Putoots

I think you are an excellent candidate for a top MPA or other mid-career program. You have quite a long list of very relevant experience, which is not common for someone of your age (as many people spend a number of years doing random things -- or nothing -- after college). Your background definitely projects an image of someone dedicated to policy issues. I wouldn't get hung up on your grades. 10 years ago is a long time and more than enough time for personal and professional growth. However, since many programs base funding offers on the numbers, you should make sure to get a good GRE score -- at least 75% percentile in each section. (Especially in the quantitative section, which should make up for a less-than-stellar undergraduate performance.) As many people have said before, don't get too hung up on the brand names of HKS and Columbia. Despite the fact that these are top-flight schools, there are many other great schools that may offer you better financial packages. The University of Michigan -- known for its rigorous policy analysis curriculum -- has an MPA program designed for mid-career professionals, as does USC and Syracuse.

I'd also have to disagree with the concept of "too old for grad school," especially when you are talking about individuals in the 29-33 age range. Unlike the hard sciences or even the humanities, you will find people of all ages at professional schools. Although most students are somewhere around 26, you will find 22 and 23 year-olds as well as 29-31 year-olds. In one program I met a person 61 years old! Being older certainly has its benefits. An older candidate will most likely have work experience, professional contacts, and references. Having some depth and maturity can be an asset to some employers, especially in the public sector. Additionally, an older candidate may also have a clearer idea of what he or she wants out of the graduate program, and will therefore be able to angle the experience towards specific professional goals. Finally, a student who has spent a few years away from school is less likely to burn out, something that happens to a decent number of students who enter graduate school immediately following undergrad. I think the disadvantages usually come from the candidate. An older grad student may be less willing to take a low-paying or entry-level job after graduation because of familial or debt obligations, or simply because she doesn't want to be the 33 year-old "Junior Researcher." If the person has a spouse, placement may be limited to one or two cities, and a traveling may not be possible. True enough, there are a few junior officer programs at the UN and other places that have age limits, but that doesn't mean one can't get in to the organization some other way (usually after working for the federal government). I've never really heard of this "black sheep" idea, and I certainly don't think it should stop a slightly older candidate from advancing his or her career. I've worked in a large public organization, and although the young college-grads attract the most attention and have the most energy, they just as often make egregious errors -- both social and professional -- that their older colleagues avoid. I would think that this is also true for recent grads at the graduate level. (Full disclosure: I passed through the "young gun" phase of my career about 16 months ago and would now probably be considered a "seasoned veteran.")

I don't know the exact details of your situation, but my initial impression tells me that you will be okay. You are correct in thinking that the purpose of receiving your final transcript is to verify that you have completed your undergraduate degree, and not necessarily to check to see whether you've kept your grades up. I would just talk to the Director of Admissions and let him know that you had a rough semester but that you graduated and are looking forward to continuing the success you previously experienced before that last term (or something along those lines). The grades might raise a few eyebrows, but I don't think they'll rescind if you completed your degree. At this point they're just as committed to you as you are to them -- just work with them.

Admissions committees are not looking for perfection...they are looking for outstanding or unique candidates who will enrich a program. If the grade is an anomaly, and the rest of your application is strong, you have nothing to worry about.

Thanks for those words of encouragement! This is really tough. Technically I have until tomorrow night, so I guess I'll sleep on it for now. I'm hoping I'll wake up tomorrow with an "aha!" exclamation point over my head. I just find it funny that I was considering $70K+ in debt only a month ago, and now I'm disturbed by 40. I can definitely credit this board with feeding me a good dose of reality...something I will probably appreciate more 10 years from now.

I have finally managed to narrow my decision down to two schools: The Ford School (MPP) and Heinz at Carnegie Mellon (MSPPM). Today is decision day for me! I am interested in International Development and Humanitarian Aid, so I am leaning towards the Ford School. I attended their Spring Preview and was really impressed by the faculty, the students, and the design of the program. It seems very open and interdisciplinary...I'd love to take a class or two at Michigan Law. Heinz is a little more structured, and although I really like many of their course offerings, the international concentration seems less developed than others (this is usually the case for MPPs). Other than curriculum, the main difference is cost. I was offered a decent size fellowship from Ford, but Heinz has offered me almost double! The total debt burden for each, after two years, would look something like this: Ford: $45K Heinz: $23K Both programs seem doable in terms of cost, though Heinz is more appealing financially speaking since I'd be free to get a JD later on if I wanted to, whereas $45K would definitely take 7-8 years to pay off. I didn't get to attend CMU's welcome day but have done a bit of research about the program. Both have very strong career services and both have good placement numbers (CMU's is a little better, I think, but that is because of all of their private sector partnerships...something that doesn't really appeal to me). Both have a large alumni presence in NYC, which is where I hope to end up. I am a little frustrated because although I want to choose Michigan, I'd feel like a fool for not taking that extra $20K+. Are they really that dissimilar that $20K+ is worth going to Ford? Many people are telling me that the schools are close enough in curriculum and rank that it should really come down to money. [Oh, coming from California, both would probably be experiences in "culture shock," so region is not really a factor for me since, once again, they are similar.] Any help, insight, advice, or experience would help! Thanks!

