narius

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.

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.'

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

I don't know why everyone keeps placing negatives on this post.I hope it's not purely because HKS ends up on the bottom of his/her list.

nairus, I think this is an interesting way of looking at grad school choice. Looking back on my own application decisions, sometimes I wish I had taken a little bit more of an objective view of my potential schools and I think this is a pretty good way of doing it. I'm sure it would have yielded some thought-provoking results for me. I hope more applicants follow your example with their own personal decision.

Best of luck when you do apply!

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.

I actually think this isn't true for the majority of programs although I do recall UMD specifically being an exception. Both myself and fadeindreams got into multiple top programs with a sub 3.0 GPA and there have been plenty of other posters that did the same. I'm not sure how UMD treats applications that ignore their arbitrary (and absurd) 3.0 cutoff. (I recall the business school had a mandatory 3.0 for applications but perhaps the governmental affairs program is different?)

If it's one of your dream programs, I'd say call the adcom's office and ask to speak to someone about it. Make your arguments, mention how the vast majority of other top programs have no obligatory GPA requirement (only suggested stats) and how you think you're a good candidate for UMD's program despite your difficulties during your first couple of years of undergrad. Ask them specifically if they've admitted anyone with less than a 3.0 GPA over the previous few years. They might be able to give you some good information about what they're looking for.

I'm sure you can get into a great program with your undergraduate stats. It's just an issue of applying to a wide enough range of schools, finding a good fit and, perhaps, getting a little lucky along the way.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.