narius

I think you make some really good points, and I have a generally similar impression, but I'm still a little worried about career prospects. Of course, a lot of the outcome is up to me - my research, research activity, publication rate, etc. - but I don't want to do all the right things and get pigeonholed in a dead-end nonprofit because my school's 'brand' isn't strong enough. Not saying this would necessarily be the case at GMU (or even someplace like Auburn), but I still want to try and reach as high as I can. What do you (or anyone else) think of my chances at other mid-table schools?

Not to knock Po, but I think you'll get more mileage out of SIPA. Networking issues aside, I don't think you'll be necessarily at a disadvantage in Europe with a Columbia degree - or, conversely, at an advantage with a Po degree. I'm sure that if you make it clear to career folks at Columbia and your SIPA advisors that you want to work in Europe, they can at least point you in the right direction. NYC, with all the consulates, the UN, and an international NGO presence, has plenty of avenues for you to make European connections. Also, the only people who will really give you added credibility for choosing Po are the French, but since you're not a French national (I'm assuming), it won't really make much of a difference anyway. I say go with SIPA. If you really want to go to a continental European institution, see if you can't put in an application to Geneva's Graduate Institute.

Hey Flyers - My perception might be based on flawed anecdotes, but I have several relatives in academia - all recently finishing their doctorates from the best schools (as in Harvard/Oxbridge caliber) - and they are always telling me how stupid saturated the academic market is these days. Now, I know the consulting/think tank world is a little different, but I figure that if someone with my relatives' credentials, experience, and great networks is having difficulty, then I would be in particularly bad shape with a degree from a less recognized department. Again, I realize that there is some transferability incongruence here, and GMU is definitely a rising star (reasons why I haven't kept it off my list), but I would like to aim as high as I can. But honestly, career pragmatism trumps prestige for me, so I'd be happy going anyplace with good placement opportunities. Does that make any sense?

Thanks KWhite and Wooldogg for your input - very much appreciated. Just to clarify, I'm not looking for another MPP - I was thinking more along the lines of a standalone masters like the one from Chicago CIR or Columbia's Quant Methods or Tufts's MA in Econ. That way I could get either the research experience I need and/or the quant background I need to make it in a PhD program, while giving myself a little more credentials to boot. But I see your points - it's probably not the wisest investment - in time even if I got funded - to go for another master's unless it was a really compelling offer. GMU is definitely intriguing (although I'd consider myself a centrist, as I tend to vote all over the place and I've worked for both Dems and Repubs), but I'm not convinced that it could land me a good job (though the DC access is definitely worthwhile). With my stats as-is, but let's assume I boost my GREs to the low 1400s/5.5, what do you think my chances are at places like UNC-CH, UMD-CP, American, and Harris? Any other suggestions? THANKS!

Oh, come on! I know it's along but I could really use the help. One or two of you viewers must have an idea ... please?

Wooldog raises an excellent point. Berkeley's program is top notch and is strong enough to carry you anywhere in the country. As a backup in the area, you may also want to think about Stanford's new MPP program (brand new as in they are only doing submatriculation right now, but that's supposed to change soon). Can't say how good it will be, but Stanford has a decent track record of putting together high quality, boutique programs, and their departments in allied fields (pol sci, econ, sociology) are all very strong. Anyway, something to explore. And don't be such a pessimist! I think many people would envy your position!

Very impressive background. Assuming you perform competitively on the GRE, I think you have a shot at any of those programs, though to varying degrees (one can never know exactly what's on the admission boards' mind). You're a shoe-in for Brown and Rutgers and a strong applicant for the rest. Good selection of schools - all great programs. If you're interested in local stuff, Taubman, Rutgers, and Syracuse may be more your speed. Good luck!