Hello Cathy, You are right in thinking that Los Angeles is one of the best places to study labor issues. California is home to some of the largest, and most active, state and local labor unions in the country (I happen to belong to one: California School Employees Association). But it is also a hotbed of activist movements surrounding immigrant and other marginalized, non-represented laborers. I think you will find a number of opportunities to perform research on real-life cases in Southern California. UCLA also has partnerships with a large number of public sector and non-profit organizations in the area. Of the two -- USC and UCLA -- UCLA is definitely the more "activist friendly" program. I will be visiting UCLA tomorrow for their welcome day, though I admit that I will be keeping my eye out more for their international policy concentration (and opportunities in that realm), but just PM me for my general take on the program. I got into many of the same schools you did -- Michigan, UCLA, SIPA -- and right now I am leaning towards U Michigan, but I am on a totally different career track so take that for what you will.

For those of you who were admitted to SIPA (MIA or MPA), the acceptance letter said that a detailed financial aid offer would be sent a few weeks after. This was said to include loan information (if applicable) as well as any external or other funding that SIPA managed to match to the candidate. Did anyone get any additional funding this way? Or did the the majority of you receive only loan offers (in the form of a PLUS loan)? I received my acceptance letter last week, so I am a little behind. I did receive the generic cost estimate, but I think there is another letter coming. Just want to know what to expect...

Honestly, I think $30,000-$35,000 is pretty reasonable. Even if you are making $35,000-$40,000 for ten years, I think you can still make it work. Right now my top programs -- Ford and SIPA -- would leave me in debt $68,000 and $95,000 respectively, and I'm still considering them. But you have to think about your personal level of comfort. If you have lived debt free, and enjoyed the associated freedoms, then you may decide to continue living like that...free to leave the country, get that low-paying dream job and still live comfortably, or make a major purchase (house, car, etc.). On the other hand, if you feel that you won't be happy with the program, coming out debt-free may not be that beneficial if you don't get much out of it. At this point I would talk to GSPIA, tell them about your financial concerns, and see if they will work with you. You can always try to get more money, even if it is just work-study or something like that...

^ I sent you a PM. Let me know if you have any other questions. Also, for other people considering UCLA (is there anyone left on these boards interested in this program?) -- are you going to the Welcome Day on the 12th?

Is it possible to apply for some of these awards during your first year in a program? Most are talking about posting for the sake of next year's applicants, so does that mean many of these are only open to students entering (as opposed to continuing) a graduate program? I only ask because funding isn't really an pressing issue for me in the first year since I'm brining some savings, but second year will be tough. Any thoughts on second chances for external funding next fall/winter?

I don't mean to swing this discussion in another direction, but is there anyone else out there worried about the language proficiency requirement? (International students, this obviously doesn't apply to you.) I have a year of Spanish in undergrad, but that was a while ago (I was a freshman when I took those courses), and all of my traveling took place in the early part of the decade. I thought for sure they wouldn't take me because my language proficiency was pretty thin, but now that I am accepted I wonder if I will have to spend a good part of my time (and my summer) trying to catch up in language study. Anyone in the same boat? If not, I may reconsider this option...

I only applied to American (MPP) so I can't really comment on the specifics of programs, other than they are really different and have their own unique properties to consider. I think if you provided some of your requirements people would be able to provide feedback. I will say, however, that if you are simply looking at quality and prestige, all three of these schools are very good. Since you are dealing with three quality programs, it is best to focus cost and relevance (to your area of interest) over location and ranking. If any school offered you money, that is a huge plus, and something to weigh heavily (take it from a person who received very little funding).

I also received that email. I will also add that it said to respond to the email in order to express my continued interest in the program.

Well yeah, these are just Federal loans, so they are only going to give you what they expect you'll need for the year. This year they are estimating that the cost of attending GPPI will be roughly $61,000, of which just under $40,000 is for tuition. Does anyone know if tuition at private schools fluctuate as much as public? I'd like to be able to double this amount to estimate my total cost, which is something I dare not do for public schools...especially in California!