ChocChoc

I am a current Harris 1st year (MPP) and I've had nothing but a positive experience. 
 
The workload is especially quantitative, which is what I was looking for, and at times, it seems needlessly quantitative, but I've started to connect the dots with where it fits into. It sucks, but it's manageable and worthwhile in the end, at least for me.  I wanted to learn different types of programming skills and be able to get involved in Chicago's policy landscape. It is really rigorous and there have been definitely times where I've been frustrated and wanted to pull my hair out, but it's what I signed up for and it makes me a better candidate for that reason. I got into several other prestigious public policy schools, but none of them compared to what Harris offered. I felt, with my experiences visiting Wagner, HKS, Georgetown, UW-Madison, Ford, and among others, that I would be in a better position with the hard-skill set that I'm learning here than anywhere else. 
 
The resources at Harris are tremendous if you're willing to get involved and ask for it. I've had nothing but wonderful experiences with the administration. WE have an extremely opinionated student body that is willing to be collaborative and wants each other to succeed, which is something I did not see at other public policy schools. This ultimately is what made me choose Harris. I also received a very small aid package and had full rides elsewhere. The career I want would not have been possible if I had gone to other schools. Harris does open a lot of doors for you, if you're willing to be an adult and not wait for a job offer to drop from the sky, but do your due diligence and seek it out. The same can be said for those in the business school at Uchicago that are not going into consulting or finance, they have to do the same networking that we do. In regards to paying back my loans, I plan on taking advantage of the program where if you enter into the public sector, your loans are forgiven after 10 years, or enter into the private sector and live cheaply for 2-3 years and pay it off that way. It's manageable, from what I've heard from fellow alums who are in the same boat. 
 
In regards to our career development offices, I've always reached out for support and always gotten it from them or have been connected to someone at a different graduate school that can help me. The network at Uchicago and Harris is unmatched and the alums I've talked to and networked have been nothing but accommodating and willing to connect me with other people to get me to my career goals. I do think that our career development offices can be improved, especially when compared to Booth. However, the admin staff is working hard to remedy this and there are some people in the career development office that are fantastic and have been super helpful. The other comment I have to make is that there are some Harris students that do procrastinate and don't take their career development seriously and wait on internships or jobs, leading to difficulty. Additionally, we no longer live in a world where you are just recruited, the job market has changed dramatically. We are adults and it is up to you to go to networking effects, connect with recruiters, and take charge of your own career and seek out resources when necessary. Harris does have recruiting events and information sessions with employers such as LMI, BCG, Deloitte, City of Chicago, etc..., however those can be improved since a lot of our TA sessions (especially during the first quarter) are during 12-1, when the recruiting sessions are taking place. I've brought this up to the administration that TA sessions should not be held during these times and its something they're looking into. That being said, Harris is extremely responsive to the needs of students, at least in my experience. 
 
I hope this helps! I've loved my time at Harris so far and I don't regret my decision at all. 

As I thought about it more, if you are truly interested in pursuing a PhD and being a professor in Europe, check into Public Management Research Conference (PMRC) 2016. Public Management Research Association (PMRA) holds their annual conference, alternating between US and international, every year. Two years ago it was in Seoul, last year in Minneapolis, this year in Aarhus, Denmark. Check who the speakers and presenters are. If the subject interests you, contact the presenters who have PhDs and are professors. If the academic is at a US institution and is presenting in Europe, you can deduce that they have a network in Europe or just really good funding to go to European conferences. The conference is in June, they usually have a twitter handle during the conference that you can track and start following academics on twitter too. 
http://ps.au.dk/en/research/conferences-and-lectures/pmrc-2016/
 
Edit: Also, the best Public Affairs and Policy schools in the US are not all housed in private universities and Ivy League is likely not what you want if you want "public innovation". University of Indiana, Ohio State University, University of Kansas, Arizona State University, University of North Carolina, University of Minnesota, University of Arizona, etc. are all excellent and competitive. I know I missed many other excellent institutions. 

