Boolakanaka

Well then, you don't seem to care about what we say so feel free to listen to your "many folks". Please stop wasting our time unless you want to have an intelligent conversation about this. I know Canada has great "Uni's", so as Master's student, you should know how to instead dropping pointless one liners. 

Now, you are being provocative for the sake of being provocative, and actively losing any sense of being serious on this board. Of course it’s not the same, there are entire systems of HR as well as academic integrity that institutionally prohibit such practice.

I am not ignoring, I'm just saying I have heard other reactions elsewhere and like more than 9 people have saids its fine/no one will care and in my personal experience, no one had an issue 
Nah haven't met anyone, just wondering if I should consider it
It's only been 4 people as well

I think it is totally normal to have loved your undergrad experience and want it to continue. However, being a grad student is different because it’s viewed as the start of ones professional career - not an extension of being a student. Dating an undergrad is just inappropriate, even if the age is the same. You’ll be in a different life place. And if you can’t see that? Maybe the issue isn’t actually about dating an undergrad, but rather about your own intentions and aspirations as a grad student. 

If you don’t see an issue: one, why ask? 
 
Two, you probably asked as there is some some internal suspicion, albeit small, that there is something janky about all this.
 
Three, while you have full personal autonomy to make such a decision, don’t think there might be some institutional and peer blowback.
 
Four, the fact you are fairly resistant to any of the counsel gracious provided, is telling.

Sounds like you are looking for validation and support of your own conscripted answer, and not the perspectives and insights of those who already navigated this path....

So roughly 1st/2nd year graduate student and junior/senior - approximately.
It is natural to rationalize whatever situation you may be in / want to get involved in and look for differences. Ultimately, you make the decisions for your life.
However, just appreciate that if you seek to dip in the undergrad pool, the natural perception from others (myself in included if I heard about this randomly in public) rightly or wrongly is that the grad student went the easy route because the person didn't want to become an adult and the undergrad made the power play and took advantage of someone who had to dip down. Again, this isn't about age. This is about what position you are in and what social norms are relevant to you. Look, I don't know you, but so many times I hear people trying to justify positionally imbalanced relationships with age similarity (for example, 30 year old doctor frustrated that her 34 year old boyfriend still clean pools for a living and tries to fix him). It has value as a point a reference, but it is generally less relevant, and your case especially, less relevant. 

Sounds like you are looking for validation and support of your own conscripted answer, and not the perspectives and insights of those who already navigated this path....

Sounds like you are looking for validation and support of your own conscripted answer, and not the perspectives and insights of those who already navigated this path....

Sounds like you are looking for validation and support of your own conscripted answer, and not the perspectives and insights of those who already navigated this path....

Hey, I get it, I applied to grad school after being a public servant for 8 years as well. Neither of us are saying you should apply later. 
However, 3 things:
1. From a practical stand point - applying to extra schools just to get a scholarship means a total waste of a time because unless you are extraordinary talent (former Olympian, former Pultzer prize winning journalist, and etc.) you won't be able to leverage scholarship from a lower prestige school to higher prestige school. Honestly, negotiating with a school threatening that you won't go without scholarship is probably more effective of a tactic vs. leveraging an alternative scholarship from a less regarded school. 
2. I get that financial security is important and everything, but one of the most interesting things I saw in policy school was how the former non-profits and public servant folks would be the first to do XYZ questionable activity for cash because they thought they earned the right to from their years of prior service. I am not saying that is you and I understand you are trying to do the right thing. Just saying - hearing some echos to the past. 
3. Since you are a strong candidate, I recommend you go where you will actually get the best ROI in terms of career outcomes. So for example, McCourt probably not the best options for career outcomes. Granted they haven't put out fact sheet with average post graduation salary in a few years (and the last one they conveniently omitted some people they couldn't track down / ignored the outliers with extremely high salary), last time they did post McCourt salary was less than post Georgetown undergrad.

I ditto GSGs comments, especially about next year being not just competitive, but there are many financial issues that will be coming home to roost, even for the most well funded/endowed of programs.  The combination of those two items will be bracing for many folks...

Ha... I think its hilarious that we both pointed to Yale SOM... 

Jackson school is more focused on international relations stuff, not exactly a policy school though. But you can dual degree with other schools... Generally speaking, I don't recommend dual degreeing unless you have a very compelling argument (I dual degreed). 

I would certainly look at Yale SOM (probably the premier mba program with a long history of educating executives for the non-profit sector, in fact, it was not an MBA program until the late 1980s) in combo with the Jackson School. Close proximity to NYC and very extensive alum connectivity.

