narius

Strongly disagree with the above. The only people who pay any mind to the USNWR rankings tend to be the students of the "top ten." Outside of this narrow group, no one really cares, because most know that rankings are 1) silly anyway and 2) particularly so for public affairs, which don't even pretend to be quantitatively derived. Here's an analogue: if you had a public affairs grad from Indiana or SUNY Albany VS. a student from Brown, is the Brown student going to be tossed into the 'no' pile because it's not 'ranked' as well as USNWR? That's ludicrous. From what I hear, Fels isn't easy to get into and has a pretty rigorous curriculum - plus is very generous about cross registrations w/ Wharton/Law/Design. It's probably not the best place to go if you hope to go into IR or something (though not sure Maxwell really is, either), but the Penn name/alum network will carry far.

All three are known as programs with a more domestic focus. Good to discount USN rankings -- they're even less credible for public affairs than usual, since they're based solely on peer review. That means they can be gamed really easily through a branding campaign. Fels is quite a bit older than Taubman and CIPA (one of the oldest public affairs programs in the country), but is unique in that it traditionally had a more state/local focus than other older programs. Specifically, Pennsylvania. That has to do with its original benefactor, Samuel Fels, who had that put in their founding charter. It's not nearly the regional program it used to be, but those are pretty clearly its roots. Taubman is similar in the sense that it's small and was clearly founded with benefactor money, but it's quite a bit newer and lacks the same sense of place as Fels (which is housed in Samuel Fels' mansion on campus). But both programs are clearly small and don't seem to intend to grow larger (class size-wise) as a deliberate strategy. CIPA is small, too, but more because they're the youngest (if I recall). They, however, do seem like a program with ambitions to eventually be one of the bigger programs. Also, they don't seem to be particularly concerned about focusing only on domestic politics. Each of these are pretty well-respected programs, though they may not have the names that HKS/SIPA have. I know personally that Fels has longstanding career pipelines into government jobs in PA, NJ, NY, and DC as well as in public sector consulting. But I don't know about Brown or Cornell. Another nice/unique thing about Penn is that they allow students to take classes anywhere in the university, which means Fels students often do electives at Wharton or Penn Law or Penn Design (etc.) and vice-versa.

Hard to say. Chicago is famous for being quant heavy, which the consultancies really like, but Gtown is in close proximity to a lot of fed contractors, which can't hurt. No idea about USC. I've heard Cornell is a fine program, but they are having trouble placing people with the economy the way it is. A buddy of mine went to Penn and says their econ dev side is very strong and regularly sends people to Public Financial Management, HR&A, and smaller, similar boutiques.

Did you decide? If you get funding, I say go for it. But I wouldn't break the bank just to go, either, unless you have money to burn. It's reputable but not so much that you couldn't get a comparable education for much cheaper in Australia, NZ, or Singapore. Good luck!

I'm assuming you want a PhD. I would avoid pure sociology departments as they do not often have qualified academics that can properly advise on national security issues. Though your research might very well be sociological in nature, the topic is certainly not a traditional sociological strength unless you are approaching the topic from a structuralist or marxist standpoint or something. If you want something practical and close to security studies practitioners, you're much better off in a public policy or political science or security studies program. These are all inherently interdisciplinary (and particularly public policy and sec studies), so you can often bring in advisors from different disciplinary and topical backgrounds. Michigan would be a terrific place for this, as would almost any of the DC schools, Chicago Harris, etc. Only caveat is that if you want a successful application in a really highly rated program, you will need to boost your quant GRE scores somewhat. But at the level you're at, you could still get in a very decent program at someplace like George Mason or even have a shot at Pitt GSPIA. Good luck.

It has a very strong rep in Canada. In the US, fairly or not, Canadian schools are just not known as well. However, Toronto and McGill are probably the best known Canadian schools. Can't say for internationally, but I am sure it will suit you very well if you intend to return to China.

1. It can be ... but only if you are very careful to tailor your dissertation to direct application of ethnography. However, it will be hard for you to do that in most anthropology departments because that's really not their focus. You will have to get in touch with professors first before you apply. But even then, it's not like it will launch you into an IR career, since most IR positions will be looking for professionals with an understanding of IR theories that you are unlikely to pick up in an anthropology department. 2. Since you'll be doing a LOT of stats and methods courses for any half-decent PhD, particularly in anthropology, there's really not much advantage to going for an anthropology PhD unless you really want to be a proper anthropologist. If you want to do professional work in IR, go into an IR master's program. Only do a PhD if you are absolutely sure that what you want to do is research. If you are worried about your preparation and/or grades in math/econ/stats, it's definitely worth taking a community course to brush up.

