GradSchoolGrad

Where do I start: - Academics - super weak on quant, which means really diminishes the range of jobs you are truly eligible for in the policy space whereby you would compete with other MPPs/MPAs. Also relatively limited academic range - Brand value - not great, lower 3rd tier at best... (if HKS/SPIA are top tier and Duke Terry Sanford and USC Price are 2nd - Career placement - they don't show stats (usually that is for a reason). Also some of the people they illustrate as success stories are entering jobs at lower levels than the average post-grad - Community - lots of in-group and out-grouping (more so than the average MPP program) + lacks diversity - Cost of living - as high, if not higher than NYC Long story made short. Don't waste your time. Even if you are going there for free, I wouldn't do it. Yes, there is something as a higher ed degree going against you if your career progression doesn't reflect a bump from it. I strongly recommend you reapply for grad school for next cycle, whereby it should a easier cycle (less competitive), and you will likely have better options. It also hurt you to start so late in terms of getting scholarship.

You need to avoid Heller like the plague. Just read other posts about Heller for the details. I can speak to it at length as well.

It is both normal and not helpful to you career prospects. I recommend you consider areas of interest and shoot for it. The worst thing to do is to do nothing and stagnant - really hurts your resume.

So this is how I think about it. - Unless, you really want to live in NYC - there is no point in NYU - it simply isn't as good as a problem period (can talk about it in detail). - Unless you really want to love San Diego life or do something China related - I don't understand UCSD - If you want to be a diplomat and work with IOs, I would not do an MPP, especially when UCLA's is more domestic focused - I think this is really a race between SAIS, Elliot, and Walsh. If you really want to get in the data side of things, SAIS wins. If there is a niche that Elliot has that appeals to you (Space, international health, probably lots more I'm not thinking about), then Eilliot wins If you really want to focus on government to IO relations from a structural perspective, I think Walsh wins Hope that helps

Work another year. You can do better than McCourt

So you have two groups of schools on your radar. a. Focused study MA programs (i.e. Georgetown American government) - I think that is fine for immediately after undergrad b. Professional Terminal degree programs (MPP/MPA) - that I strongly recommend you get more work experience. For the remainder of this, I'll speak specifically to MPA/MPP programs 1. Yes - not only will you be a bit more competitive, but you would be a lot more competitive. It is one thing if you had a 4.0 GPA in something more math oriented like Economics. However, since you have Bs, no matter how great your humanities stuff is, you bring to doubt the ability of you to graduate at some of the more academically rigorous programs. You tamper those doubts by doing one of these things (or a combination of such). A. Solid work experience with strong performance B. Taking some quant classes online at a reputable institution and getting an A (I did it at Colorado State University online). 2. Yes, some policy schools are taking in more straight from undergrads to make money (grad schools are generally profit centers while undergrad are loss centers for Universities). However, for the better grad schools that I have seen people with you stats + solid work experience + solid GRE been able to go to (like Duke Terry Sanford, U. Chicago Harris, Goldman MPP), the fast majority of people enter between 2 to 6 years of work experience. For those coming straight from undergrad it is a comparatively more lonely experience because you can't relate to most of your cohort and vice versa. Just 1 year of work experience as an out of home adult really changes everyone. So if you care about community, you won't really get its benefits being straight from undergrad. 3. From a career perspective, you get the smallest advantage doing MPP/MPA straight out of undergrad. In fact, in many instances, straight from undergrad graduates take jobs with people who just finished their senior year. Most recruiters won't even take you seriously (AKA: put your resume in the junk pile) because they don't want to risk someone who doesn't have work experience. I am not completely against MPP/MPAs straight from undergrad. My sister was one of them. However if you don't stand out as someone competitive with those with 2 years work experience plus gone through similar challenges of someone with a few years work experience (examples are finding a non-profit, having run a small business on the side, managed a multi-million dollar budget. Also, graduating early also doesn't help your case.

I strongly advise you to get some work experience rather than go straight to grad school. Also, a lot of the schools you highlight (like Wagner) are famous for having a weak community.

