GradSchoolGrad

I do believe the person was talking about MPP - hence McCourt School and not SFS's MSFS program. Granted they are the same University, the two programs are drastically different.

I don't know if traditional advice would be relevant this year given how crazy competitive the applicant pool is. Traditionally there is roughly 3 tiers Tier 1 - is full with stipend (McCourt Scholars) *not much in between Tier 2 - is about $20Kish a year Tier 3 - 10Ksish and below That might be the best guide I can give. However, admissions knows that many will negotiate and they will prioritize who they want to get. You can leverage scholarship from another school to get more money. However, at the end of the day it is about who they want to prioritize. Traditionally, I know people who simply got money by asking - but those were when admissions pools were weak. Those were the days when people with sub 3.0 GPAs and a year or so of teaching English abroad could get funding. This cycle... between COVID and much more political passion across the country --> applications have likely gone super competitive and other policy schools have shown indicators of this. All the people that don't get accepted into HKS, Princeton, and Harris that are still pretty awesome will be barking up McCourt.

Historically, your admissions comes with an announcement of McCourt Scholars Program. They like those with unique backgrounds and/or HYP/Duke/NW or Oxbridge backgrounds with easily defined policy interests.

When did you apply?

My point is that a 3.0 GPA can be harder to maintain than people think. They don't publicly reveal the stats, but it was a common point of conversation around McCourt - mostly as people were struggling with Quant. Otherwise, I would be generally confident as McCourt is under less funding pressures than other policy schools because they have annuities from a large endowment. They are however spending massively on a new building, but basically - as long as nothing is screwed up on the financial side, you should be fine.

Give it a day or so... They sometimes send out a 2nd email

So I'll explain it in terms of commitment + most likely. 1. Generally Speaking: They are committing to giving you 1 year of scholarship. HOWEVER... they reserve the right to not renew your scholarship the year afterwards. Generally, causation for non-renewal has to do with low-GPA (sub 3.0 - which is actually easier than you would think to do... I know a few people who were in that neighborhood). Then there is also academic dishonesty. Those are the two big reasons for scholarship non-renewal. 2. HOWEVER... They can hypothetically pull your scholarship whenever they want unless you sign legally contractual obligation between the two of you (which no school ever does). So hypothetically, say they decide to hypothetically shift money from McCourt to Hospital as part of a strategic endeavor, they can non-renew you. They most likely won't, and McCourt is doing well financially, but it is within the realm of possibility. Also, unless they are covering more than 70% or more of your tuition, I wouldn't go to McCourt given what I know now about the quality of the program.

This thread is for government affair masters, focusing on policy and International relations. Please delete your post and post on the appropriate thread.

So there are scholarships to compete for a student and then there are prestige scholarships to give students extra opportunities + responsibilities. For the latter, they sometimes want to award only those they feel are strongly committed to the school already and fit the bill. What they don't want is to have a prestigious scholarship to be doled out to people that they don't believe fit the bill or award a scholarship that gets awkwardly passed on.

This thread deals more with the terminal / professional Masters and not so much with PhDs. Most of us who are active here probably wouldn't be able to really help you. I recommend you post in another more relevant thread to get the best support.

So not sure how this applies to graduate schools, but in undergraduate world (among schools that aggressively pursued Chinese international students), there were lots of complaints about how US students were unable to seek hard sciences majors because there weren't enough instructors to go around as nearly all the Chinese international students sought the hard sciences. At least in undergrad world, the programs were being cut during budget cuts weren't the hard sciences, but the ones that are not seen as economically essential (i.e. Philosophy, English, History, and etc.). In fact, even in schools with small international student populations, hard science major demand has only increased among domestic students.

I seek to explore the Chinese international students because they in particular are unique in having massively surged in the 2000's and 2010's in the USA/Canada and have + are expected to "waterfall" (granted with some program nuances of course). You don't have another International student cohort who have this level of power in numbers which schools by in large are expected to have incrementally diminished access to. I was in a grad program that sought to build diversity + numbers by acquiring Chinese international students in mass. I saw numerous pros and cons to the student experience.

1. Columbia SIPA is great for Urban Policy matters. Although Urban Policy and Social Policy are closely related (and there is a lot of debate which is which). Beyond, that it is still good but not as strong. For example, if you want to stay in New York and do Public Health Policy for Brooklyn - SIPA is great. However, if you want to do Public Health Policy for the State Minnesota, you are better off going to U. Wisconsin MPP. SIPA is also interesting because its one of the schools that decided for strategic reasons to lump in IR with Policy. However, whenever that happens in academia, one usually is a core and the other takes a back seat, unless you are HKS or you find a functional focus. In SIPA, IR is arguably the core and policy takes the backseat. 2. UT Austin LBJ is amazing for State and Local + if you want to do some State + Local focused research - terrific resources. It is also amazing for having a wide breath of policy topics. I knew people that transferred from my Policy School to UT Austin LBJ, because it had more academic/professional support in less student popular policy focus areas (transportation, agriculture, and infrastructure). 3. Carnegie Mellon Heinz is super interesting. They decided to go hard in 2 areas - professional innovation + data (although depending on program, you don't have to touch as much data). Every Heinz person I have ever met has been in the forefront of policy new ideas practices and application was actively networking with it + involved in it.

