GradSchoolGrad

I'm looking at a list of target schools right now for some top orgs that hires policy graduate students. American is absent. I'm pretty sure that speaks for itself.

Sanford is an amazing program for State + Local domestic US politics. They have a really strong community and much lower cost of living than DC. The catch is that you'll be more dependent on the research centers and initiatives to get involved/pad your resume vs. being in DC. However, as a school, they are more career driven than McCourt in terms of culture.

I can't speak to level off detail about west coast schools

Yes, McCourt does have a track record of sending people to research organizations, but lets be totally honest how this work. 1. Lets remove all the boutiquey research organizations/institutes/centers (so basically less than 100ish people on staff) + the government research shops (granted I think these are better long term careers, but that is a moot point) and lets focus on the big research think tanks with national/international reach. These are the Brookings, Urban, AEI, CATO, and barely squeezing in is Mathmatica (purists won't consider Mathmatica in this group actually, but I do!) 2. Yes McCourt sends about 2 to 4 (among all programs - MPP, MIDP, DSPP). year to ALL of these for full time employment out of a program yearly group of proxy 180 or so (counting all part time students as well). So 1-2% matriculation into the bigs. 3a. How do you get in Option A - Faculty Referral: This is the primary way McCourt students funnel into them (mainly Mathmatica and Urban). Basically you RA/TA/GA for a prime faculty member with connections. This generally means you to at the very least share similar research interests + or write a thesis that stuns people. 3b. How do you get in Option B (usually paired with A) - impress McCourt alums at said organization 3c. How you get in Option C (I have only seen this happen once) - networking on your own (I can talk at length on strategies to do this). At large I seen this method when a person is interested in something no professor/McCourt alum is really interested in --> which happens more than you would think because McCourt's policy portfolio of strength is rather limited.

Good luck with DSPP program and reach out to me when you need a job/internship. Happy to help a fellow McCourt alumnus. Dr. Bailey is awesome. Stick with him and you'll be great.

So very generally speaking (since I have no idea what your interests are or background for a more targeted answer), I would do an MSFS only over MIA (I can think of lots of exceptions to this answer depending on your situation/interests) without doing the dual degree period. I have yet to meet a single MSFS/MPP dual degree person to have acquired a tangible career boost from having one degree complimenting the other. The general storyline of why people do it is that they have the money and time to undergo 2 degrees and since they have multiple interests that cross both degrees and they didn't want to close any doors. However, from the career angle, they essentially pick a career track that you would have gotten to with one degree (or neither degree), and not necessitating 2. Also, dual degreeing is a lonely life because you are split between 2 social groups (different grad programs don't mix well in Georgetown), so either go it alone or struggle to build a consistent network over 3 years. Since there are like 1-3 dual degree with MSFS year, I will tell you the 3 I know from my year 1. Interested in international primary education programming - removed MSFS portion to focus on US education with MPP only 2. Data guy who did a lot of independent study to focus on data analytics 3. National security person who wanted to be published a lot All this being said, I would say there dual degrees with MPP (JD, MBA, MD - which Georgetown doesn't have) do have more meaningful career value - depending on your interests.

Ya, I actually had 2 new graduation DSPP international students reach out to me for job referrals and I kept on trying to explain to them that they were not eligible for National Security roles that needed clearances. Although their program experience was really good, they just thought they could waltz on anywhere and get a job (even those they were ineligible for). I felt really bad for them. In most schools, a solid career coach or peer mentor / advisor fixes those false assumptions early in one's grad school career. McCourt underinvests in the former, and doesn't invest in the latter for organization culture reasons, so the numbers don't surprise me.

Tufts Fletcher is another school - for very different reasons (and some very unique to Fletcher) that hasn't fully postured itself for the future of Policy/IR careers to be future/COVID proof - granted their administration is trying hard. COVID just hit them where it hurts. I wrote about this at length in the forum previously as well. McCourt is hampered by the decisions they consciously made or refuse to make about their program. If you show me how HKS, Harris, SPIA or Heinz had comparable drops, I would buy your pitch (not saying it is wrong, but I would like more evidence to be convinced given how the MBA numbers are so different).

Again the 2019 - 97% is based upon self-reporting. I personally know people who didn't self-report because they were too lazy to or too embarrassed to highlight how they didn't have jobs. So even the real number is likely lower than 97%. I haven't looked at other Policy schools either, but an 83% should send alarm bells --> 14% dip. When I Iook at top MBA schools class of 2020 vs 2019, they at most have single digit dips (some actually went up) in terms of employment within 6 months. My takeaway is that McCourt is so focused on Fed, Fed Consulting, and associated employers, their students and student supporting resources weren't sufficiently nimble enough or diversified enough to pivot when things went digital (and will continue that way in some form even post-COVID. Also, the kicking the career concern down the road culture in McCourt doesn't help either.