Hi everyone! I need some help. I’ve been on these boards for a little while now and I really like what I see. I wish I had known about this resource before I went for my MPA – not to say that I necessarily would have chosen differently, though. So, I am starting to think about thinking about getting a PhD in public policy. After working for about three years, I am starting to realize that my interests, abilities, and temperament are better suited to research than clear-cut management, per se. However, public policy attracts me because of its relevance to contemporary issues and applied problem-solving. A little background on me: I have an undergrad degree from a big, third-tier state school with a mediocre GPA (3.2) in the social sciences, although I graduated in three years and managed to make the best of my time with some solid research and presentation opportunities. I leveraged that into working overseas for awhile before heading back to the States for my MPA. I got my MPA from a small, but regionally distinguished, graduate department and did fairly well (3.7). The school is well known nationally but my program less so. My GRE scores are in the low 1300s (5.5). I worked for a couple of years in state government and then, fitfully, decided to focus again on international issues, which has me back overseas working as an editor for a magazine. I’m really toying with a PhD in public policy because I don’t think poli sci really suits my interests, and I would prefer to be in a think tank than, say, academia (although I’d be very happy to teach on the side, if given the opportunity). I also want something that will afford me the luxury of being able to work both internationally and domestically, although more on micro-phenomena than classic IR stuff. That said, I have written freelance fairly prodigiously over the past few years on topics ranging from public management to economic development to international affairs. I have even had afew of my pieces published in major newspapers and a relatively prestigious IR magazine. However, I am not attracted to beat journalism as a career, though I’ve done it and happy to do it if necessary. Given the above, I realize that I’m probably not going to gain acceptance to my top-choice programs like KSG, WWS, Rand or Harris. I am also somewhat lacking in proper quantitative analysis coursework like adv econometrics, adv stats (I’ve done basic stats and I can navigate SPSS OK), calc and linear alg, so an econ or pol-econ degree is pretty much out of the question. I know I’ll need to probably do a little work on my quant anyway, but I don’t think it will necessarily give me a leg up in the admissions process. That in mind, I’ve begun thinking about how I should proceed. Should I aim for mid-table PhD programs like GMU (on the somewhat lower end), GSPIA, and American (reach)? Or, should I look for another master’s program to shore up my research credentials and get some more quant under my belt – and redo the GREs while I’m at it – to try and make myself competitivefor a KSG or at least someplace like Indiana or UMD? I am pretty certain that if I actually do some GRE prep (I didn't before), I can probably raise my scores to at least the 1400 range and maintain the 5.5 analytical. I have a fair amount of debt already so I don’t think I’d like to assume more, so a masters program needs to come with real funding. What would you do in my situation? Any advice or thoughts or reprimands are welcome.

I wouldn't put too much stock in the rankings, if I were you. That aside, I think it's pretty regularly understood that Harris is a better program. CIPA is newer, Ithaca is a bit far out, and I haven't come across too many CIPA grads (I've met more Taubman, Fels, and William and Mary grads) in my line of work (in government and media). That said, I don't think anyone in their right mind would mock you for choosing Cornell - it's a fine school, a nice place to live, and I'm sure their program's reputation will improve with time. At the same time, don't let math scare you. That will forever put you into a pigeonhole form which you'll never escape unless you confront it. I had the same problem when I was going for my MPA. Lots of stats and finance courses and I didn't feel prepared - but I decided that I was going to get through it come hell or high water, and I did. I'm a lot more confident because of it now and I am not afraid of doing quant stuff anymore, which is surprisingly liberating. That may sound kind of cheesy, but there's really no reason to not go somewhere really great because you're afraid of the math. The whole point of grad school, after all, is to gain additional skills to make you a better thinker and worker - hard to say you're doing that unless you're really being challenged. Anyway, story short, I'd say go with Harris. I don't think you'll be badly off if you go with CIPA, but the reputation, location (Chicago is a great city and Hyde Park is a wonderful neighborhood - if it was good enough for Pres Obama, I think it will be for you too), and access you'll get at Chicago/Harris (easily more than at Cornell, though still nothing to sneeze at) should more than put it over the top. Still, visit them both and see how you feel. Remember, you're going to be living there for two years so you want to also feel comfortable in the environment. If you're not comfortable, then it doesn't matter what the reputation of the school is. Hope this helps!