I recommend you rethink the way you are considering best. You have to put more outcomes based parameters on it, or else it will be a nutty list. For example, someone could easily say IKEA furniture is the best if you are looking for affordable yet functional furniture. However, if you want long lasting high quality furniture that you can pass down to the next generation from a brand name, Ethan Allen would be best. So for social policy, I would say among your list, this is what they are best at: 1. Best for Data Analytics: - U. Chicago Harris - U. Michigan Ford 2. Best for Policy Innovation + Private Sector + Professional Academic Research - HKS 3. Best for State and Local + Non-Profit Engagement - Duke Sanford 4. Best All Around Academic Rigor - Princeton SPIA (they have both an MPP and MPA, and there is a difference between the 2). I can keep on going... That should get you started though.

Mitchell and Marshall are 2 of the most difficult scholarships to get in the US. If you also look at their awardees, they are also decently diverse in terms of make up and background (although I'm sure there are always opportunities to improve). I also know because I got 4 family members that a got rejected from both Scholarships with Golden Resumes and later moved on to other amazing things (yes, things like Harvard Business School, Oxbridge, tier 1 companies, tech start ups, and etc.). I have met the other Mitchell and Marshall rejects (of all backgrounds) - they are all ridiculous. I also met those that get accepted - also all insanely ridiculous. Its the super Olympics of academia. Not saying the world is fair (although in this case, I don't think its fair for you to complain given how crazy competitive these scholarships are), but you can either rock star at life (because there is more to life than these 2 scholarships) and move on, or let your long line off successes (I'm assuming that by virtue of competing for them in the first place, you have to have had a pretty amazing accomplishments underneath your belt) take a tumble because one door is closed. If you could achieve this far, I'm sure you have a lot more achieving to go with opportunities elsewhere. Look for those other doors. P.S. I have been rejected by every single scholarship I ever applied for. I also grew up poor and am a person of color. I'm doing fine.

Yes, I'm familiar with the MC/MPA and know many people who did it. 1. If you want to get into anything related to International development, then you go to HKS for the MPA-ID track. MC/MPA is essentially a hodgepodge of mid-career switchers and pivoters + check-the blockers for career promotion. However, the disproportionate number of MC/MPA folks are domestic policy/domestic politics and organizations focused. This is not to say that you don't have IDEV people there, because you certainly do. I just view doing the MC/MPA was rather high risk because the extent of IDEV people may not to be your liking. That a being said, you do have access to the entire HKS and Harvard enterprise, which of course does have value for networking. I do know of people who gone one from MPA to work their start ups and find their non-profits, but they have all been domestic focused (which is arguably easier to start and sustain). 2. You went from financial literacy in South Asia to financial literacy in Pakistan. Shrinking your scope will make job hunting difficult. Also, as you may know the geopolitical reality is that Pakistan doesn't have the best relations with the US and has strategically chosen China as a benefactor over the US, which will make any focused efforts on your end more difficult. As for going into an international development org s a C-Suite position (I'm assuming you are talking a boutique to mid-size firm), I fail to understand what your angle unless you sincerely are very woven in the tight-knit formal International development community. If you are trying to go for the program evaluation analytical route, you at least need research time - so an MPP would serve you well. If you are trying to go for a management role in the international arena, MPA may be of some value, but these days MBA is arguably more in vogue as fund raising, org management, and budget management are the life blood of non-profits. Simply saying you done strategic partnerships at a large at a domestic non-profit doesn't really translate to the IDEV world since it is a different community. I did hiring for a large domestic focused non-profit once and we never crossed into IDEV world and vice versa.

1. If you want to work for a large org (UN, World Bank, and etc.) you have two options - laterally transfer - after establishing yourself as widely recognized academic + major world/country leader. I'm assuming you aren't there. The other is to go from the bottom up and play the rat race game from junior staff/contractor and ride up. If you want to ride with the mid-20s up that route, feel free. However, I will warn you that all mid-career folks I know who played the run with the 20 somethings game for large org have hated it. Those orgs also don't pay well and career progression is painfully slow + professional development is a struggle. This might sound silly, but I have known Director level people of organizations start from scratch as junior contractors to chase their World Bank dreams and find themselves utterly disappointed. 2. As someone else who went to grad school in my 30s, I will tell you the age discrimination + fear of you having "too much experience" is a real thing and that will really work against you when you go to a program (HKS MPP) where the average age is 26 and most of the other older folks are military / ex-military. 3. If you want to get analytical skills, it makes sense for you to go to MPP. If you are just there to network, you are better off doing any mid-career program at a top program. What concerns me is that your interests outside of working at a "big org" falls under the big bucket of International development and hit is really easy to get lost there because it is so broad. Between SIPA and HKS, it is a wash. Policy world is one of those things whereby where you went to school won't matter for you (especially if you go to any top school) since you already have deep resume. It is just check the block for you. 4. If you truly want to manage you own non-profit - get an MBA (or in your case - Executive MBA). Organization integrity means the difference between non-profit failing or succeeding, and you learn how to build organizations and operations at an MBA.

