chocolatte_

Many programs have waivers. I'm eligible for waivers for every program I'm applying to.

I'm a graduate of a course like this one and I'm a certificated paralegal. Feel free to ask me questions. How much is the program going to cost you, or is your employer paying? I would say that makes quite a bit of difference here.

There was a university in the Southwestern US where both students and a professor were outed for doing SW. I think the issue was that they were doing it with each other, but as far as I recall, no one was fired or expelled or anything, and there was just a degree of moral panic and then people got over it. Obviously, I do not know all the details of what went down.

Congrats on your acceptances. If you're trying to make a choice based on which will help you with your end goal (teaching English at a CC), then I'd say to go for whichever one will set you up better for a PhD acceptance after you're done. Rhet/Comp is still placing decently, as far as I'm aware, but I don't know anyone teaching it at a CC level without a terminal degree (either MFA Creative Writing or a PhD in English/Rhetoric). Also worth considering: how old are these online programs? You want the one which is the most established and has the most support staff and the best response times to your queries. When you're solely online, you're really relying on these people to be on their game so that you can make progress.

It's still a loss process, regardless of how you feel about your home town or country. Well, perhaps it's worse for those who love where they live already - but even for those ready to go, you still have culture shock and climate adjustment and new bureaucracy, etc. It's a big change. If you are a younger student, it might be the biggest change of your entire life so far.

You would probably be better off getting a credit card with a low limit, as someone else said. If you don't use it, you pay nothing. If you take out $5K through, say, a federal Stafford loan, you're paying back your $5K plus compounded interest, as no grad school loans are subsidized anymore. So, you would need to take out $5K plus the projected interest (plus loan origination fees). Another benefit of a credit card is that, if you choose a points based card, when you put a lot of your monthly expenses on there you'll accrue points for things like gift cards, air miles for any travel related expenses you need to make, or the option to get a check mailed to you. This is how I would get free groceries and also free gift cards to give to people for the holidays. If you're going to end up needing that money, I'd say the loan is a better option. Otherwise you're stuck with what could be a terrible APR on a maxed out card.

I've worked in the field for 10 years - you're right, it's not for everyone, which is why I stay on the program management side whenever I can. It has a large budgetary component, however, so whether I like it or not, these are good skills for me to have.

That all makes sense. I'm not interested in a stats focus but I did wonder if it would be useful to have - sounds like I can keep to my original plan of a budgeting/finance focus (there's stuff at work that I could benefit from knowing how to do, for sure).

What's your take on MPA programs with a stats or quant focus? I've heard people say things to the effect that MPAs with these focuses are in demand because of the skill set they give, but it sounds as though you're saying their skill set either wouldn't be sufficient, or that they won't land jobs where this kind of work would be necessary as it's going to fall to an academic instead. (I'm not particularly interested in a stats focus myself, I'm just curious about whether this might be a new trend to try to make the MPA more appealing or relevant).

I'll second what other posters have said: you need to get more experience first, not only as an application booster, but to give you more of an idea of what policy work can involve. You want to go into an MPP or similar with a set idea or goal in mind. Doesn't matter if you change your mind later. But make it specific. Have you ever attended a neighborhood association meeting? Volunteered to be a board member for your local library or for a local homeless shelter? These positions are open to any interested community members, and they give you experience with being in a room and watching people try to agree on something - anything - and then actually follow through on it and get it done. If you want to go into "poverty alleviation and family policy," it'll help you tremendously to know where the problems are. You're already going to get some sense of problems through the fostering experience so that's a good start. Does your city have funding for a homeless healthcare program but nowhere to build facilities because of all the NIMBYs? Why is your town struggling to enroll kids in its low cost preschool program to the extent they want to cancel it: is it lack of awareness? Belief that certain kids don't qualify? What are the issues and what's holding up progress? The more you see this stuff in action, the more your ideas will solidify. Plenty of programs (MPP, MSW, etc.) are happy to take the money from recent college grads with no particular sense of what they want to do, but is that going to give you the best experience for your considerable financial layout?

JDs are for those who want to practice law. Not everyone practices forever, and there are definitely other things you can do with a JD, such as become director of an institute or go into policy. In the same way, an MD could become director of a health policy think tank, or become the CEO of a hospital group. These are later in life career changes, however, and you need to do the attorney work first - especially if you have 6 figure debt to work off from law school. Also, JDs are increasingly taking non-attorney positions because there aren't enough attorney positions left. The field is suffering due to several factors, automation being one of them, so you're considering a degree in which it's hard to even do what the degree is supposed to be for. These are the patterns I'm seeing; the choice of what to do is up to you. You wouldn't be the first person to get a JD because you think it gives you flexibility, and you won't be the last. One thing I suggest, if you can make it happen, is to find a program which lets you do a legal focus, or at least take some law school classes. That way, you get some of the experience and knowledge without having to go all in.

Why do you consider an online program to be worth less money than an on campus program? A good online program will give you access to the same faculty, same quality of teaching, same resources, and same networking opportunities as an in person program. So the question would be how their program is structured to give you these things. Do you have concerns with how the online program is structured?

Some version of this is fine, honestly. It's helpful for employers to know why you're leaving: Are you miserable? Are you underpaid? Are you not growing? Are you struggling to keep up? Do you want to change sectors? Are you going back to school? People leave jobs for these kinds of reasons all the time. This is a great opportunity for you and you can feel free to emphasize that part. End on good terms with your current employer, because who knows, perhaps you'll be back there someday. I'm not sure whether my personal experience will help you, but I was in a situation once where I left a workplace I loved after after 1.5 years because suddenly a great job opened up and I got it. My boss, who I really respected, just shrugged and said to me "Well, I figured you'd be moving on if you found something better, you're a good asset to any company." So not only was he nice, but he gave me a great compliment to get right at the start of a career. Good luck!

Think about the odds of getting a job for which 75, 100, or 250 people apply. The odds are never that great. But it's also not true that you have a 1% chance of getting a job for which 100 people apply. Many people who apply for jobs aren't qualified for them, or they have resumes that are a total mess, or are disqualified in some other way. It's the same for grad school. One of our former interns excitedly told me she'd applied to a graduate program, and I asked her how she did on the GRE: "The what?" And yeah, the program required the GRE. So don't assume everyone has equal odds of getting accepted. Also many, many people apply to the highly competitive programs, which the programs themselves encourage (writing "our program is extremely competitive" for an overachiever is like waving a red flag in front of a bull it seems) to keep their admits percentage low. Same thing they do for undergrad admissions. And last point, most of these programs want you to succeed, so they admit people who they feel are a good fit, and who can manage the work, and who faculty can adequately advise, and they don't admit too many of us so they don't get overwhelmed and you don't lose out. Of course they turn away good people. Perfectly good people. And again, well, see those job stats. It's that way your whole life. But if you're talented and competent you have a good road ahead, wherever it might be.

You could take a few approaches. One, find out how much other people get paid for talks. You can try to see if anyone who does talks lists their pricing on their website (unlikely but you never know), or you could ask some other people. Second is to consider your expenses. What does it cost you in gas, food, etc. to attend this talk? And what's your current hourly wage? If the talk requires five hours of your time (driving to and from and talking, for example), charge your hourly wage times five. If you don't have a job, imagine what someone might make entry level in your chosen field and use that.