It worked! I got my 1st year tuition and fees completely covered, a $10k stipend for the first year, and my $8k professional degree fees are also covered for the second year. I would still need to take out some loans for living costs, but this is SO manageable for a Berkeley degree! I am so insanely grateful that UCB pulled through!  

I was about to accept Madison today when Berkeley called me this morning! All of a sudden, they want to negotiate a deal for funding once I mentioned I was more than likely going to choose Madison's "free ride" offer. She is going to call me tomorrow at 10:30am to let me know how much she was able to secure. This is exciting. I hope it's more than just a few k! Wish me luck! 

I agree with this assessment precisely and I can definitely tell you (I'm actually a career fed so I know what I'm talking about)from the federal government perspective that it doesn't matter where your advanced degree came from. For example, with the PMF program, I know people who are PMFS that went to Harvard and Princeton but I also know PMFs that went to state schools. The first review of any federal job application is only looked at by HR specialists and assessed on the core criteria in the job announcement. It isn't even seen by the hiring manager(who makes the final selection) until after the first review.  Thus, if you're fresh out of grad school but have less work experience than the other candidate, there's a good chance that you're not going to make the next cut in the hiring process.

If the MPP is focused on something you don't want to research, then the program is not for you. 

If you want to be a professor, you need a PhD and to speak the language of where you reside.  While graduate schools in Europe tend to speak and write in English, you need to be able to teach undergraduates in most situations. If you want a position at a university in Netherlands, you need to speak Dutch.
If you want to research public innovation, I would look up scholars on the topic and contact them or the admissions people at their program to see what your options are and learn about the program. The scholars' network is more important than a school's network. You will need a highly regarded scholar on your topic as an adviser and to train under in a PhD program. 

Thanks Flou! Will look it up!

Yes

My thoughts exactly!
I don't think that you necessarily have to attend a US School for a career in the US. However, I think it is a good idea to use the academic exchange or dual degree options to spent some time at a US School or a European Institution that is more well known if you want to work in the US. 

You might want to take a look at this report compiled by the Hertie Student Organisation in 2014, which evaluates the MPP program against other established policy schools. It helps to get a bit of an inside perspective on where the school stands and where it is going. But that being said, all my friends there are extremely happy with the quality of instruction. Hertie seems to offer good value for money, and some of the people I know that went on to do the dual degree with SIPA even told me that - besides the Columbia name and a much wider course selection - they still felt they got a better education during their year at Hertie.

Medievalmaniac, I really don't think that the SoP is the right place to explain your coursework, unless it has direct relevance to the narrative you're writing about your development. I just attached a sheet with all my applications called "Undergraduate Coursework in Literature" or "Relevant Coursework," and then divide it up into "English" and "French." Under each category, I had the course number, the actual full title, the prof, and my grade in it. That way they can cross-reference with my transcript if they want, but they have the important info that they'll really be mining my transcript for isolated for them already. And I didn't have to take up precious space in my SoP explaining them.

As for what I did in my SoP that I think worked, I have some perspective on that, having been roundly rejected two years ago and pretty decent success this round (though UVa and U Washington, what is UP?! Still waiting on them). I really think the difference between my two SoPs is the big thing that made the difference, as my numbers and other qualifications (and even most of my writing sample, though I edited it) are the same. So here's what I think made the difference, in three alliterative categories:

1. Focus. Like it or not, they want to be able to categorize you. You can have secondary interests, but they have to be clearly secondary and bear some relation to your main focus. Last time I tried to tell too many stories of my development, and there were too many directions I could go in. This was partially a reflection of where I was at the time, and honestly I think they were right to reject me straight out of undergrad - I needed some time to reflect, to think about what I actually wanted to do in the field. Now that I have, my SoP reflects that clearer sense of direction and purpose.

2. Fit. Everyone tells you this, but it's true. I spent a lot more time really researching profs on the websites, then looking up and scanning through a few key articles, and skimming through the courses they taught. It really gives you a better idea of whether their interests and methodologies ACTUALLY fit yours, or whether it just looks like that on paper. I then tailored my fit paragraph to show how multiple faculty members could support my research interests (this may be English-specific, as in other non-humanitites disciplines you are applying to work with one advisor). Also, if the department has a pet methodology, it's helpful to know that - they'll look for students who fit that bill. Interdisciplinary programs that faculty are involved in and subfield/methodologically-specific colloquia, etc. are also things to look for.

