GradSchoolGrad

1. Decide where you want to live. Berkeley and Chicago are two very different places. Chicago is just crazy terrible weather 2. That being said, if you care about behavior economics, although Berkeley is great. Chicago is academically more of the champ. You can really use the resources of other programs in Chicago to get deep into behavioral econ.

By competitive roles I broadly mean role that have an extensive filtering process by the employer. So examples are 1. DOD McCain Fellowship https://www.whs.mil/McCain-Cohort1-Finalists/ 2. Presidential Merit Fellowship (granted this is the one Area American does decently well, though not great given their student population size) 3. Tech company 4. Federal Consulting for a major consulting org that does Fed and recruits on campus (so basically MBB, Big 4, Accenture) 5. Major urban area competitive fellowships like the Port Authority for NY/NJ 6. Anything White House related 7. Profession roles in Capital Hill (not to be confused with political roles which are essentially based off of who your family members play golf with) 8. Major Think Tanks and Research Centers Hope you are getting the idea As for going outside of DC, without question GWU. My friend moved from DC to Texas - people knew about GWU. Put it this way, GWU professors were testifying at Capital Hill about the impeachment (both times).

I would say it depends on what you want to do. If you want to fight for competitive roles, going to the better connected branded school does help you a bit. If you want to go into stuff in which there is strong demand but low supply (i.e. transportation, health, infrastructure policy), it makes no difference. I will tell you point blank in my experiences of engaging GWU Trach vs. AU SPA graduate students, GWU Trach students impressed me with their ambitions, range of knowledge, and simply interesting experiences. AU students did not. A lot of them even had conversations with me justifying why they chose AU (scholarship). I thought it was weird, but just saying.

I agree it definite can't hurt to call. However, it totally makes sense for 2nd year funding bump since McCourt (as a school) loses students between end of 1st year and graduation (my year I think the count was around 3 or 4). Supposedly the main driver is funding. Ability to graduate is another. I would be surprised if they pitch it to incoming students since McCourt is by comparison already more generous with funding than others schools this year by all indications regarding application bump this year vs. other schools from COVID.

Ford is an amazing combo of excellence at state & local + quant.

Understand that the donation doesn't = money available now. It is means money in annuieties over the long run.

Chicago is definitely the better school for quant period and brand has marginal to minor difference in top schools.

I am not from Washington DC. I did not go to undergrad in DC. I don't subscribe to DC undergrad school games. Nor have I highlighted that Georgetown's MPP is much better than AU's... Georgetown's MPP has its own problems that I regularly highlight. I was speaking specifically to SPA vs. the rough competition they have NOW vs. all other top policy schools given the supply and demand issues in the market place NOW. Yes, I never met an AU SPA graduate (emphasis on graduate student... as the American as an undergrad is completely different story) at prime competitive opportunities stemming from the policy world. We can look at this from many angles - just some examples (again for GRAD non-PHD AU SPA only): 1. National Security - Top Fellowship: https://www.whs.mil/McCain-Cohort1-Finalists/ (no one from American SPA or SIS) 2. Tech in a policy/ir related field - I never met any at my time at Silicon Valley - I'm sure you can probably find onesies and twosies on LinkedIn 3. OMB's Annual competitive Summer internship (not counting PhD - which American does send some to OMB every now and then) 4. As a target pipeline school among major consulting firms with federal business (emphasis on the words major and target pipeline school). SPA is not on the target list for them. (AU's MBA is depending on firm). Look, I'm sure there are bright American U. grad students at SPA like there are in every program. In no way am I the end all and be all, but the results (both published) and what I seen speak for itself. I have met SPA graduate students in certain policy wide events at DC schools (GU, GWU, Heinz DC, and AU combined activities) --> Again - not impressed by comparison to the other peers I encountered. I can speak to that at length.

Do you have the same funding situation? You interests in security & IO are decently different (depending on which IO of course). Which do you care about more?