Oh cut the guy a break If we're really to drive into the details, the US News rankings are exceptionally poor measures for public affairs. UGA may in fact be fourth (or first, for that matter), but US News's lack of methodology hardly fleshes that out. Either way, UGA's program is still considered fairly a regional one, which is probably more accurate nomenclature than 'second tier' or 'lacks-gothic-buildings.'

Yeah, I'm going to have to go with s33 here. GWU is no slouch and you'll get just as much cred from the people that matter for going to Foggy Bottom instead. Go with the money - you won't regret this, though you may end up REALLY regretting taking up all that debt for what is possibly (and probably not) only a marginally better program.

I think LSE has a more global 'brand' than JHU and SAIS, although JHU is def no slouch. And among potential recruiters, I think you'll find that you'll get more credibility with a SAIS degree tucked under your arm. From the people I've known who have gone to LSE and SAIS, I'd say the SAIS curriculum is higher quality, more application-focused, and very well taught. LSE is a great place, but their MPA is just one of many programs. SAIS is considered a high-end degree for JHU as well as the world of policy analysis and international affairs in general. Also, DC is a much less expensive place to live than London. So, yeah, SAIS for sure.

I think pretty much everything that needs to be said has been said, but I'll throw in my 2 cents nonetheless, for what its worth. Again, the rankings are almost completely meaningless (they're based only on peer review, which skews to big programs in big cities with large staff), and especially between the 'top' 50 or so programs. Also, depending on what you want to study, they become even less worthwhile. Maryland's program, though ranked 'lower,' is VERY well respected in DC and in the political risk firms and think tanks. Don't worry about classes that may seem 'Texas-centric,' as I'm sure you'll also have ample opportunity to study international issues. As they say, all politics is local, and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised how much insight you can glean from discussions on more local issues, and that includes transference to an international context. It won't be apples to apples, of course, but think of it as stretching your scope of reference. The program from which I graduated is also considered to be traditionally 'local,' although that's slowly changing, but our placement in NY/DC/Int'l is quite strong (I work overseas) and I am really glad that I was put into the crucible of public finance, municipal budgeting, and things of that nature, because I'm finding that kind of stuff invaluable. You can read a book, go to lectures, or read academic journals to get smart on international 'issues' anytime you want, but learning some of this grittier local management stuff has really given me a leg up in the workplace and credibility for analysis. As for career placement - relax. Like everything, it is what you make of it. I know lots of people from top programs (like HKS and WWS and Elliott) who are struggling to find work (in their late 20s) doing things I did in my early 20s, while I also know people from 'less rigorous' programs like GMU jumping right into Deloitte and think tanks with stunning (and enviable!) salaries without work experience. Just apply yourself, take advantage of networking opportunities, and don't be shy marketing yourself - you'll be fine. </2 cents>

Hi there. Congrats on your acceptances! A bit off-topic, but I saw that you are accepted at Penn. I had a friend who did their social work degree there and was very happy with the program. Personally, I'd highly recommend it, as Penn (aside from the brand) is super flexible about taking classes in other schools. So, if you're interested in labor issues (aside: why SIPA?), you can easily take classes at Penn GSE, Wharton, Law, and Fels, all of which have allied coursework in your area of interest. You can also do a dual-degree with the Fels MGA very easily, as I understand it, without costing you any more. If you ask me, that's a hell of a benefit. Also, Philly is a wonderful town and you have very easy access both up and down the I-95 corridor. Just thought I'd throw that in there.

