GradSchoolGrad

I can't definitively say this is what is going on, but if someone asked me this is what I would say is the best assessment. It used to be super unique, but these days it is increasingly common for accepted students to jump ship from their committed acceptance, up to cancelling their acceptance the day before orientation or simply just not show up. I mean hypothetically it is a breach of contract, but no school is gonna go after someone for it. Some schools have been building what amounts to a floating waitlist depending on how many post commitment acceptances are backtracked. - determining space available.

What you are highlighting is the academic lag effect. For example, a lot of academics right now still get giddy over healthcare policy, but it hasn't been cool since 2009. What matters more (unless you want to go into academia) is what will help you get a job. Yale is newer and doesn't have as many alumni to help you, but they are burning money to build this program up like crazy. Yale actually has a history of relatively young grad programs having outstanding performance - think Yale School of Management - which I believe is only a few decades old as an MBA school.

If you manage to do both, you would be the first person I heard of do it. I'm not one to say things aren't possible, since I myself did all sorts of random academic things, but just haven't heard of it.

It is a me or does every grad program type have a general totem pole of what focus areas are more prestigious to those that are ignored (if not even frowned upon)? I ask because I noticed that in one of my grad degrees, I get instant prestige in alumni circles based upon my area of focus. In another of my grad degrees, I am openly ignored to border line looked down upon based upon my area of study.

1. Yes, the clearance could indicate you are trustworthy for the admissions office, but after that it won't really have any value unless you apply for a US Government job. Also, I don't recommend you talk about it to your peers, just because there will be international students who innocently (or not so innocently - ya never know) bug you about it, and I know it has been uncomfortable for some with clearances. Things like straight up - hey can you please escort me on a tour of the Pentagon or CIA. 2. Generally speaking, you want to enter a graduate program with people with career experience, the more the better. In the short run, you get a positive education experience. In the long run, they tend to go further in their careers and have greater networking value. Unless McCourt changed its tune (which I haven't heard so), but a strategic objective was to grow the program by getting those straight from undergrad + less years of work experience. Financially this makes sense because graduate programs (even after scholarships) are profit centers that make the school money while undergrad are loss centers. The more grad students, the more money Georgetown makes for the year to stabilize their finances. Most top MPP programs haven't taken this route to maintain their premium student experience. It also doesn't help that it is expected to be a less competitive application cycle overall for MPP, so you will likely get more straight from undergrads in McCourt regardless. 3. My friend who quit midway basically reflected that she found the "traditional" IDEV community to be cliquish and less than innovative. As context she came from the startup community and was trying to explore merging startups with IDEV skills. Keep in mind that plenty of stakeholders who are outside of the traditional IDEV community who arguably do IDEV. In no way am I saying I am well versed in it, but I will try. Traditional IDEV would be something along the lines of going to a developing country, introducing Microfinance, and measuring its economic and social impacts over a set period of time within a given community. I personally avoided "traditional IDEV" because IMO there was: a. Insufficient emphasis on implementation - I believe implementation matters just as much, if not more than the plan b. It really doesn't take a systems level thinking - I personally believe that long term major impacts is better made via industrial policy rather than IDEV (not a popular opinion, but it is becoming more popular of late). IDEV is sexy because it is generally associated with being a humanitarian of sorts. Industrial policy isn't because it is more abstract and there is less easily attributable cause and effect. FYI: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/industrial-policy-making-comeback Yes, social trends in policy school do make a mark... the quickest way to be respected among your policy school classmates is to be a IDEV person. The quickest way to be misunderstood is to be an Industrial Policy person (granted that is slowly changing). In policy school you kind of get branded based upon your policy area focus.

A few things. 1. McCourt is trying to be military friendly, so your military experience can kind of count is work experience (although in a unique way). There is even precedent for it (but active duty military guys who went to undergrad later in life). 2. McCourt is also trying to expand the student body to include more straight from undergrads (this is a money making venture at the sacrifice of overall student body experience). So what I'm saying is that this works to advantage you, but it may not help your overall experience once you get in. 3. Do you want to continue to work in the national security or IR route? If you do, McCourt really won't do much for you. It will be seen as a generic grand school degree (granted with the Georgetown name). You might be better off going to Security Studies Program and just taking some more data focused electives. I don't remember any McCourt student with either the MPP or MIDP doing international development from a security lens. It is actually kind of frowned upon (at least with the McCourt environments I encountered). 4. Do you want to do MPP or MIDP? MPP might give you the freedom do whatever you want and make your own route with the Georgetown name, but you don't really get strong guidance from faculty (IMO). MIDP gives you a lot of direct guidance from a great faculty member. However, you are stuck with a small cohort and the faculty director is someone who has strong mixed opinions (I like him and so do a lot of other people, but other people don't - for rational reasons about personal preference). Long story made short, international development has many flavors and different schools approach it in different ways. You want to approach it the way that you like and not be one of those international development burn outs or people who quit midway because it isn't what they expected. One of my really good friends who went the international development route quit midway because she realized she didn't like the culture "international development community" (at least in a traditional sense. There is a lot of international development that goes on outside of the ID community).

