Glarus120

I think you are still not understanding the differences between the two types of MA degrees that OP is deliberating between. That Poli Sci MAs and policy-oriented/applied MAs have different "focuses for placing students" is not a difference that emerges from those programs' "front offices"- it is the product of fundamental differences between the coursework that students take and the type of research they conduct. That you have all these coworkers with degrees from all those great schools you listed is not the point- it is the type of MA that they have that matters. It's cool that you know a handful of people who work in industry with Poli Sci MAs (although I would double check what their degrees actually are because you seem to be conflating several different types of MA programs), but, as a good social science researcher I am sure you know that personal anecdotes do not equal evidence on which to base generalizable conclusions. OP needs to make a decision based on what their individual priorities are, and I wish them the best in that decision. ✌️

If you look at what I actually wrote, you will see that I was responding to OPs question asking for advice about choosing between a policy degree (MAPSS, specifically), and a Poli Sci MA. Chicago MAPSS and Georgetown's SFS degrees are policy-oriented, applied degree programs. Political Science MAs are primarily grounded in theoretical coursework and geared towards preparing students to work within the specific academic discipline of Political Science. They are different types of degrees entirely, with different career trajectories. A Poli Sci MA will do nothing for you in terms of making you competitive for "government or consulting" jobs, particularly when factoring the opportunity costs entailed by giving up those 2 years in which you could have been obtaining practical (and, ideally, paid) work experience related to your desired policy field.

I am going to echo much of what previous posters have said. I am currently a Ph.D. candidate in a non-Ivy but still well-ranked Political Science program. I did not do an MA, but several people in my cohort did. The only possible justification for getting an MA in Political Science is to better your chances of getting into a good Political Science Ph.D. program. Even then.... there are other ways to make yourself a stronger applicant for the Ph.D. that do not involve handing over a ridiculous amount of money to get a degree that has basically zero practical application on its own. A Poli Sci MA will not help you get any sort of job outside of academia. It *might* make your law school application stronger, but the law admissions committee will consider that MA degree alongside a host of other, potentially more consequential factors and life experiences when evaluating your application against others. As a previous poster said, MA programs in Poli Sci largely exist as cash cows to fund Ph.D. students. If you have the money to burn, go for it. If you have to take out any sort of loans, I would strongly advise against it. Because you brought up "access to faculty" specifically (which is a very legitimate concern), I'll just say this- in a place like Columbia with funded Ph.D. students and "academia famous" faculty, you will never be high on any professor's priority list as an MA student. I know nothing about the MAPSS program at Chicago. But I cannot imagine a way it could possibly be worse for you than doing an MA in Poli Sci (regardless of the prestige of the department), given that you intend to go to law school, not do a Ph.D.