What do you intend to focus on? I know you said environmental policy, but a lot of policy programs have different approaches to different things. For example, some schools may be well suited for students looking to do research in specific policies, while others are better at helping research that researches the methods used towards policies. That may seem like an academic distinction, but it can be significant. Whether you are looking at political processes and how they affect environmental legislation (a more politically-oriented, DC school might be best), or on challenging prevailing analytical methods for measuring environmental impact (could be a policy analysis school like Rand or Carnegie Mellon) will have an effect on what kind of place fits. As far as specific schools, you should definitely look into Indiana University, which has a very good reputation in environmental studies and a top notch public policy reputation overall. I don't know many other schools with great environmental policy programs, but I would imagine the UC schools, USC, and Washington are all very good in that area. More generally, strong 'second tier' schools to consider are places like Pitt's GSPIA, UMD-CP, UNC-CH, UWashington, GWU (Trachtenberg), and George Mason (particularly if interested in a public choice econ-related topic). I'm actually (casually) looking into policy phd programs myself, so if you want to PM me for a more in-depth discussion, feel free.

I can't think of any full-funded Master's programs off the top of my head, but Princeton's public affairs program makes a commitment to ensure that the people they accept can afford to go. So, in effect, they would make sure to fund you if you can't fund yourself. Princeton is the only place that has this expressed policy, but lots of other schools may help you once they see your application and like you enough. You are also at an advantage as an international student. Because you can't take out federal student loans to pay for admission, many programs will subsidize your education (with a tuition waiver and stipend, sometimes) to ensure you can apply. I would just find programs that interest you best and contact them to tell them your situation, apply, and see what happens. Best of luck.

Hi there, This is my understanding: Cornell is an up and coming program that compares very favorably to the 'top' schools. It has less of an alum base but it's supposed to be rigorous and robust. Brown's Taubman Center is best thought of as a boutique program. A friend of mine went there and really enjoyed it but said that he was a little put off by the fact that the Center was virtually unrecognized not only nationally or regionally, but even at the school itself. But he enjoyed the professors and environment. Can't speak for Northwestern but I would expect it's probably geared entirely for part-timers, run on a shoestring, and taught by adjuncts. That's not necessarily a bad thing - I am sure you could get a perfectly good education there - but continuing studies programs tend to be done for a profit or at least to break even. The fact that you can also get the degree 100% online only supports my suspicions, and I don't think you could expect to have much of a student life over there except through other university offerings. It's definitely not the best public affairs program in the Chicago area (Harris wins, hands down), and almost certainly not #2, either (UIC and DePaul's programs are both older and more strongly funded). But Northwestern itself does have a good brand. If you're looking for other strong boutique programs with good regional reputations, I would definitely check out Fels Institute at UPenn, the College of William and Mary's MPP, and UNC-CH, to name a few of the best (that I know of). Good luck! Michael

I think balderdash gives a good explanation, but I'll throw my 2 cents in too, for whatever its worth. Economics deals with trade, modeling, and circumstance. Generally, international economics is not necessarily application-based, but attempts to explore economic phenomena and propose explanations for how and why things occur. Development is obviously more application-oriented. There is development economics, which uses the tools of modeling and econometrics to assist in formulating policy, and there is economic development, which is the practice of applying policies, financial instruments, and management tools to stimulating development. Of these, the latter is the most 'practical' (I'm not using this as a value judgment), and the first is the most theoretical. One needn't study international economics with the intention to assist in development, and being involved with economic development doesn't always imply that you have any clue about mathematical macroeconomics. These are sometimes conflated with one another because of how close they are (other cousins are 'peace' and 'conflict' studies or conflict resolution). Diplomacy tends to imply the strategies and tendencies of engagement and discourse. The art of diplomacy, though it may include the threat or use of war, is by no means a qualification of military knowledge. Studying diplomacy is about interstate interaction, cooperation, and (to a lesser degree) competition. Some programs include modules on leadership and management as well to equip diplomats and would-be diplomats with the skills to take leadership roles in diplomatic positions. Strategic studies is closer to diplomacy, but tends to focus on the competition between states rather than their interaction. However, again, this doesn't mean that warfare or military affairs is the entire curriculum. Strategic studies is about great power competition (whether the program focuses on one country or global trends depends on the program), which can involve military power, energy power (a biggie), water rights, exclusive economic zones, economic power, etc. Security studies is a lot like strategic studies except that the focus is more explicitly on balance of power issues and the use (and non-use) of military forces. America's recent wars have introduced a great deal of coursework in recent years on homeland security, counter terrorism, and nation building, but most programs will stay true to traditional power alignments and the various uses of military force (including non-kinetic operations). While they can mean the same thing, international communications usually is geared more toward public relations and public affairs. That is, everything from international advertising to various kinds of lobbying. Journalism/media is more on actual reporting and media coverage. --- I hope this helps somewhat. I'd caution against taking this at face value since a lot of programs don't always delineate their programs so sharply, and you will find pieces of other disciplines in all of these. Still, I think this should help you get a clearer picture on what you're getting into.

