it does not require the completion of an advanced calculus course in order to graduate. about 10% of its entering class were accepted as undergrad seniors, according to its website Stanford: the IPS program run out of stanford is a fairly quant and econ-heavy two years masters program. ideally, you should have completed introductory statistics, introductory calculus (i.e. single variable), and introductory microeconomics and macroeconomics prior to applying. Harvard: the harvard kennedy school offers a development masters. it is very quant heavy, and you need to complete multivariable calculus, and, ideally, linear algebra just to apply. the average age of kennedy matriculants is 28, so probably not the best thing to look at if you're just starting out university of michigan: the university of michigan also has a terminal applied economics masters. it is a one year program. it is not affiliated with the gerald ford school of public policy. London School of Economics: the LSE has a one year MSc econometrics program. this is a good option, as LSE is very strong in the private sector (particularly for a social science school), and universities in the UK tend to be somewhat cheaper than their american counterparts (especially at the undergrad level, but also at the postgrad level as well). however, you must hold a bachelors degree in economics prior to applying to this program, otherwise you are ineligible for the one year program. you can still apply without an econ bachelors, but you would have to do the two year program instead with additional coursework. MBA Programs: an MBA is undoubtedly a good option if you're looking for a quantitative degree. you'll get exposure to a broad range of business, economics, and management topics. however, do keep in mind that MBA programs are pricey and they tend to be stingy with aid. sometimes, employers will offer to pay your tuition cost in an mba program. Work Experience: work experience can be beneficial in providing real world skills and exposure. it can offer some perspective before applying to grad schools. moreover, it is often a fundamental requirement for gaining entry into many IR programs, particularly at schools like harvard kennedy and georgetown walsh school of foreign service. should you decide you want to take a more academic route, however, keep in mind that you might be at a slight disadvantage relative to seniors applying from college if you have spent several years out of school. it is nonetheless still a fairly viable route. statistics PhDs, for example, have the highest average salary of any PhD discipline according to payscale ($174k). hopefully this can be a useful resource for anyone asking similar questions. if anyone else wants to contribute in a constructive and positive way, or offer additional comments and corrections, they can do so below \/ \/ \/ \/

that's an awesome way to deflect from thought-out critiques backed up by facts and sources, it sort of gives the illusion of aloofness without actually engaging in discourse.

appreciate it, glad we've moved on. progress feels good

firstly, i do care to comment as a matter of fact. i said- repeatedly actually- that i was interested in the masters in international economics and finance (it is called "MIEF" for short) program offered out of SAIS. it is designed for early career professionals, with many of their students coming straight from college and a younger average age than the standard M.A. program, which is what i assume you are confusing it with. secondly, the objective quant requirements are objectively listed on every programs' website. any person literate in english with an internet connection can view the official requirements online. i didn't magically conjure any fake requirements from my imagination, you can fact check any requirements i posted. i dont think i even typed most of them, most of them i copy/pasted straight from the website, that's why they have that weird font size thirdly, you can deflect all you want from numbers that you don't like. regardless, like i said, you can view publicly available stats online on official sites for last year's 15-16 cycle. ford's median gpa is about the same the same as sais's floor end 25th percentile and roughly a letter grade down from sipa's median. if you consider substantiating claims with facts and numbers to be "narrative building," so be it. obviously since IR admissions are holistic, i'm not saying numbers are everything, but i dont think they request transcripts just to waste paper. it doesnt appear that i would be uncompetitive against other prospective applicants applying from graduating class cohort. if you're assessing me against people that are currently applying, that's cool, maybe you can chance some high school sophomores for law school admissions as well while you're at it. fourthly, if you maybe read again carefully, you'll see that i wrote "programs at ivy or ivy-caliber schools." i would definitely consider schools like gtown, hopkins, stanford to be part of that elite ivy caliber (along with other non-IR schools, MIT, caltech, etc). they don't need to be playing football or basketball against each other to all be considered good schools. the schools that are part of the formal athletics conference don't have a monopoly on quality. so no break in consistency as you seem to imply. and i said at every turn, i think michigan is good, they got good business, good law. but based on what i've seen with placements and things like that, stalking linked in profiles from programs, reading employers from the official school websites, reading student profiles and articles, location, etc etc i think ford is slightly worse than kennedy, sipa, woody woo, etc. you fallaciously conclude that slightly worse = very very bad. fifthly, i already refuted this line of reasoning with my "dartmouth school of international and public affairs" example. you can keep calling me names, it's whatever. sixthly, i dont know how long you've been out of school, but "baby" in the context of a college class is usually synonymous with "introductory," "intro to," or "principles of." e.g. intro to psychology, intro to biology, introductory microeconomics, etc etc. i'm sorry if these colloquialisms have offended you. i'll use "introductory" now to avoid ambiguity or offense