You should be golden assuming your essays and recommendations are solid (that could be the deciding factor for you)

If truly love Economics McCourt is probably the best option here to get a PhD from here. Granted an MPP is not the best way forward for a PhD regardless. Its a professional terminal degree for a reason. That being said, if you can maintain an above 3.8 GPA (more realistically 3.9) and be loved by professors at McCourt, you are solid for going to a top notch PhD in Economics. I know someone who went to PhD in Politics and another who did Economics. If you dip below 3.8, then you can kiss you top ranked PhD dreams good bye (unless you got another ace up your sleeve)

None of those schools are great for UN, State Dept, or international security. NYU Wagner is heavily domestic policy focused. McCourt is Federal Powers and IDEV but very few touch State or Security. Harris is the best overall but doesn’t really attack what you want directly. SIPA, MSFS, and IR a related programs is what you should be attacking

I also want to highlight that I think a determining factor for you is how much you think you can do well with a weak peer group. Like honestly, the things going on in Chicago simply blow my mind in terms of research, activities, and just simply how get at them professional attitude they have. If you are good with Lone Rangering it, sounds like McCourt is missile lock for you. If you think you would struggle with Long Rangering it, then you need to do a real gut check. No joke, everyone who was flat out awesome (and by that, I am not counting Federal consulting) professionally at McCourt led a lonely life - as in apart from their peers outside of class.

If you are trying to anything Federal government of Federal consulting - yes McCourt makes sense for you. If you are trying to go non-profit, depending how you define Non-Profit, McCourt and MPP in general makes less sense for you. Non-Profit is one of the most over-credentialed spaces out there.

I 100% agree with this (in terms of applying late). Also, another trick to getting a PMF is to go to a top MBA school. MBA is seen as more desired than MPP/MPA, but relatively few MBAs apply to PMF. Ever MBA from a top 25 program that ever applied to PMF I knew has gotten it, but I know MPPs with better grades and arguably better achievement did not.

If you are committed to going to Federal government, McCourt makes sense for you --> especially since they gave you a fatter scholarship. Just be prepared to Lone Ranger it if you want to be professionally successful since your peers may not be the best at motivating you.

You have to think about the funnel. The number of people applying to Chicago are way less because there is a lot more state and local policy interest (from what my friends tell me). At McCourt almost every American student and their mother applies to PMF. I don't have hard numbers, but I would be surprised if the application to acceptance rate for McCourt is higher than in Chicago.

You need to do a lot of research on your own to answer that. I don’t know your background, earnings potential, and aspirations. You can figure out clues to all your answers via Google. I will say that next application cycle will be more generous for funding (most likely). Another pro tip... to get scholarships for MBA, it helps to send in the GMAT. MBA schools will pay for a high GMAT to boost their rankings, but not as much so for GRE.

If you already have all the data skills this or any comparable program would teach, I would really think about how you might want to best pivot your future career. If you are interested in the administrative/leadership side of policy or an organization, then you should get an MBA/MPA. If you want to go into analysis for Policy/Government, the importance is to learn about techniques and approach, and an MPP might be more helpful for you to get to new career opportunities. You can refocus your coding skills newly guided on Econ knowledge. I have seen plenty of coding savvy folks take their policy education as new guidance on how best to apply their existing skills. I don't see any point for you to enter a Data Analytics/Science program where you basically go to class to learn what you already mastered.

So there are pros and cons for every single degree to Ed Policy: 1. MPP Pro --> Fastest way to Ed Policy as an analyst of sorts Cons --> You kind of cap out pretty quickly as you are seen as 2nd class to PhDs. Not many key leaders in Ed are MPP. That is because it generally leads analysis jobs and not leadership roles (granted that is changing of late) 2. MEd --> Pro --> Credibility among the pedagogical community Cons --> not that credible for pivoting to policy. Oftentimes teachers are incentivized to get this Masters as a means to boost their salary as most states have a Master's degree pay bump. 3. EdD Pro --> less intensive than PhD and you do get to focus on the administration side of Education Cons --> not that well respected among the academic community (I have heard EdDs referred to as J/V PhDs before). Also, its not like you'll easily get a job based on the credential alone. You'll need a body of prior experience. A lot of times people get EdD's to pivot into administrative or more senior leadership roles in education 4. PhDs Pros --> most credibility and you granted the academics is research based, you can rather easily pivot into both policy and administrative Cons --> The time, the stress, and how the country is pretty much oversaturated with PhDs focusing on Education on one way or another Please keep in mind that Ed Policy is over saturated with graduate students interested in the area. I went to grad school seeking to focus on Ed Policy and then I saw people in their 30s with Ivy League degrees deemed basically stuck in the same analytical processes year after year in XYZ research center and realized I wanted something with more pivot options + growth potential. There are lots of policy areas tangential to education that are under focused upon but struggle to get graduate student interest. I have some former teacher friends pivot to these areas because its not as cut throat competitively (in an interesting passive aggressive way) + you actually have more opportunities to make impact. 1. Housing Policy 2. Food Policy 3. Healthcare Policy

I want to highlight that there is a massive over saturation of Ed Policy people in Policy. The easiest way to make your finding a job difficult is to go to Ed Policy. That being said, since it doesn't sound like you have a desire to stay in California, I would go to UMD. The reality is that California is pretty much almost another country (in many policy areas they joke that California is the Republic of California because they have their own standards for pretty much everything). California schools cater to California jobs.