Let me ask you a question: you want a great public policy program? You should really look into UChicago's Harris School, which some might argue is the best in the country. Now, that's by no means a consensus, but no one will dispute that it's a top-notch program in a terrific academic environment. And if you want policy analysis, well, you probably can't find anyplace better. If policy analysis is your goal, I would jettison the urban affairs stuff. It's cool, but it tends to be a much narrower brand of policy analysis (if at all) and injects a lot more humanities-type of stuff. Not to pooh-pooh it, because there are some very find programs, but it doesn't seem to match well with what you're aiming for. Another thought - if you're looking at part time, you should really consider Notre Dame's Master of Nonprofit Management at their biz school. Their business school is quite highly regarded at an elite, beautiful campus and is designed specifically for part timers. If I recall, their program is distance-based during the academic schoolyear with on-campus classes during the summers. It's not pure policy analysis - and is more organizational management - but I could see it opening a lot of doors. Hope this helps!

Just as an aside - I think people might not be considering SIPA as much because of their reputation (fairly or not) for being a very large program that gives little aid. I never considered it for my master's just because moving to NY wasn't feasible at the time and I didn't want to jump in the deep end of international policy stuff. Like I said before - that stuff is interesting to me, but there seems to be a particular abundance of unemployed or underemployed people carrying international development graduate degrees, including from top schools. Of course, for all I know, every SIPA student gets a six figure job before graduation, a personal tutor, and a tuition waiver. But the perceptions are there, nonetheless.

Well, I actually didn't include several good options - Duke, NYU, LBJ, Pitt-GSPIA, Indiana, Berkeley, Maxwell - all of which I would definitely consider going to (particularly Duke, as I like the South). But this was a preliminary sort of thing and I plan to refine the methodology soon so I'll put together a more objective and more exhaustive ranking of public policy PhD programs. SIPA, unfortunately, only has a PhD program in Sustainable Development or somesuch. Their program is also more exclusively foreign policy-oriented, which is very interesting to me (I work overseas), but I am more focused on deepening my policy analysis skills and getting into innovative policy development. That said, if they did have a public policy PhD (last I checked, they didn't), I'd certainly be interested to take a look.

