.
My question: Does anyone have an idea of what sets people apart for funding (rather than just being admitted), and particularly for scholarships like Chevening and Gates-Cambridge (for example, is it international experience? Very strong personal statement? all?)? Based on my results I am clearly deemed strong enough to get into programs, but not strong enough or as well-suited for funding.
Hello,
I work in the public-sector, with a focus on non-profits and social housing. A few years ago I applied to a broad range of public policy master's programs, including some American programs and UK programs like at Cambridge and comparative social policy/MPP at Oxford. I do prefer a UK program since I have never been to the UK and would like to experience it. I got into everywhere I applied, however, I got no funding from any of them, and I also failed to make it to the interview rounds for the Chevening and Gates-Cambridge scholarships.
Four years have passed and I am in my early 30s now and with strong work experience related to the programs I'd be applying for. I had very good grades in undergrad. I want to apply again and have been encouraged to do so by people in my professional circle. My boss for example stresses the importance of having advanced education in obtaining higher positions at our organization. Funding would make things a lot easier, but I really don't know the key to being simply an admit vs. an admit who is chosen for funding.
Any help would be appreciated.