GradSchoolGrad

1. The MPP in general across the United States (even HKS) generally lean to domestic policy (at a minimum) as the foundational education. HOWEVER, it is very very very easy to take domestic US examples as analogies to almost any country. The skills you learn are universal. In fact, I have seen many international students find learning the US examples (or any examples outside of their country) as a helpful example. HOWEVER, if you want to learn about pure international relations and not necessarily the policy aspect of it (IR is part policy and part relations), an MPP might not be right for you. 2. Bottom line is that the mainland European programs don't have as much global brand recognition + are generally (very very generally speaking_ not as interdisciplinary + not as cutting edge. I encountered people in the non-UK Europeans schools. I found them to be terrific and smart people! HOWEVER... I found them to be more by the book than the average US/UK program rather than thinking about problems in more interdisciplinary, bold, and innovative ways. 3. I think Fletcher School of Diplomacy is going to struggle in the future. It is a school that has a great historic reputation, but doesn't fully leverage its strengths (other resources across Tufts) as it could. Also, it is not on the cutting edge with data capabilities (no big data program) or major intediscplinary focus). I mean it has a relationship with Harvard, but that is a relationship that they brag about... and not organically built into the program.

1. By being older + having so much interesting work experience, that actually helps your chances of getting into a program + possibly even getting scholarship. 2. Also, you will likely be the older 30%, but you won't be on extreme for age. In the US, it is very common to go to a professional graduate school after 5+ years of work experience. 3. Some schools might have exceptions to accept a GMAT, but the target test is GRE. You might want to check in if your target school accepts a GMAT. 4. I recommend you apply beyond just HKS and Columbia SIPA. At a minimum to see what other great schools you can get into and get scholarship money for. Some other schools I recommend you think about are: Georgetown School of Foreign Service University of Chicago MPP Johns Hopkins SAIS (if you don't mind lots of math) With scholarship opportunities, the price might not be that bad for a US school anyway. 5. If you must go to Europe, I really recommend you go to UK school instead. London School of Economics might be the best option for you.

The type of job you have does not matter whatsoever. All that matters is that you were in the workforce doing something commensurate to (or above) your current level of education.

I am curious on what people think are grad schools/programs that will really struggle going into the future with so much change going on in the higher education world. Any thoughts? Mine is that I think the Fletcher School @ Tufts University is going to have a hard time compared its peers going forward.

Look, I am not saying if you legitimately will handle it academically or not. I am speaking to if the admissions committee thinks you will be able to handle it or not based upon things that have happened in the higher education world. I obviously don't know you, so I can speak one way or another. I can however assess how an admissions committee might view you based upon what you have put out. As for COVID, no one really knows what will happen. If COVID-19 stretches into Fall 2020 and they make classes online, I promise you there will be a drop in interest and competition will decrease. A lot of those who deferred will seek not to pursue their deferment. If COVID-19 ends by the winter, it may get a little bit more competitive than usual, but I think it will be negligible. One reason is because you are going to have a smaller pool of people globally that can pay for it. Also, uncertainty and COVID-19 and visa policy (granted that depends on who gets re-elected) will likely limit the international student population. We see this in the MBA market with INSEAD vs. US MBAs. Top US MBAs have had 10% or so increase in applications, while INSEAD has has a 40%.

I see Fletcher being extremely problematic going forward into the future. They can brag about the relationship with Harvard all day the long, but the problem is that they organically don't really leverage Tufts University that much as a source of programming + career strength. So they basically don't have a vast organic programming infrastructure, aren't really genuinely aligned in a multi-disciplinary world, don't really have a strength in leveraging big data, and historic strengths have been in NGO, non-profit, and foreign service - all three of which have been hurt by the latest realities. Oh and they essentially in a suburb. Also, the average professional American has no idea what Fletcher is. Don't get me wrong, I met some stellar people from Fletcher, but they will be the first to admit, that the school has struggles going forward.

In order to give you a solid recommendation, there needs to be a lot more clarity from you. 1. Do you have a regional preference on where you end up (by saying the words lobbying and political strategy), it suggests to me you want to end up in DC, but I can't be sure? 2. How sure you want to do Healthcare Policy? I say this because most people I know that go to policy school, have some degree of change in their policy interests. If you are dead set because you have a lifelong mission, that would be good to know. If it is an interest area with possibility for change, that is also good to know. 3. What type of job do you want? Is it on the analytical side? Is it on the policy management side? Local side? etc. etc. etc. 4. And obviously, who is offering you what scholarship? That can change the equation