I was a bit surprised McCourt even posted this on their website but only 82% (middle chart) of its 2020 Graduates among MPP, MIDP, and DSPP were employed within 6 months after graduation. So 1 in 5. Keep in mind that they only base this off of who responded to surveys. There is always a number who don't respond to surveys that is suspected to only bring the stats down. They also don't reflect the job composition (as in type of job, level, or pay) https://mccourt.georgetown.edu/careers-with-impact/employment-outcomes/

Ha I was wondering why you didn’t apply to USC Price! But Cal explains it

Correct... Make your case about a. the latest things you done since application to highlight your value to the program b. leverage other funding you have (it can't hurt, but doesn't always help either).

If it is $13.5K for 2 years, you might as well apply next year when the competition is expected to be less. If it is $13.5K for each year, I would say the same. The big exceptions to the recommendations is if you want to get into: a. Federal Consulting b. Data focused jobs c. Capital Hill and maybe a few niche things here and there... but not really much else. P.S. Still waiting for a McCourt student/alum to shoot down my points. Lack of disagreement speaks for itself.

I wrote about it at length previously.

I have met plenty of SIPA grads living the same 65 to 75K post grad job life style as McCourt alums. The big difference is what level of ambition do you have long term. If you are a striver and think the SIPA network + brand will carry you in the long run to fun and innovative careers, then it might be worth betting on yourself (emphasis on met). If you just want to live want to chill and ride the Fed Gov career or Fed Consulting life with some data knowledge in McCourt - McCourt makes sense. Just appreciate that there is little to no ambitious alumni community and your peers at McCourt won't really support your career goals (I knew people who try to hide going to certain jobs because they were afraid of the negative reaction for "selling out").

Yes, you can use it for as early as the summer (or so that is the earliest I known people to do so), but as I highlighted previously, career services is already severely strained as and its not like McCourt has strong relations with non tract job placement (like places you can zip in and out and not a formal recruiting process like consulting). You have an okay shot if it is jobs tied to Georgetown. However, good luck getting jobs outside of Georgetown because then you have to compete against the greater competitive DC interested career field. Also, unless you are evening student, it is a terrible idea to work full time (or should I say more than 15 hours a week) as a full time student. That is how people lose scholarship and go below a 3.0 GPA. At the very least, you won't take advantage of your experience to network and explore new policy areas of interest. I know someone who worked full time was a full time student - hated his life every day and had blood shot eyes for sleeping 5 hours a day.

1. I strongly encourage you to stay in California for school for the following reasons: a. Regional network strength and career connections b. Experiential learning tied to California and learning about California solutions c. All the California schools you highlighted here large Universities with lots of collaboration potential (if you try). The key context is this - California (especially local and state) does policy development and administration decently different from the rest of the country (and more different than non-West Coast. The stakeholders, best practices, considerations, demographics, culture, and etc. are different. I realized this as someone who moved to California for a short period of my life and was simply wowed by how drastic policy matters are different in California. Bottom line, my East Coast sensibilities + educated context/background didn't really serve me well professionally and etc. A simple thought experiment to validate this is simply this. As a Californian, how do you think about regulation car emissions? - well you do it as a State... same with medically required practices and etc. For the rest of country, the answer is Federal government and maybe as part of a regionally aligned/multi-state compact - not so in California. I can probably go with a lot more thought experiments to illustrate this, but that should work. 2. U. Chicago and Georgetown are essentially data analysis focused programs. Obviously data is important, but focusing on data means you are taking less time focusing on execution, org design, and best practices in your limited 2 years of grad school. Georgetown in particular is very federal powers focused and struggles with local and state stuff. 3. U. Penn is interesting because although Fels struggles in rankings, I think of hit as a very robust program that does really well for local and state governance within the Mid-Atlantic (although U. Penn is an awesome brand). However, this does not really apply to you. 4. Cornell is a program that is new and trying to reinvent itself with a cash infusion. It is not a good idea to go to a school that has a weak track record (though great University brand) and is far away from major population centers (UVA being an exception to this). 5. Duke is probably the best all around program for state and local policy/non-profit in particular - however it leans East Coast (for obvious reasons). 6. I love UVA as a program, probably the most leadership focused program. Most exits go East Coast as well.

What do you want to do with your life first? Function? Policy Area? Location? How sure are you? How much do you care about policy innovation? Which programs are you targeting?