My impression is that it's a very strong program - especially for security and with strong placement records in DC power centers. It's not the type of program that produces consultants so much as developing think tankers and wonks, so it's a bit different from SAIS or Gtown and Elliott. A friend of mine who almost went there (but ended up going to GMU instead) said that it's kind of a higher powered version of GMU's program. Take that however you will. I did notice that their Dean is Donald Kettl, who used to run the Fels Institute at Penn. He's kind of known as an academic superstar in domestic politics, so it's clear that they are trying to shore up that side a bit. I'd expect that you'll see a regular coterie of Brookings folks coming in and out of UMD from that connection alone. Overall, very solid (especially in DC policy circles) with a great reputation for security but investing in its domestic policy expertise. You won't see these guys trying to compete with SAIS so much as being kind of a beltway Harris School, if that makes any sense. Probably a really good place for a PhD.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I would seriously caution against relying on the USNWR rankings for public affairs to make a decision. Personal fit, academic interest, school orientation, etc stuff aside, the rankings are simply a very poor measure of which program is 'best.' Not only do they conflate all MPP, MPA and other public service degrees as being inherently comparable (case in point: Heinz vs, say, Taubman), but they also mix up different disciplines. Worst, the methodology relies entirely on peer reputation, which only underscores the biggest critique against the USNWR rankings in general. Theoretically, a brand new school could game the methodology by hiring a PR firm and get themselves in the top 20 within 5 years. Of course, the conventional USNWR rankings are also problematic for sure, but they're rock solid in comparison. That said, I would really look at the things that matter to you. If you're looking for someplace 'academic' (a reductionist way to put it, I know), you may want to check out data on faculty publications, media exposure, and the body of work by students as well as further academic placement statistics for recent graduates. For a more 'professional' program, you can look at the faculty bios (usually a lot of practitioners and wonks), career placement for graduates, and inquire about career placement rates. I hope this helps somewhat. I actually met someone at a conference recently who did his MPP at Taubman and he was very upbeat about his time there and the quality of the education. He could have been lying, but he seemed like a sharp enough guy and had a good job in consulting. Cornell certainly has a name for itself, but I don't think you'll be too handicapped with the Brown name either.

Many congrats on your acceptances! I hope this isn't too late. You're right about the Pub Affairs rankings in US News - they're far and away even less useful than the regular, flawed tabulation. The public affairs rankings are based entirely on peer reviews, which means that program quality is easily overshadowed by things like program size. With the exception of American, all of those public policy programs are considered to be fairly regional in outlook and production. That's not a bad thing - some of the best programs in the country are decidedly regional (or 'boutique'), like Albany or Fels. Here is my ranking, with qualifiers. 1. American - American's program is pretty well known, rich faculty, and high access to policymaking in DC. I've heard the classes themselves were generally hit or miss, but I think that's truer than not of pub affairs programs. 2. WM - William and Mary's program is VERY new, which is why it's not ranked well. However, WM has a really sterling reputation for rigorous academics and producing stellar boutique programs (their Law and MBA programs are very well regarded, though small). Whatever is lacking in department recognition should be overcome by solid academics, good faculty (though probably no superstars), and a credible (though somewhat regional) university brand. It's also close to Richmond and DC and even closer to a bunch of defense contractors clustered in Hampton Roads. 3. Rutgers - Particularly well known in the NE and very highly regarded in NJ/Delaware Valley. Regionally, it can't be beat for a policy or planning degree at a public university. At the same time, it's expensive for a public univ and the (Bloustein) name recognition is limited outside of the region. Rutgers is well known but is considered by many to be a relatively middling school. Might not be fair, but it's the reality. 4. Penn State Harrisburg - I actually have a lot of respect for this program having worked with good people who went through it at the Master's and PhD level. That said, it's very much considered a commuter program at a commuter school tailored specifically for career Harrisburg bureaucrats. You aren't likely to get much of a super 'academic' experience here, but the connections to the political world in Harrisburg is very tight. Also, nearby Harrisburg is a lovely little town that's only a short (and cheap) Amtrak train ride away. I should tell you that I like all of your choices. But, if I were you, I'd go for William and Mary hands down. You may not get as much of an 'in' as with American (although it seems they do a lot of work to get the students to DC regularly), but you'll graduate without debt and you can be sure that WM will break their backs to place you as they are obviously keen to get some really good stats for their new program immediately. In today's economy, I think that's worth a lot. PM me if you have any questions! Hope this helps!