IF YOU ARE THINKING OF APPLYING PLEASE READ
I have lurked these forums for years since first thinking of attending a graduate program in art history in 2012. I finished my PhD this spring from a top-tier program and I now feel more than ever that it is imperative for me to loudly voice what is, in some ways, a cruel but honest truth about this system: A PhD in art history is a bad idea.
Everything vivodito mentioned above is true. To add anecdote to fact I will say I had a tenure-track job at a decent liberal arts college revoked this summer because the department put a hiring freeze in place and is now cutting funds. I am now returning to a competitive field of recent elite PhDs from this graduating cycle in addition to those lingering from nearly a decade of cycles past. I have colleagues who are brilliant, and whom I adore, who finished their degrees in 2012–14, in the early recovery post 08' recession, who have spent a decade now trapped in adjunct hell, working 3 jobs a semester at different universities to make ends meet. The constant demands on their working hours means they are never able to do the kind of work museums or schools want to see in their hirees. They will never find stable jobs in the field but that doesn't stop them from competing with those of us graduating now. The finalists last year for Columbia's unfilled architecture spot where largely c.2014 grads. We should loudly sing the praises of those like Prof. Ilene Forsyth at UMich who had the immense foresight and ability to endow chairs on her way out, but sadly most institutions do not have such saints.
If the dimming prospects of the field don't dissuade you, think about the PhD itself. It is a horrible and arduous process that is, somehow, simultaneously full of some of the most amazing, fulfilling, and formulating experiences you will ever have. Especially if you are just finishing undergrad, know this, you will give your 20's to this process. Your non-academic friends will be establishing careers, getting raises, maybe even starting families or buying houses. You will be married to your work, your dissertation, and your classroom. You will make less than $30k if you are lucky. You might have health insurance, you might have labor rights. If you are lucky you will also see the world, meet inspiring minds, make friends for life, and learn more about yourself as a human (not just as an intellect) than you are prepared for. [I am going to get grilled for this, knowing this forum, but] EVEN THESE SILVER LININGS ARE NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE IF YOU ARE NOT IN ONE OF THE TOP TIER PROGRAMS. We no longer live in a world where the independently wealthy whimsically dig mummies at the behest of colonial Egypt. If your department cannot: pay you living wages, ensure full health insurance, provide ample time to complete the program (5-7 years), protect your rights as a laborer in the department DO NOT GO TO THAT INSTITUTION. You will be taking on debt you can never recover from and placing yourself in serious harm. For all my struggles this past year I have watched friends and colleagues from places like UWisconsin and UCLA absolutely suffer over the past 8 years. Imaging working a full-time job (your studies) on top of which you must teach (another part- to full-time job) after which you either make "Extremely Low Wages" (HUD's classification one step above poverty) while living in the 9th most expensive city in the US (UCLA) with no ability to unionize and demand better working conditions OR make NOTHING if UWisconsin cannot scrounge the funding for a stipend on top of your fee waivers. This is nothing against the quality of the professors in these institutions and the students they produce but know this: Yale and Harvard send at least one class a semester abroad on study trips (to places like Russia, the UAE, and Mexico) because they have the money to do that on top of paying their students over $30K for 7 years. Imagine entering the job market out of UWisc. where you never had the funding to travel to your sources, time to truly invest in your work, or chances to network locally and abroad. Now know you are against a Yalie who had the time and support to go to every conference, travel to Russia on Yale's dime, write a solid dissertation because they didn't have to TA after year 3, and spent the night before the CAA interview in a fancy hotel they could afford on their real (albeit still meagre) stipend. This is also not to mention the cruel and classist stigma of hiring committees: I once had an ivy-league professor (old white man) tell me that ivies don't hire graduates of non-ivies, "you can only ever move horizontally or down in the pecking order," which is, thankfully, not a universal truth, but one that still lingers painfully on.
"Okay, I'll apply to one of the top programs then." Not this year. As mentioned above, in the (I would argue correct) demands and interests of their current students, many programs are cutting admissions to support current candidates. Yale and Chicago are skipping the whole year. The IFA is reducing admissions to half for at least a year. UPenn is considering something similar. Assuming they will not also make such drastic changes, you can guarantee Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, Berkeley, and Michigan will all also be slimming their usual 12 or so a year down to maybe 8-10. That's potentially up to HALF the number of genuinely funded and supported spots available in top-tier American programs for this application cycle. And you can bet rejected students will be applying again next year, meaning the application pool will only be growing. [we can argue over who is and is not in that top tier but each of those programs pays living wages, insures their students, is overly represented in major fellowships like Kress and CASVA, and in new hires. Only ONE (IFA) is fully unionized, ensuring students are paid extra when they choose to teach as compensation for extra labor]
If you have made it this far please hear me out, none of this is a reason not to apply. When I was finishing my undergraduate I was deeply in love (and still am) with the field of art history and gave myself gladly and fully to a senior thesis supervised by my favorite professor who was caring and helpful and incredibly supportive. What he told me come application time was crucial: "If you can imagine yourself doing anything other than a PhD in art history then you should not be applying for a PhD." At the time I was a little hurt and took it as his admonition of my unreadiness for graduate school. What I have realized since is that 1. he tells this to all his good students and 2. the process of getting a PhD in art history is mentally, emotionally, and physically (yes, books are heavy) destructive work that will chew you up and spit you out into an even more grueling and horrible world, and if you are not so enamored of, so head-over-heels-crazy about doing this insane thing, weathering all the long nights, sacrifices of friends and family, and meagre living standards then you must (not should, must) turn elsewhere. It is no mark against you. There are brilliant, interesting, passionate, and powerful people doing all sorts of things other than PhDs in art history and I encourage you to think long and hard, especially now, if you are one of those people. If you can imagine yourself doing anything other than a PhD in art history—and I mean anything: an MBA, law school, finance, a start up, tech, medicine, hell, even history (those guys can get cushy state department jobs)—then you should not be applying for a PhD in art history.
If you can look yourself in the mirror and know that you are willing to weather the horrifying tempest that is dying humanities, collapsing departments, under-supportive programs, and a field that is only just (but thankfully is) beginning to deal with its historically myopic fixation on white-western-male-centric topics then I wish you the best of luck, godspeed, and may you and all those like you save us all.