Sorry, I was thinking HBS, which has rounds. HKS only has one round - so ignore that. What HKS will probably really hone in on are you quant grades. If those are good, you'll probably be good. I know people who had the President of their College write they were the #1 student, but they couldn't get into HKS since there wasn't sufficient quant background.

So when it comes to GPA, it really comes down to determining your ability to graduate, because there have been people with amazing resumes who failed to graduate due to academics. Traditionally, when almost everyone sent their GREs, the GREs provided a secondary data point to help admission office determine that. Had you taken the GRE and scored 90 percentile, you would probably be golden. However, since you didn't take the GREs + your lower GPA, it all depends on if there is something with a better grades/GRE who is as or more interesting than you and checks a similar diversity bucket. So basically, you are at a flip of a coin. I'm also assuming that you are applying for round 2, which makes your chances lower as well, since round 2 tends to be more competitive.

I would be a bit surprised if you got into Wagner or USC Price give how competitive this year is. However, not shocked because you do bring a lot of diversity (Transportation is a rather unique policy area of interest - which sounds strange, but it is true) I'm decently confident that you should be able to get into most of the other schools (assuming that everything else is straight). I think the best program for you out for the ones I thin you have a strong chance in would be GWU MPP.

Think about things from a school's perspective. It makes no sense to spread the scholarship money too thin. The real reason behind scholarships is so school's can compete for the desired students (be it due to academic/professional competitiveness or for diversity purposes). A few grand doesn't really change minds. More realistically, funding starts at a 10K or so (though some schools, might do some marginal stuff here and there as "pot sweetners, but those will be unusual cases). Basically you are either getting some scholarship (of at least 10K) or nothing. The people who would have the biggest scholarship differential would be those who are offered nothing that in more generous time would be offered 10K or 15K year.

Syracuse and Indiana is interesting because both those programs have really strong research (especially with their PhD programs in Policy) and produce some of the most ground breaking policy research out there. That is how get such good ratings on US News (that is essentially a beauty contests whereby Deans basically rate their peers). The research excellence does trickle down to the MPA level given your range of professorial and research access. However, both locations are challenging to conduct experiential learning.

Historically, they send you an email on or about the day promised. Admissions is actually probably one of the most organized parts of McCourt (other than Comms). At least for first round.

1. If you are looking for financial packages, you will want to apply next year + spend some time making yourself financial package competitive. Especially applying for round 2 - financing will be few and far between. Also, especially coming from your high end background, I strongly recommend against applying to less competitive school... GW European studies is touching the line a bit. Below that I would not touch because: Unless you have a great excuse like following your spouse, sick parents, following a professor, and etc. people will question why you are undershooting yourself and its an unfair stigma, but it does happen. Its actually happened to me at job interviews quite a bit (I got a really good scholarship too). Something along the lines of, I see you went to ____ and have ____ great job experiences, why are you going to _______ program and not other alternatives (sometimes they mention ranking, like US news). I also want to highlight that IR at large (again can't speak to EU policy in particular) is a bit elitist (not nearly as bad as Law or even MBA... but definitely still there) that is --> unless you matriculated from outside of IR (military, business, or sciences), there is much credibility (especially early on your career) based on which IR program you matriculated from. 2. Every single person I know who has done rule of development via the IR route (granted they all went to Fletcher, so not a representative sample -->, but itshould be a stronger school for that type of stuff), has told me that they always get walked on by lawyers on the reg. If you really want to do Rule of Law at large, it might be more beneficial for you to go to Law School or dual degree law school with IR (usually it is easier to get scholarship that way). I'm thinking Georgetown Law + MSFS being a good option. I do believe there is a study abroad option. 3. I cannot speak to the specific dynamics of EU policy. It might make sense for you to do a EU specific program like Johns Hopkins MAIA with a European focus + Europe residential 1 year https://sais.jhu.edu/academics/degree-programs/master-degrees/master-arts-international-affairs/curriculum

Yes... you are very competitive generally speaking ... but... 1. How much do you care about financing? 2. What enrollment season ya shooting for? 3. What are you trying to do with your career? Need some details to give you a more specific answer.