Do you want to stay in California or not? What area of policy do you care about?

The poster is absolute right that many MA IR/policy degree holders have been readily disappointed with these career outcomes, no matter how prestigious of a school they go to. That being said, what I'm highlighting is the strength of MSFS (and more so SIPA) for that matter is how I see so many people pivot into private sector roles (that do at least tangentially have to do with IR) after realizing traditional IR jobs are out of reach/not their thing. One of my friends is now an international Energy trader and another one of mine works in international development at a major tech company. This is the very real safety blanket MSFS and SIPA provides (granted you do have to go out and seek it) because you can more easily customize your learning with resources from the University at large and the city. I'm sure there are Fletcher folks that also pivoted to pure non-government related private sector jobs, and I even have heard of a few. But by comparison their career outcomes (granted this is among the very few private sector folks I have visibility of) are not things that really required a graduate degree. Simply put with MSFS and SIPA, you get the flexibility that is less present in Fletcher. When it came to career talk, my MSFS connections knew that the undesirable options that the poster talked were a reality, but for those who couldn't get into their dream job of State Dept, super prestigious fellowship, or etc. knew they could resort to readily resort to the private sector before they were seriously in danger of resorting to a random military base in Alaska. My Fletcher friends dreaded the consequences of shaking out on the bad side of the career game because I know one who did indeed resort to going to a random military base in Alaska (others went to random military bases elsewhere).

Its not like anything is definitively closed off no matter which grad school you go to. However, what I'm referring to is the days of when you can bank on a job offer based upon grad school name with little to no performative expression of skills or baseline knowledge are going away (granted not dead). The reason this applies to Fletcher is that the opportunities to pad your resume with experiential learning is simply not as a robust compared to its top competition. This impacts all career fields - government, non-profit, and private sector. HOWEVER... realistically, this really impacts private sector most, because they care most about prior experience. With Fletcher, you have one summer internship to pad your resume. With the other power IR schools, you can get engaged all year long with lots of different things. For example, if an MSFS or Elliot student wants to get involved in Space Policy, they can start doing side projects with DC firms concurrent to attending classes. The Fletcher student has to wait until the summer internship (yes there may be some collaborations with a Fletcher professor, Fletcher research org, or Boston area org, that can also count, but the opportunities are not as expansive). After the summer internship is done, the MSFS and Elliot students can be on their 2nd academic year of experiential learning activities. A lot of the consultants, research centers, private sector entities, and etc. are not easily accessible to Fletcher students but can be to DC/NY schools. Basically, you get more accessibility to try out different things up close with the practitioners when you are in the DC/NYC schools. This helps in truly letting you decide what you want to do and gives you more opportunities for pivots. Yes, I realize HKS (another major school for IR career pathways), also has the location issue, however, I would argue that because HKS has so much access internally and with the Harvard Enterprise at large, the location disadvantage is well made up for. Fletcher alums often argue to me (in real life, not this forum) that because they have access to Harvard classes and some perks that that they have equivalent access to all of Harvard's resources. As you can imagine, access to some resources does not mean access to all the resources, the brand, the network, and most importantly, Harvard's funding for the various different things to get involved with.

Yes, Fletcher is really good at charming. That has been frequent feedback over the years. A lot of is due to how they have one of the stronger communities among the IR schools. The other is that they have to do charm to make up for their shortcomings. Marketing is powerful, but its important to see behind the marketing. There is always a darker side why things are so.

I wouldn't say its cut throat. Its more like there are so many different things going on you suffer from tyranny of choice and people feel FOMO. So there is a FOMO fear that I can see can translate into being cutthroat.

Since funding is not an issue, I think the big difference is would you like to go to a school with a broader range of career options (emphasis on options) or one that is more narrowly focused. What I mean by this. I know a lot of people in MSFS who designed their education / experiential learning to be more nuanced / niche to random things (examples off the top of my head are Data Science perspective of IR, Business Ethics, or Political risk. They were able to customize their education by leveraging Georgetown's resources as a University with lots of other professional programs (Law, Biz, Communications, and etc. + DC resources. I'll even give that Fletcher has a marginally higher quality of education than MSFS (in terms of consistency in high professor teaching quality), and its possible to bootstrap yourself into a more nuanced academic focus. However, my friends at Fletcher found themselves decently more narrowed in terms of education/career customization opportunity. This is important because NEARLY everyone has some level of change in terms of what they want to do going in vs. going out of grad school.