Most people I know in Asian studies for both programs are China focused, so your life could get rather interesting. That being said, if you think you want to approach your career from a more commercial background, SIPA makes more sense. If you want to focus on security studies or pure IR, Georgetown MASIA makes sense. You are totally right about brand though. That might tip the scales to SIPA + NYC actually has a vibrant (yet small) Japanese community for you to practice our language skills.

You got money from SIPA - just go with it. At the end of the day the differences from the top schools in terms of outcomes potential ranges from marginal to minor. And in any event it isn't worth the $79K difference. I know people in SIPA who got MSFS/SSP jobs and vice versa. The only possible reason for you to not go to SIPA is if you think that SIPA's not so great community vibrancy will utterly crush your capability to perform in grad school. Hopefully that is not the case.

That is an odd comparison. It is comparison of apples and oranges. Georgetown MPP strengths are in domestic policy and international development. MIPP SAIS is more IR and comparative (regional policy) focused.

Georgetown MSFS or MPP or something else?

No those are two separate comparisons. I would say Georgetown SSP has more interdisciplinary opportunities than SAIS. SAIS, although an amazing school, doesn't really play well with the rest of JHU or even DC schools (for example, they are not part of the DC school consortium where you can take classes at other schools). If you are one of those people those people that does well with hands on learning, SSP is the way to go (since it is pretty much not quant oriented at all) as it is heavily focused on hands on learning opportunities. I know people who went to SAIS without a Quaint background and marriages struggled because they were stuck in the library till midnight learning Quaint. That was time they could have spent padding their resume.

Unless you really hate Quant, you should go to HKS MPP. The reason is because it is better to approach NatSec from an interdisciplinary perspective in my opinion + it is good to have some career flexibility. I know a fair amount of people who have NatSec burn out after years of it non-stop. That being said, you are giving up opportunities to work with political risk firms and up close interaction with the Beltway Defense infrastructure. However, there are many different ways to approach defense. However, if you look at the finalists for the McCain Fellowship for DOD, you have a lot of people outside of DC schools (granted Georgetown is the plurity/majority). Note how some of them did it all the way from the UK!!! John S. McCain Strategic Defense Fellows Program - Cohort 1 Finalists (whs.mil)

So it sounds like you have a lot interests and each of them are best served by a different program / have different set of considerations. That being said, I think I should highlight MPP/MBA combo / comparison. 1. Nearly all MBA/MPP (MPA/MPH in that bucket list) took on jobs that really hinged on degree or the other. So basically, they could have easily gotten their job if they just single degreed rather than dual degreed and the other degree is just conversation fodder at parties. The only exceptions I know are people in certain healthcare and national security roles. I would say 70% of those I know stayed at the MBA side, and 30% went to the MPP/MPA/MPH side (which makes sense, because they pay as little as 50% of an MBA job). 2. Nearly every person I know who was an MBA/MPP (or MPA/MPH) will say they enjoyed their MBA side better (in terms of experiences, quality of education, personalities and etc.). This is among ALL SCHOOLS. Even those who went towards an MPP/MPA/MPH hinged job will say the same. The only exceptions I ran into are those who parents made them get an MBA as a condition for paying their MBA (true story), so they had no interest in their MBA. Based off of that, I recommend you think about what matters to you in terms of career destiny - do you want to focus on the range of finance, strategy, operations, marketing jobs - most commonly tied private sector (although increasingly welcome in government and non-profit)? Or would you rather focus on policy analysis and policy administration. When there is an intersection between the 2, usually the MBA degree will take precedence in terms of importance for hiring. For example, MBAs have a higher rate of acceptance into PMF than MPP/MPAs. I actually have a friend who is an MBA but his wife was an MPP and got an academic distinction award. He got the PMF and she did not (not sure how their marriage is going). 3. Right now the easiest way to get into tech policy is to be a lawyer. There is simply isn't an established pathway to get into tech policy unless you come from a technical angle (technical program management stuff) or national security angle (and then do business integrity stuff). Ultimately, what I'm saying is that neither policy school or business school will give you a direct shot to the role. 4. Gender inequality jobs - that is very very popular area of interest in policy schools. So popular, that there are not enough jobs in the area for people to target. Most jobs are either advocacy, research, or non-profit oriented. You also don't need a degree for that. 5. Anything with an international focus. All three schools you applied to are not strong in international (not counting international development which is its own category). Georgetown MSFS is amazing at international, but Georgetown McCourt is pretty weak at it. The US News higher ranking has to do with how McCourt sometimes shares professors or the halo effect. 6. The MBA programs. All three of those MBA programs are very different in terms of regional strength, culture, and career matriculation. Even though Ross MBA is a top 15 ranked MBA program (depending on which ranking you are looking at), a disproportionate number of people end up in Industrials + Chicago from from there. I can speak at length to the various programs.