No doubt Harvard is a great conversation starters at intros, parties, and online dating (not kidding), but in terms of outcomes there is only exceptional value for a Harvard grad (of any school) if they do a Harvard (or hyper elite - yes there I seen Harvard, Yale, Princeton only job applications for undergrads) only career path, entrepreneurship, or something completely outside of the norm (which don't get me wrong Harvard grads do better at). However - 80 to 90% of Harvard grads (and this applies to HGSE too) filter onto a standard career pathway where they are with Vandy and Duke grads. Within HGSE, the ROI is comparatively low across the board (based upon sticker price) because at the end of the day it is Education. That being said, if you want to do Ed Tech or Ed Entrepreneurship, HGSE does set up exceptionally well compared to Vandy for Duke.

So those centers in it off themselves do do interesting work. However, the McCourt name is tagged on them (and their Professors of Practice) to help the McCourt brand at large. As for real student benefit, I would say that beyond branding, they are an at large a Georgetown asset. By that I mean, they have to consider hiring graduate assistants or assistants period equally from all Georgetown sources (McCourt, MSFS, Undergrad, SCS, Law school and etc.). Do McCourt students get Grad Assistant roles there, absolutely. Do they have to compete against everyone else - yes. Do they lose to everyone else at times - yes. Do McCourt students lose out to undergrads - absolutely. At the end of the day, the institute/center dictates who they hire, not McCourt. Granted it changes every year, but I remember situations where there were 1 slot for 15-20 applicants (of all different programs).

I think you read the rankings wrong: https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-public-affairs-schools/brandeis-university-165015 Its 49th for best Public Affairs As for 25th for Public Policy Analysis and 9th for Social Policy may at first seem respectable until you realize how this ranking is done. This is essentially a beauty contest among Key Academics/Deans among the Policy School consortium rating each other. Nothing else is involved in these rankings. So 25th for Public Policy is pretty bad because, Heller is actually a PhD granting institution. That should naturally give it an edge over all schools that don't have PhD programs for Public Policy Analysis. However, there already are two schools (off the top of my head) ahead of it WITHOUT PhD programs - Brown Watson and Georgetown McCourt. Analysis is broadly applicable that is why it can be a viable measuring stick. Beyond that, when you focus on specific areas (i.e. Social Policy) you have to realize that it is about 2 things. Reputation and faculty notoriety. Heller is a school focused with a reputation on social impact and etc. (you can thank its marketing for part of that) - including its "Social Impact MBA". The other is that Heller has some academically respected academics tied to it in the Social Arena (you can Thank Brandeis at large). A. Marketing is marketing (and yes the Deans at these schools do target marketing to pump up their US News numbers for their website) and B. Its not that hard to add an affiliation to a Professor to give you credibility. This is what is missing: a. Career stats (how many people get jobs within X months after graduation ) - if it is there, I couldn't find it b. Samples of jobs grads are matriculating into by program. I can't find a largely defined roster (if it is there I apologize). When schools don't highlight these in some semblance that means there is something to hide OR even worse, they don't invest into finding out. This is what is present though. Among the key people they highlight in their other programs, I notice one person matriculating to a sub-grad school job (like a straight from undergrad role). Either the person under leveled drastically or career development doesn't get the job market. Either way it is a problem.

Heller is a cash grab by Brandeis (remember grad programs are usually profit centers for Universities). They don't have any real credibility as National program - some regional strengths sure. If you want to stay in New England, then it makes sense. If you have broader ambitions, you might want to consider better options. As for Ed Masters (counting Policy Tracts and Vandy's Ed MPP) vs. MPP bottom line is this. If you have any doubt that you don't want to eat, breath, and sleep ed for the of your life, you should do the standard MPP. If you want a more data intensive education, you should do the standard MPP. Its very easy to go from MPP to ed. Its rather difficult to go from Ed Masters to Non-Ed (yes, even if you went to HGSE).

Hate to damper on anyone's parade, but Brown MPA and Cornell MPA are basically awesome schools trying to leverage their brand to make money (because Grad programs are net profit while undergrad are net-loss) with new programs that are still figuring itself out and don't have a strong record of career success among its graduate yet (although in all fairness, Cornell is trying hard... but that's like App State trying to be D1 - sports reference). Don't be fooled by its slick marketing. You won't find many (if any) alums from these programs in blue chip careers. Also if you dig deeper, you'll find that even the pre-covid student experience was less than stellar. Don't pay and sacrifice years for a brand whose product hasn't proven itself. Pay for a trusted program that has real credibility.

Here is the deal. Based upon the acceptances, non-accepts, and other bizarre situations (deferments choosing not to come back, surprise last minute donors, and etc.) - as time comes goes on, each school has a better idea off their budget. For each applicants, this means your scholarship can only up and not go down (it would be terrible PR if any school lowers scholarship offers after offering). So sure, it might humbling and hit your ego to ask for more, but not asking is like not trying to hunt for your supper when you are hungry (imagine you are a lion in the wild).

Applications were up everywhere since a lot of grad schools made the GRE option. That lowered the barrier for application.