3. Future. This could vary, depending on how much of an academic past you have, but for me what helped was focusing discussing even my past towards showing how it formed a trajectory for the future. I've said in other places around here that the best advice I got for my SoP was that you should think about demonstrating that you are capable of conceiving of a larger project; whether or not you end up doing that project is irrelevant, as you probably won't and the adcomm is well aware of that - the point is that you are CAPABLE of conceiving of a future direction for yourself. I focused on telling a story (i.e. "I'm interested in the relationship to place in Modernist literature") and cutting all details of my past that didn't mesh with that. So by the end I was able to say look! What I discussed doing in paragraphs x (gloss of relevant coursework/advisors, focus), y (challenges and triumphs of writing my thesis and learning theory), and z (teaching, living different places) all feed into the project I'm proposing in this last paragraph (though the project was sufficiently broad so as not to pigeonhole me). I said that I wanted to go in certain different directions, but it was clear that it would be a continuation of my development, not starting anew. They want to see that you are capable of functioning independently as an academic (should be demonstrated by your past and by the fact that you can independently come up with good future directions), but that they have something to offer in terms of guiding you.

Hope that helps!

I was going to suggest the opposite. Why not get a much cheaper Masters in Europe (which is generally the case for Europeans) and - if you really wish to go for a US degree - then get a Masters leading to a PhD in the US? Masters --> PhD programs are usually paid for by stipends and TA/RA. Plus if you already have a BA in a related subject like political science, I would also advise that you skip the MPP and go straight for the PhD. MPP programs are designed for practitioners, so many of the courses will not train you for academia.
I agree with @happygomucky, getting a degree in Europe seems more logical if you ultimately wish to work in Europe. Most PhD programs in the US have an American perspective on things and channel institutional support largely toward domestic research topics. 

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.

Save yourself the money and do your masters and PhD in Europe. It will take less time, cost less and there are plenty of excellent universities in Europe, which offer a similar breadth of courses, network etc etc. It's nice that Harvard attracts you, but ultimately if their courses don't actually fit your professional interests, why would you pursue it? Unless of course, you have money to burn. 
Once you're more established in your career you may well find that you can do a research stint to Harvard during the course of your studies, or afterwards. Many of my friends pursuing academic careers have spent time in other universities. Cambridge University has strong links to Harvard, for example, and I know some of the colleges offer placements there. 

I find these decisions difficult because I'm juggling what I want v. what I think I need.  Honestly, as somebody who lived in DC for three years, then moved abroad, then was recruited back to DC from abroad, I don't think that being physically in DC is all that necessary if you plan on making a career here.  Internships, networks, consultancy types - there are a zillion reasons to find yourself here, grad school need not be one of them at the beginning of one's career.
 
As for grad school, I find that I'm constantly revisiting my SOP - why did I want to go to school 4 months ago?  It's not so much about what I want to do in three years, it's about what I want to do in these 2-3 years between jobs.  Do I want to focus on quant and econ? Then SAIS.  Do I want more flexibility?  Then Fletcher.  Do I want a huge group of friends and sensory overload?  Then Fletcher.  Do I want a more professional environment?  Then SAIS.  Do I want the EU perspective?  Then SAIS.  Do I want more researchy experience?  Then Fletcher.  uuuuugh...I'm getting stressed just thinking about it!

Disclaimer: I'm actually leaning toward MBA programs myself, but I've looked extensively at Fletcher and SAIS. However, after several years of government related work, I personally am seeking a break from the public sector.
 
Long and short, it really depends where you want to be when you graduate. Like you said, SAIS pushes private sector (federal consulting particularly). Here's a run-down as I see it:
 
SAIS
Pro: You're in DC. One of the first lessons you learn about DC is that if you want a DC job, you need a DC address. So you're able to be constantly networking during the program and you know the players.
Neutral: I don't know much about SAIS alumnae getting jobs outside of DC, but I'm sure it's common. But the stress is Washington. 
 