I did a little ranking exercise for myself recently and I thought I would share my 'methodology' and results with everyone here, as I think it may prove to be useful to others who are having some trouble choosing a best fit program for themselves. I took the top 8 schools that I have been considering (for PhD someday, maybe) and put them into a matrix and marked each school on a point basis with various criteria that I felt were important. Here's my 'data': As you can see, I took each category and rated it on a 1-5 scale (5 being best). It's a cumbersome measure, and extremely subjective (and not always well informed, I'll admit), but it has at least helped me get a better picture of what I'm looking for. Just to clarify, the categories are (in order): Rigor - qualitative but especially quantitative rigor; livability - as I see it, based on climate, urban area, etc; career - how much will that program help me get a good job that I like; fam/fri - do I have friends or family nearby?; admission - how likely am I to get in, relatively speaking? (higher is better); prestige - in relative terms, how prestigious are each school's programs? Taking the quantum for each school, the results were surprising: 1. Sanford (24) ---Heinz (24) 3. Harris (23) ---UMD-CP (23) 5. UNC (22) ---WWS (22) 7. Rand (21) ---KSG (21) I arranged the rankings according to their score and, in the case of ties, according to whichever one I had a better 'feeling' about. What I really liked about this exercise was that I had begun thinking that my 'first' choices were the usual: KSG, WWS, and Harris. The others were programs that I had seen as good (ok, VERY good) alternatives. But now, I'm actually really thinking that Duke or CMU may be much better options (assuming they don't laugh at my yet-to-be submitted application) than a place like Harvard, even if I could get in. I was surprised at how low Rand ranked on this list, because I was recently starting to see it as one of my preferred choices, but I'm reassessing that right now. A few qualifiers. Obviously, this is not much more than a back-of-the-envelope methodology (which means it's only slightly better than US News, haha!) and there are many problems. First, as I noted, it's very subjective. I have scored schools here in ways that many others may disagree with (many people, for example, would much rather be in Boston than the Triad region). Also, and I think more importantly, there are areas which I think are more important than others. I'm thinking about updating my methodology to include: 1) more specific categories, like quantitative rigor vs qualitative rigor, climate, key faculty, and maybe a cross tabulation with the US News rankings (for the hell of it); and 2) to weight categories - I think I might make some categories a 0-10 range while keeping others 0-5, etc. Obviously, this is hardly perfect, but I think it's a neat way for anyone trying to rationally categorize their preferences and sort out their decisions to possibly clarify things a bit. You shouldn't use it as your guiding star, but I think it can help. Welcome any thoughts, ideas, and feedback.

As someone who kind of cherry picked his program to tread the line between prestige and affordability, I'd have to go with ... no. I agree with the above. I'd contend that there is functionally little difference in quality between most programs (not to say that there isn't one, but it's an issue of marginal value) and the greatest issue is one of name recognition/access to opportunities. If you're happy where you are - absolutely not. One should try to go for as little debt as possible anyway (as a general, but moderately bendable rule), and even more so for you. Best o' luck.

Answer is yes, although they are all assessed differently. Although schools that give credit, $$, or other perks for one of these are likely to also give for the other two, schools tend to have a particular focus on one of these. TFA IS more selective - in a sense - but TFA people aren't as much in demand in a place like Kobel or Evans, which vastly prefer RPCVs. On the other hand, programs like at Indiana and Fels often prefer TFA people because they're programs are a little more domestic oriented. This is not a clear cut list with solid columns, but its worth going by. That said, by the way, I do not know Americorps people who have done especially well in their grad school applications. Except, of course, people whom you'd expect to do well anyway.. However unfair, the impression I have gotten is that Americorps is kind of a poor man's Peace Corps. This is obviously not a nice thing to say, considering that there are some very smart, good people in Americorps, but I think it is justifiable to say that your average Peace Corps Volunteer is noticeably more impressive. Then again, it might be a self selection thing. Are you thinking about serving?

Although KSG is obviously 'more' of a pub policy place than Wharton, I'd say that you have already assembled your policy bona fides while at Harvard. Also, the business and public policy program at Wharton is top notch and, to be honest, the name can't be beaten for applied economics. I'd say you'll have more doors open to you if you match your Harvard credentials to a Wharton education. Plus, it's always nice to go to two different places for your masters and PhD. Good luck! Do you mind sharing your stats with me? I've thought about these programs before myself.

Hi There. I think you have a pretty fair shot at any of those school. I'd say Duke is by far the most challenging, but it's definitely worth a try. The only caveat I'd note is that you don't seem to have a lot of direct research experience yourself. You said you helped managed research programs, but did you contribute to any research or take part in any writing or analyses? That kind of stuff will be very useful for padding your application and demonstrating not only your capacity, but your interest in conducting quality research, which is extremely important to a PhD. Still, I'd say that you certainly have a decent shot. Good luck!

Assuming you do well on your GREs - like at least the 1300/5.0 area - I think you are not absolutely disqualified from those programs. That said, I wouldn't absolutely count on getting into any of them. If I were you, I'd drop Sanford (not in the DC area), and add a couple of regional safety schools with quality programs like GMU, UMBC, and maybe VCU (in Richmond). While those three schools don't have the same name pull (although GMU has the most of the three) as a GWU or a Georgetown, they're all supposed to be relatively high quality with decent career pipelines. It might be a reach and a little out of the area, but the College of William and Mary also has a new but very well respected, and DC-oriented, MPP program as well. And the W&M name is very strong on the East Coast. This isn't to say that you WON'T get into your choice schools, but don't kill yourself if you don't and make contingency plans.