This is a loaded question. Very very broadly speaking, if you are strong candidate, the schools should throw scholarships at you. However, if you seek to go in a niche area or have a niche background, there might be non-school related scholarships that are worth your time. I for example applied to and did not receive a Soros scholarship (for immigrants). A lot of these non school scholarships like to hear certain themes (you can see the themes from past winners), that are not necessarily performance related

Celine, I recommend that you think about this in 2 respects. 1. Ability to get in. This coming application cycle is expected to be much less competitive than last year's (the Covid cycle) and given your international status amidst a drop of international applications to the US, you might actually be able to get in without work experience to some prestigious programs that you wouldn't be able to do so normally. However, each school is different, you want to look at the set policy 2. Experience. In the interest of experience, I strongly recommend that you have at least 2 years professional work experience before starting. a. Coming at 20 means you won't be able to enter numerous alcohol serving establishments (drinking age is 21 in all 50 states), so that means a lot of missed social opportunities b. If most of your peers have work experience and you don't, you won't be able to relate to them and will have a harder time making communities. Granted one of my best friends in grad school was straight from undergrad, he always talked about how isolating it felt doing so. c. For academics, it will really help to have work experience to have an overall better learning experience. d. career wise for summer internships, you will be less competitive against those who have work experience

Well hey! Congrats! Hope you enjoy grad school. (especially with it going live)... and I apologize that I under indexed your work experience. I did gloss over that too soon. I should have emphasized that SAIS does value work experience, especially if its is more unique work experience. I should know that because I have a family member go to SAIS as an older student (like 40s) with no quant but lots of interesting work experience.

I wouldn't laugh at you, but yes you should take it off. Short of having Olympic medals or something as ridiculous as that, what happened in high school will be seen as awkward at least.

Ya but there are plenty of non-military folks who have really done well in their careers serving the military community at various institutions. If there is a non-PhD who done well on the research side at a major think tank/research center climbing the professional ladder (and not a transplant after some major government post), I can't think about it off the top of my head.

I actually kind of recommend you figure out a way to laterally transfer without grad school - maybe talking something in science or healthcare related. Its actually rather possible as long as you mark out a trajectory. You'll be able to be more influential that way too and start at a higher level. If you really want to work at think tank + research center, I will warn you that it is not a fun place. Not the best professional development and its a long road of agony to get promoted. Also, as a researcher, you'll always be a 2nd class citizen without a PhD If you go to grad school, your prior career experience advantage drastically dissipates because you'll be bucketed as campus recruiting or immediately post grad school (there might be an exception somewhere though). If you really want a Master's get a Mid-Career level program and juice out your electives with quant stuff + independent study.

First of all, I wouldn't call them "Computation MPP Programs" because that implies you actually acquire deep academic competencies in the core curriculum about understanding policy operations and/or policy management activity. I think it is more accurate to refer to them as "Policy Oriented Data Analysis Programs". The reason why this matters is that historically MPPs and MPAs chase after the same jobs, at least as it pertains to management opportunities. Granted the curriculum might be different, the outcomes (compensating for differing student population focus) is broadly the same. These "Policy Oriented Data Programs" are different because A. Career outcomes wise, you don't go after the same jobs for the most part. One can make a slight argument you do compete with MPPs for pure analysis jobs, but it is a straight forward link to anything with a management/operations angle. B. You interestingly become eligible for ALL data jobs (regardless of grounding). Yes, there are people from these programs that go to Facebook and other private sector companies. This is because at the heart of it (to some level of variation), these are Data Analytics programs. The topics might be policy oriented, but the methods and processes are easily transferable to any non-policy oriented data problem. Please also understand unlike well established masters' programs like MBA/MPH and to a much lesser extent MPP that have mostly the same core curriculum, these programs have actually a fair level of difference. For example, U. Chicago's MSCAPP's advanced classes are essentially Comp Sci levels of technical intensity. On the other end, you can graduate CMU MSPPM without getting into the CompSci depths (although there are opportunities to). Since you are already a computer software engineer, you should generally be technically in a great place. For you, its best you a. acquire policy environment/operations/management/culture understanding b. gain a network There are two ways to do this: a. MPP/MPA program b. Mid-career level policy program (assuming you have at least 7 or more years of career experience) It doesn't make sense for you to learn stuff you already know / or could easily figure out with one independent study class or so.