The ONLY potential reason for you not to go to HKS is what your thoughts are on community. I have family members who went to HKS + met there friends. Among those comes from a less aggressive workspace (lets be honest most non-profits are), they have found HKS to be impersonal and a bit too competitive/susceptible to FOMO with too many things to get involved in. If for some reason that concerns you and think will dampen your ability to perform despite the advantages of HKS, then I recommend you go to Duke Sanford by virtue of its insanely strong community. The rest of your options have good, but not great (U. Chicago Harris) or various versions of lackluster community (almost everywhere else).

you are in the best situation because there are lots of jobs for it but not enough people want to go into domestic health policy. That being said, it helps to go to a University where there is MPH program you can collaborate with.

My friends who went to HKS were not able to negotiate for leverage in prior years. With this year being crazy competitive, I doubt you could do so either.

I can concur, State and Local --> McCourt doesn't got much going on. They are trying with hiring a new professor, but honestly they aren't good with it from state and local perspective. Minor exception is ed policy...

One thing I will highlight is that generally speaking the DSPP students tend to be some of the brighter crayons at McCourt compared to MPP. Just look at the backgrounds of the DSPP students on LinkedIn to get a better sense. However there is a lot to be said quality of jobs that they get. I recommend you check to see if that first cohort got into things you would like to go into. I went to DSPP to recruit data savvy policy people and the answer I got from the students I interacted with was that they rather hold out for the perfect job per their policy interests rather than take what I had to offer (6 figure job opportunities in highly visibile Fed policy areas) + I found a lacking of professional communication. Maybe COVID made the latest cohort of DSPP wiser because @dspp_gradsounds like a champ. However, I found that many McCourt students had bizarre perceptions of their career prospects (including DSPP) that resulted in delayed job entry or under leveling.

Speaking generally, graduate schools will take in students as long as they have capacity. This is because although it is highly frowned upon, you do have students that pay their deposit and recant right before orientation. Each year every grad program manages their risk uniquely to their circumstances (as in extent of acceptance extension flexibility). So bottom line is that it is possible, but no school in their right mind would talk about in at length.

No. Just know that in my roles that touch hiring, I have never seen American targeted period. I have been involved in both domestic and international policy.

The reason why American has been so nice to you because SPA got some money recently and have been spending it on construction and overhead (AKA: not academic staffing). Don't let that fool you. Just go on LinkedIn to see where their grad students (especially non IR SPA grad students) end up and compare for yourself. The reality is that academic and professional programming is more expensive to resource and sustain + their impacts are long term. It is comparatively cheap to hire nice admin staff to try to lure students for immediate effect. American SPA is actually investing in strategic interests, but you don't yield benefits from that for years (if not a decade), so the short term improvements with admin is what you are benefiting on. As for Syracuse vs. SIPA head on, it totally depends on what you want to do and how you want to do it. If anything you do has a remote IR angle or would really be enhanced by experiential learning, SIPA makes sense. if what you want to do is more research focused and you value community, Syracuse makes since. If you go to SIPA, unless you have your own New York crew of friends, it will likely be a rather lonely journey (for most people).

I think it is a no brainer for you to do Syracuse. Not to sound mean about it, but American really lacks the brand appreciation, presence where it matters, and resources for you to really be bold and ambitious with your career journey compared to the other options.