UGA, Fels (Upenn), and Albany

Cappa - lots of good points being made but if you don't feel ready to go to grad school then don't go. It's not unethical and you certainly shouldn't go just because a perfect job isn't waiting for you right now. Admission committees will not look on it unfavorably later - they'll either be indifferent to it or, in some cases, impressed by your discipline of turning down a good school to go get some work experience. Like others have said, there's nothing inherently wrong with going to graduate school without work experience (obviously, since you just got into your top choice), but a lot of people (like myself) find it instructive to have been in the 'real world' before going to graduate school as it can have a major effect on what you decide you really want to do. The MPP is a fortunately versatile degree (though not as versatile as some), but you may find that in the next few years that you actually want to go into neuroscience or business or physics - who knows? And being unemployed can be just as instructive as being employed. As many people with social science undergrad degrees have discovered, specialization and specific skillsets are crucial to getting work, especially in today's economy. Many people who might have gone on to getting IR or pub policy degrees have turned to public health or economics - or some other growth industry - because of their time in the job market (or not). What I'm trying to say is that if you don't feel like you're ready to jump into graduate school, it's ridiculous for anyone to tell you that you're wrong. Go when you're ready - you'll do better and you'll be better set up for employment because you'll be closer to knowing (most likely) where to focus your interests and career path. Feel free to PM me if you want to chat more.

I think, for all intents and purposes, Korbel and GSPIA can be considered peer institutions. They are both considered high-quality, if somewhat more 'blue-collar' than the Gtown-SAIS-Elliott axis, and share a DC campus with Maxwell. They both have produced some very notable alumni, but many others have graduated and been forced to find work elsewhere; from what I understand, trying to break into the IR industry without the biggest brands can be pretty difficult. Still, they both maintain rich alumni networks around the world. I'll say this for GSPIA, though - I've been told that there's a fair amount of cross pollination between GSPIA and Heinz, which is something you just cannot find at Denver. Carnegie Mellon's Heinz school, while a bit lighter on the IR and development stuff, is unparalleled when it comes to things like policy analysis and innovation labs, etc. It's also, as far as a friend there has told me, really a great place to get recruited. If you can take advantage of this proximity - whether by cross-registering, attending events, or even just mingling with Heinz folks - I think you'll find there's a very real value add. If you're particularly entrepreneurial, I am sure you could build some kind of joint organization (if one doesn't already exist) with the Heinz folks. Also, Pittsburgh is really a special little city. It's really a cool place and, from someone who is more used to East Coast attitudes, the people are shockingly nice and helpful. It's also a pretty town, though cold, with some architectural gems. Many cool neighborhoods and spots to explore. It's also a ridiculously cheap place to live because of the massive housing surplus, owed to the rust belt phenomenon in the 80s-90s. However, the city is a textbook case of decline 'done right,' and the city is considered a success story in transitioning from a steel town to a wired, idea city. Denver really loves touting their Foreign Policy Magazine ranking, but my impression is that it hasn't translated into a massive recruiting effort at Korbel itself by international development contractors, think tanks, and international NGOs - those are still reserved for KSG-WWS-SIPA-SAIS-Gtown-Elliott and, in a different kind of way, Yale-Harris-Stanford. Not to say that they don't have great placement - I'm sure it happens - but I don't think there's a career pipeline from Korbel (or GSPIA, for that matter) to the Eurasia Group or Economist Intelligence Unit, etc. NYU's program ... I don't know. I'm sure you'll get a perfectly good education there, but the SCPS thing tends to dissuade recruiters from even knocking. Plus, you can be sure of going deeply into debt, as I heard the school is a for-profit arm of NYU. That said, your professors may be day-to-day practitioners, which could theoretically help you land a good job, but I haven't heard anything (anecdotal or otherwise) to confirm that. I hope this helps somewhat! Good luck! If I were in your shoes, however, I'd choose GSPIA.

Congrats! This one, unlike many others, is a no-brainer if you're serious about getting a PhD and doing research. CMU. Among those whose opinion will matter, CMU will actually give you more credibility. To distant relatives and old acquaintances from High School, yes, Yale will mean more, but that really shouldn't matter. It's like passing up a PhD from Chicago for a MPS degree from Cornell.

Yeah ... career-wise, I'd go with JHU. And it's still a terrific brand.