That said, it does happen:https://www.today.com/parents/colleges-are-revoking-admissions-offers-due-racist-posts-t187632
https://www.ivycoach.com/the-ivy-coach-blog/college-admissions/colleges-rescinding-offers/
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/06/06/531591202/harvard-rescinds-admission-of-10-students-over-obscene-facebook-messages
 
 

Some do, some do not. 
If the program is highly ranked and has resources,  it would not be surprising at all for them to do a check on social media. They are not just checking on you, but also preserving the integrity of the program.

Certainly, other programs will follow. Much of this is to protect existing students and previously made financial commitments.

Progress!

Glad to see you are  enlightened and cognizant of the profound historical vitriol and public policy that dictated this long awaited change....nothing like the  premium of expediency and brevity to trump over being on the right side of history. 

WWS....there is a very good reason why their name was changed—Princeton School of Public and International Affairs.

In all of my graduate and/or professional programs (three of them) there have been convicted felons (and a couple of them had their convictions erased and/or overturned along the way) ranging from serial bank robbers to manslaughter. 
 
All told, they added much to the program and a rare and unique  perspective, often vastly different from the  persnickety affectations of an Ivy/elite education. Several of whom I was actually pretty tight with and they had unusual close relationships—for instance the bank robber was very close to a former NYC police detective and a night out with those two always resulted in the missing of any morning classes.
Perhaps my take is different than others, but being a man of color who grew up in a rough public housing, they often times more resembled my own upbringing and an actually a respite from the tight formulations and attitudes of academia. Finally, for me,  what is the purpose of a stint in a correctional institution if not to correct and rehabilitate and offer the chance to move-on. This in and itself speaks to some of the institutional bias that we are grappling with as a nation...

this shouldn’t be a problem at all. it’s troubling that there is a question about whether such people should be stigmatized in higher education more than they already are. being convicted of a crime isn’t the same as having “bad ethics”

In all of my graduate and/or professional programs (three of them) there have been convicted felons (and a couple of them had their convictions erased and/or overturned along the way) ranging from serial bank robbers to manslaughter. 
 
All told, they added much to the program and a rare and unique  perspective, often vastly different from the  persnickety affectations of an Ivy/elite education. Several of whom I was actually pretty tight with and they had unusual close relationships—for instance the bank robber was very close to a former NYC police detective and a night out with those two always resulted in the missing of any morning classes.
Perhaps my take is different than others, but being a man of color who grew up in a rough public housing, they often times more resembled my own upbringing and an actually a respite from the tight formulations and attitudes of academia. Finally, for me,  what is the purpose of a stint in a correctional institution if not to correct and rehabilitate and offer the chance to move-on. This in and itself speaks to some of the institutional bias that we are grappling with as a nation...

Glad to see you are  enlightened and cognizant of the profound historical vitriol and public policy that dictated this long awaited change....nothing like the  premium of expediency and brevity to trump over being on the right side of history.