The Yale homicide was not a hate crime. It was a love triangle. The victim and the murderer were both East Asian. The victim was engaged to a White woman and the murderer (who previously knew the woman) was jealous.

Its help you identified who you like to work for but I recommend that you focus area needs to be much more specific. If you are focused on more International development stuff, McCourt MPP or MIDP makes more sense if you want to approach it from a program evaluation analytics angle. If you want to work on international development from more of an operations or relationship angle, it would make more sense if you did the Georgetown School of Foreign Service Global Human Development (GHD) program. If you care more about Latin America from a regional perspective, then Georgetown's MA In Latin American Studies makes more sense. If you mean democracy and economics from a macro view, then you need to go to an IR type program like Georgetown's Master of Science of Foreign Service.

The two programs at the two Universities are very different. McCourt's is much more academic focused with an emphasis on data analysis. GWU's is more geared towards experiential learning. Granted students from both regularly have part-time internships in DC, I would argue that GWU's students generally have greater exposure to the latest and greatest in policy vs. McCourt students. The Georgetown brand is generally a bit stronger, but the McCourt school brand isn't anything special. It ultimately comes down on what you want to do. It might help if you identify what policy area you are looking for and what jobs are you looking for after the fact. As an international student, please identify if you are trying to stay in the US or go back to your home country after graduate schools. That might help me help you give more targets guidance.

1. All About Capital Hill: Okay this kind of took me by surprise that you were interested in Capital Hill, because most people interested in it are in their early 20s. If you haven't already, I really recommend you actually talk to people who work in capital hill - especially if they have health care as part of their portfolio. - First of all, most people burn out by the late 20s (if not earlier) for a reason. - Your career success isn't necessary defined by competence all the time (or even political savvy). Even with 2 graduate degree you can easily play 2nd fiddle to some random kid straight from undergrad that your law maker simply likes better, or play golf with the kid's dad on the weekends. - Also, if your law maker loses an election, you would have to really hope you have enough friends to offer you another position (assuming a position is even available). - Work life balance - you can kiss that goodbye. There is reason why weddings, surgeries, and etc. get done during the fall recess because during the other 11 months of the year, you are at the beck and call of your law maker - Pay - starting off, you will be making what the average 22 year old makes - Promotion - that can get interesting. You can rise really quickly if people like you + you get lucky. However, I known people who were stuck at the same level for 6 years - I'm sure different people can have varying perspectives, but your impact really depends on your lawmaker as well. More often than not, it is about turning the gears. 2. For MPH, the top schools are Chan - Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and Columbia. - the next tier would be GW, UNC-Chapel Hill and Emory. All are good schools, but I will say the school experience and access kind of dips between top tier and the next tier (comparing my friends who went to each grouping). You will also want to do some research on what each school focuses on. I realize this doesn't totally synch with US News rankings. I'm trying to index you with federal healthcare 3. I really recommend you think of career paths that are more predictable and have more stable opportunities to make impact.

Increasingly, I have been hearing about how admissions offices are trying to figure out efforts to avoid "jerks" in their admissions process. Part of this is to foster a community oriented student ecosystem and part of their program branding. One of my grad schools subtle did the same thing. For example, essay topic/interview questions about citizenship, community involvement, and helping out others. I do wonder if A.this is smart or not so smart B. this is appropriate C. This might risk becoming subtle proxy for applicant bias