Pro: If you want an econ/quant-heavy career, SAIS is excellent, perhaps the best. This heavy quant training is what lends SAIS grads to the private sector (*again, note that private sector almost always still means federal contracts).
 
Con: The price, and the DC cost of living. I'm currently negotiating with the admissions office, but they're less likely to budge than Fletcher.
 
Neutral: People love the Bologna program, but I'm not sure what it really gets you career-wise. You'd be in a historic Italian city, removed from the hustle bustle, with a more academic focus for a year, and you'd come back with a very tight-knit group of colleagues (on the other hand, some see the Bologna folks as a bit cliquey when they return to DC. Understandably so). After multiple studies abroad and working abroad, I decided that Bologna really wasn't for me - if I was going to a university overseas, I wanted to be in a capital or economic hub for the value of networking. Bologna is great for academics, and the courses are fantastic, but you won't be job-hunting there.
 
 
Fletcher
Pro: Probably the best school for diplomacy. There are a surprising number of former foreign ministers and such that come to Fletcher to study. You also have a lot of former military folks. This was just my impression, but the student body that I met at Fletcher felt more diverse than at SAIS in the sense that most SAIS students I've met were targeting jobs in DC whereas Fletcher students were truly global in their goals. But again, that was just my impression.
 
Con: You are in suburban Boston. Fletcher is one of the more academic IR schools. You're removed from NYC, DC, etc., so the job hunt can be a bit tough. That being said, Fletcher sponsors trips for their students to the major cities for informational interviews and networking. And Fletcher is a very globally-respected brand with a tight-knit alumni community, so doors will open for you. But it might require moving down to DC first, for example. 
 
Neutral: Whether or not it's true, Fletcher's reputation is more on the soft skills than hard quant skills. They have started offering more practical workshops, but it's behind some of the other schools in that sense. But again, quant is not everyone's goal.
 
Neutral: My impression is that Fletcher folks tend to steer toward public or non-profit work. Not exclusively by any means, but at least for the first couple years, it seems to be the trend. 
 
Pro: Cost. Fletcher is affordable in comparison (and cost of living is lower than other cities), and they're admissions department is very open to considering additional funding. Last year, I was offered an increase of $2k late in the game when I was debating schools. 
 
Pro: Personalized. Perhaps the admissions department is just that good, but Fletcher goes out of their way to know you and personalize your requests and needs. My hope is that this would translate into their study.
 
Pro: If  you want a European study, Fletcher has a lot of great options for a semester or year overseas. I was looking at the Diplomatische Akademie in Vienna, but I know that there are others. They also have great support for overseas internships (as does SAIS).
 
 
 
 
 
I loved the vibe at Fletcher, but it does feel more academic/more in a bubble (you're on Tufts' campus). SAIS is in the heart of DC, which brings its own pluses and minuses - it really depends on your goals which one would be the better fit. 

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.

I am one of those folks who kept a large Excel workbook to make these decisions! I waffled so, so much with my deciding which programs to apply to. I made my first master list of 18 schools during my junior year in undergrad once I had been accepted as a PPIA fellow and knew I would receive funding by attending one of their consortium schools.
Then I started organizing the schools by concentrations/specializations that fit my research interests, concurrent degree options, tuition and fees, financial aid, cost of living in the city/state of the schools, post-graduate salary information, and tax information in the city/states.
Location definitely factored into it. I moved to D.C. for my policy job, and it took me about 5 months to know that I do not really like this area enough to want to stay an additional 2 years for a master degree, so I culled those schools off my list. 
Then it went back to program curricula and course offerings. At this point I was switching out programs on my "Top 8" schools to apply to every couple days based on how I felt at the time. But what really helped me pin my ultimate list down was my dead-set decision to pursue a dual degree. If a school didn't offer this option, I took it off the list for good. 
At the end of it all, I say it was a balance of holistic financial information and curricula options that finalized my program list.