oh right, saying i'm incapable of "truly benefiting from a graduate program" definitely comes off as constructive criticism. thanks for clarifying, definitely not a thinly veiled insult. i appreciate you taking the time to give some advice. but next time, consider doing so in a less discourteous and peremptory manner. i will consider taking some time off before additional grad school. i'll see how working in the summer goes and perhaps go off that. if i can't scrum together the cash for an MBA (you mentioned that they were "stingy"), do you think i would be competitive in PRA with an mphil if i got some quant practice some other way (e.g. summer courses, an internship, etc.)?

i don't know if you read anything before posting again, but (1) we were talking about the masters in ECONOMICS at michigan which is its own distinct program, NOT the ford school of public policy at michigan. (2) a quick google search indicates that ford's acceptance rate is 52% (again not, an indicator of quality per se). this is about 10 points less selective than sipa and sais, about 20-25 points less selective than harvard kennedy depending on the year, and a billion times less selective than yale and princeton which literally only admit a few dozen students annually. it's median GPA and test scores are lower than other top programs. objectively speaking, relative to other top IR programs michigan is a safety school. i emphasize relatively, but it's still good for what it does. i do not know how you can dispute numbers. based on info from ford's own official website faq (see above), there is nothing to indicate i would not be highly competitive. admissions are of course holistic, but i wouldnt say stats are irrelevant either. obviously, if they require work experience, i would not be applying tomorrow. but based on the real objective numbers provided on their website, i can't see myself as uncompetitive when i did hypothetically apply in the future. however, i do not ever see myself applying, as their quantitative requirements are substantially more lax than other IR programs, and that completely contradicts my goals. i do not want to waste time and money retaking baby micro, baby stats, and baby calc, which are part of their core requirements. they seem to have an ngo and local government focus, not being in dc/nyc doesn't help, and their alumni network connections and placements are something to seriously consider, which i quoted you to substantiate. you can debate against yourself if you want. (3) i have never in my life heard of someone not being considered an ivy grad if they attained a degree from an ivy league institution, be it undergrad, grad, juris doctor, M.D., mba, mphil, m.a., a.b., PhD etc etc. if you want to get cute, the ivy league is technically an athletics conference, and therefore has nothing to do whatsoever with academics at any level. informally, all constituent schools of all ivy league universities at all levels of post-secondary study are considered part of the ivy league, i thought that was obvious. i'm not making any false equivalencies whatsoever. i'm not assuming, for example, that dartmouth has an excellent IR program solely because dartmouth is an ivy league school. dartmouth does not have any postgrad IR or public policy programs. schools like columbia university, harvard, and princeton have top 10 high quality IR schools and also happen to be in the ivy league. i dont even have a horse in this race, my top choice isn't an ivy school, it's hopkins. i'm just stating facts

i'm sorry you feel that way, but aside from pushing back on something ben14 said which i happened to disagree with, i'm not arguing with anyone, and i'm sorry you interpreted it as such. i'd challenge you to scroll through the thread and find an instance where you think i was insincere in my line of questioning vis-a-vis work experience, MBAs, network calibers, etc. i'm just trying get some advice and input from people that have already been there. honestly, i think the thinly veiled insults in your last post are a bit hypocritical and betray a disappointing lack of maturity in themselves