Look, I fully believe in holistic analysis of a perspective candidate + inducing diversity (of all types) into any graduate program. However, at the end of the day graduate programs set soft patterns for admissions for a reason. One is to get a target slice of the total market applicant pool. The other is so people applying have a reasonable expectation to academically graduate. Based upon what the original poster informed me, I am concerned about his ability to graduate. It isn't about having perfect GPAs or anything like that (I sure as hell did not). It is about showing some level of academic or professional performance to highlight aptitude to graduate from the program (and yes Harvard MC-MPA can be hard, and I know smart people who struggled academically with it). I respect the original poster's privacy to not inform us about his professional activities. However, barring that information, we can only assess based upon his life of academic activities, which right now seem suspect (granted a lot of pieces are missing). I mention this because there are lots of other mid-career in their 30s, 40s, and etc. interested in MC-MPA, including some I encountered in this forum that bring diversity that actually have the academic/professional combo (although not perfect) to be excellent candidates for the program. Yes, I do know students in MC programs that have academically failed from the program. I respect Harvard MC-MPA for being a MC program that is actually academically challenging and does their due diligence screening applicants to avoid people are concerns for ability to graduate.. This is unlike many MC programs that are pure money pits and takes anyone who has the money and can breathe (slight exaggeration but you get the point). I am also trying to give the original poster a fair shake of what I think the chances are of getting in given the information available. He is already talking about competing for competitive scholarships, let alone succeed in the application cycle. He can ignore everything I say, but it would be irresponsible if I am not honest with him. Again, I can be totally wrong because we are working partial information here given lack of transparency (his right - I fully respect it). Plus - COVID has changed higher education and a lot of schools are lowering their standards.

I have been on committees with JDs and for University level programming decisions, and while that is often a point of conversation made by those with JDs, it isn't commonly accepted as the same in the academic community in the United States. I highlight this for the benefit of future JDs who may one day stumble upon this post.

In regards to MPP, I was speaking to myself. I know the MC-MPA well.

I am not trying to mean or anything. I just don't want you to waste your time. I personally spent 2 weeks to make sure my HKS MPP application was perfect. I wish someone told me that I wasn't qualified due to my lack of quant classes in college and hence my rejection should have been expected. Right now your story simply isn't matching up. 1. You are applying for a decently quant program while you don't have a record of academic success, let alone quant exposure in general (professional or otherwise). Please keep in mind, that they also take into account the quality of the institution, which you thus far haven't really given clarity. However, I can assume that by virtue of having C's in college, you probably didn't go to a top 50 US law school unless you had a family connection. 2. Right now you are not identifying that your professional exploits compensate for your academic challenges. 3. Most people I encounter at least talk about what their practice GRE score is, and it concerns me you haven't mentioned that. You have to build up to an awesome GRE score. I say this because, thus far, I don't think you should focus on the HKS MPA program. The fact that you haven't identified a back up solution is also very concerning.

Okay, I misread the part about LLM and him getting As (I thought it was another C). That being said, my understanding is that LLMs are 1 year degrees and that it is often desired for legal areas that have additional layers of complication (tax and patent for example). However, coming from the higher ed policy space, I also understand LLMs to be money makers for Universities and not exactly the most competitive to get into (below the top 7 law schools) nor academically rigorous (correct me if I'm wrong here). Unlike law school which is about stacking people (class rank). LLMs are more about covering materials. I'm not trying belittle LLMs, I'm just trying to better appreciate if an LLM really makes up for a combined undergrad and grad school academic strike earlier in youth. Despite not many people acquiring it, I view it very differently than PhDs, whereby most of them have comprehensive examinations to weed people out and is 4 to 7 years long.

I mean maybe you can give me more clarity on this. I think its one thing to have bad undergrad GPA and show upward trajectory with career success or grad school academic performance. However, if someone has gone to three higher education experiences at three separate periods of life with a C level GPA, wouldn't that be a concern for an admission committee (I realize the missing data point is GRE scores)? I'm sure a super super stellar career can compensate for that... but how stellar would that career need to be?

I mean, if you have an outstanding career (and I mean really outstanding), you might have a chance. However, if you don't have upward trajectory (I don't know if your LLM gave out grades), then your chances for admissions is likely problematic. You legitimately bring doubt upon your ability to academically graduate what can be an academically challenging program. That said, given the realities of COVID, who knows what will happen.

I think the sooner you get off the Think Tank train, the better off you'll be. Right now your career path does not align you well to Think Tanks period. Most Think Tank people are PhDs. Master's program don't have a high placement rate of people in Thank Tanks period (I mean people do go there, but they go there generally in junior level roles and find themselves hitting a ceiling whereby PhDs rule over them). It is better for you to go utilize your MD skills and combine them with a policy something and be a policy practioner in government, non-profit, or an NGO and then rebound back to a Think Tank later in life. Very few Think Tank lifers (outside of Think Tank management) really make it that far up the chain.