Your situation is a bit more on the unique side, but your story has a well worn precedent (although not common). 1. Recommendation about Dental School: My recommendation straight out is that whatever you do, do it with your medical degree (I am assuming in your case it is a DDS). The reason is that with it, you super stand out and become prime pick for any science, health, and etc. role that involves policy, programming, and consulting since it validates your health sciences professional school experience. Without it, your years of medical education won't be fully respected as equitable to "work experience" and you'll have to a huge cloud over your resume whereby you will have to justify leaving school rather than explaining a career pivot. For example, right now I can internally refer you to my organization's health team with a DDS and MPH/MPP - and you would start off equivalent to a post MBA (or at least post-grad school) level. If you only had an MPP/MPH, you may not be considered because your resume creates an open curiosity of if you "left school" because you were failing or were forced out. Even if you had solid proof otherwise, that is an annoying barrier to overcome and that leaves doubt in the back of people's head. Even if you were able to get over that, you would only be considered for an equivalent of role of an undergrad +1 year of work experience (AT BEST). Plenty of MPP grads straight from undergrad get jobs that are equal or only slightly better than jobs for those straight from undergrad. Without a DDS degree, you risk falling in that pool. 2. MPP vs. MPH Context: At the end of the day, I think this depends on what type of work you are trying to pivot to. IMO, MPP only makes sense over MPH if you are trying to do something related to lobbying or be a capital hill or state legislature staffer only because those are networks you wouldn't have ready access to on the MPH side. In terms of actual health policy and advocacy, we can broadly call it a gray area where it is arguably a wash (although the devil is in the details) in terms of academic experience. In terms of health programming and health operations, MPH is without a doubt the better program (generally speaking). If you want stuff more connected with the science of medicine, MPH is the better way to go. One key thing to understand about MPP is that there is policy area interest gap between professors and students. Basically, you have a fair amount of professors with health policy backgrounds because it was cool in the 90s and to a lesser extent in the 2000s. However, these days, even though health policy jobs are relatively abundant and high paying, there is generally little direct interest in health policy. In my policy program of 150 or so, there were 2 that were expressly interested in US Healthcare (I am not counting international development for healthcare program evaluation - I played in that pool and can speak to it at length). There is a general perception that health policy isn't cool and pretty much all the major research are recycling things already known. In programs where there are dual degree programs, for MD-MPP and MPH-MPP, you then have a greater share of health policy focused students. What this means is that being a healthcare person in MPP is a comparatively lonely experience from a peer perspective. You will also forever be playing second fiddle to those interested in education policy, gender policy, and international development - at least from social cache perspective MPH is a program that is generally closer to the science (oftentimes they have established co-programming with the medical school) and I bet you'll find yourself more at home and socially supported. I view MPH as the better program if you know you want to play in health because not do you open doors with health programming and operations (MPPs don't really play there) + you are highly competitive to compete against MPPs in health policy and advocacy. 3. Chan Policy School - I recommend you do it. Not only is it a top notch school by its own academic merits, but you have a lot of interdisciplinary collaboration with the Law, Med, and Business school that you can take advantage of and it is at a level and scale that most other MPH programs don't really have. Honestly, it is also a better school brand + outcomes (per your interests) than ALL of the policy schools you have identified.

Forum for those interested in the McCourt School of Public Policy MPP for Fall 2022 start

You can be hateful all you want, but it might help if you were my curious rather than judgmental. This video might help illustrate it for you: Because if you were curious and asked my why I give my thoughts in a blunt manner, I would say something like. - I graduated from graduate school 3 times (full scholarship each time)... twice focused on higher ed in different ways - Had the six figure salary out of grad school twice - Had the press clippings/social media postings for my accomplishments set but I wish much of it never happened. I wish someone could tell me the cold hard perspectives about how I could have not wasted my time and just done grad school right the first time rather than the third time. I know I am not alone. So many of my friends from grad school wish someone would have stepped up and gave their perspectives bluntly. Like many - I chased the pressure to just get get grad school done (with brand being a plus) without really figuring out why I really went to grad school. People just shook my hand and applauded me because they were too nice to really give me meaningful candid advice. I want to be the change that I want to see. In fact, one of the best off people I know is someone who never showed up to grad school after getting admitted because someone was there for her to tell the hard truth. Feel free to challenge my perspectives (I am of course very respectful and curious about your background and intents for this forum) and I apologize if I come off as blunt at times (I'll blame it on my current negotiations heavy job). But being being judgmental rather than curious means you are missing out on so much. I want to thank the many people on this forum who have messaged me with their appreciation (regardless of if you agreed with me or not). It is a honor to have helped you with you life's journey.

I recommend you look into MBA/Data Analytics Dual Degree programs then. A good one is UVA. I know others have good ones too. It is easier to pivot into your areas of interest with a technical + operations background than a pure policy one - granted it will take some work no matter what. As for scholarship - for MBA schools, they will pay to boost their GMAT averages that is published on US News. Covid might have changed things a bit, but by in large, GRE averages aren't published - so there is no incentive to scholarship people for rock star GREs. Going into a dual degree might help with getting scholarship, but the money most likely won't be coming from the MBA side unless you take a GMAT.

What are you trying to do with you career? Speaking in general, I wouldn’t give up on MBA yet (assuming it is right for you), because assuming you get a rockstar GMAT score, you could get some serious scholarships

You sound like an international student. It is actually a super amazing program + Nashville is an awesome town. Sure it doesn't have the Harvard brand, but in the world of education (at least in the US) - that makes next to no difference

They have stats from 2018 for MPP - https://heller.brandeis.edu/mpp/careers/outcomes.html Which is super misleading because that was a good year at large due to economy strength and public policy activation. They should be honest like other schools and post class of 2020. How they aren't posting 2020 means there is something they are hiding - either bad stats or bad operations. Yes, adult cost of living - NYC will lose. But grad school can be less since you don't have to worry about car costs. Also, commuting from expensive neighborhoods (Cambridge and BackBay). I mean different lifestyle will reveal different things. We can call that a wash. Good luck on your journey. I hope it works well for you. For everyone else, I recommend you read the fine print and in between the lines.