GradSchoolGrad

Total luck of the draw. It depends on how competitive the other candidates are. You are definitely very qualified. However, it depends on how many international students from your general part of the world are more qualified than you. You can't predict such things.

sure thing:

A lot of people have asked me about the pros and cons of getting an MBA instead of can MPP/MPA/IR Masters but to achieve government roles + social impact interests. So I'll give you some insights based upon my extensive familiarity of MBA programs + government/social impact recruiting for MBA. Generally speaking (of course the devil is always in the details), these are the Pros: 1. An MBA can (emphasis on can) be viewed as more unique, more competitive, and more prestigious compared to MPP/MPA/IR programs when being considered roles hosted by large organizations - for example - Presidential Merit Fellowship, the Mega Foundations (CZ, Gates, and Case), and government at large. 2. MBA also gives you flexibility win career advancement within Government/Social Impact to be more naturally considered for finance, operations, and private sector engagement - so basically more opportunities to do well and promote. 3. More and more about government and social impact is tied to involvement with the private sector (partnerships at a minimum), tech collaboration, and financial agreements - which naturally advantage MBAs. For example, I had a policy friend who got into sustainable housing policy, but quickly realized it came down to too tech collaboration and financial management and always joke how she should have went for an MBA instead of an MPP 4. A lot of government and social impact is also increasingly about acquisitions (resources, people, property, agreements, and etc.) which MBAs are helpful for. It used to be that you had some guru who did it for 30 years getting involved in acquisitions, but with baby boomer retirements on the way, MBAs are getting involved. 5. Due to how MBA schools are much more fiercely competitive against each other, they generally are very well run, well resourced, and well supported graduate school experience. At my policy school the ratio for career coach to students was approximately 1 to 200. At the MBA program at my University, it was about 1:50 (if you only count full time), 1:25 (if you count the part-time and full time). Basically, you get a very well curated experience for roughly the same tuition. 6. Career flexibility to also included private sector. I know people with MBAs only and MBA and another masters weave in and out of private sector and policy sector. They really enjoyed the diversity in their career. Yes, you can do this with an MPP/MPA/IR Masters, but it is much harder. Cons: 1. You can be the weirdo of your MBA program. Granted government and social impact roles are becoming more and more prevalent, they are still the extreme minority in MBA world (as in people will look at you funny, or you are branded as the gov/social impact person). That being said, some MBA programs are really well equipped to support you academically and professionally with gov/social impact interests (Harvard, Georgetown, and Yale come to mind). However, many may really struggle to support you. 2. At smaller social impact organizations (any organization that isn't recognizable outside of a small professional cohort) and policy intensive research organizations, an MBA can be meaningless (if not even a negative). Some of this can be attributed to how MBAs hasn't really matriculated there previously due to relatively lower pay/career advancement potential. However, many of my friends who were dual degree candidates or were pursuing a MPP/MPA/IR masters after having gotten an MBA previously found them treated rather suspiciously. I have plenty of stories of interviews whereby the interviewers treated an MBA with suspicion and viewed it as a negative investment. There is this legacy perception that MBA programs are basically one big drinking party and it is full of uncaring conservatives who have no interest in policy. I found this to be generally untrue, but heard this repeated to me frequently. 3. In many ways the MBA curriculum is can awkward fit for many policy / IR jobs. Analyzing selling soap is fundamentally not that different than improving healthcare, but there are fundamentally different ways of thinking fo them. I have yet to know an MBA to get a policy analysis/research job. 4. Government and Social Impact entities have their own social networks that often stem from the Policy/IR schools, so coming as an outside as an MBA can mean limited networking gain. What You Need to Watch Out For: Not MBAs are made equal. If an MBA supports government/social impact opportunities and has corresponding project opportunities in those areas, then it makes sense. If an MBA program doesn't, you should think abut other MBA programs or maybe it might not be right for you.

I gave up thinking people were good. I went to a grad program, giving up fine career, seeking to switch careers make a difference in the world. I quickly realized that my peers and people in the social impact business by in large didn't really care about the social impact they were actually making.

Just trying to help you out - but you really got to read between the lines rather than make broad assumptions in this game or else you'll end up hating yourself later on (I know people who do). HKS MPA-ID likes mid career professionals and is very analytically based. If you want to get an MPA from HKS, you would be better off you do the regular HKS MPA and not the mid-career oriented programs. International Development has 2 components - one is a program evaluation - which is highly analytical (but has the most job security). The other is essentially relationships management (think of consulting but from a social impact angle). You really want to distinguish which IR programs helps you with which (or at least how you can cater to it). Wharton's Lauder program on its own is not really a big player in pumping out people who are on the International stage. Not sure how true it is, but in the Wharton MBA admissions rumor mill, the secret to improving your chances for Wharton acceptance is to dual degree, and people add the International Studies Master's to the package. Have I ever seen or heard of anybody from Penn MA International studies do anything of note in the IR space - NO. Penn is doing a lot of these grad programs because they have great profit margins for the school (I can go on and on about this). If you really want to go the MBA route for social impact, the best way to do it is from one the MBAs I previously mentioned standalone or dual degree with a legit IR/Policy oriented program that has credibility stand alone. Unless you seek to go into VC, PE, or something crazy out there (Space Tech is something off the top of my head), going to an M7 MBA vs. a top 25 non-M7 MBA has a marginal difference (especially in social impact). Where you focus your projects, internships, and etc. matter more. Now it is legitimately true that there is a lot off residual MBA hate in some social impact circles (everything from stereotyping, to simply annoyance at the increasing dependence on credentials, and etc.) but those are usually orgs aren't exactly the most nimble and making the most social impact. Places like Gates Foundation or Chan Zuckerberg - do however generally appreciate MBAs. What I recommend you do right now is move away from the names that sound appealing and really focus on what sort of jobs you really care about and do a LinkedIn search (you may have to buy a premium edition) and see where those people's backgrounds came from. If you go with the I think this name sounds cool game, you can easily end up disappointed.

So first off, you need to appreciate that you are pretty competitive for 3 reasons. 1. Great academic background (quant and diverse experience) 2. Management Consulting is actually really desired in public sector --> means high level of employability, good experience, and makes you diverse (not many private sector consultants floating around in Policy schools) 3. Public sector exposure (you aren't one of those people doing a career change blind) --> assuming you can tell a compelling story with it. I will tell you point blank that the two people I helped from consulting backgrounds, did really well with admissions. Ultimately what I'm saying is that I think you should be able to apply in round 1 Fall of 2021 and do really well. Plus by the time you enroll in Fall 2022 you'll have the requisite number for consulting to look shiny on your resume for career purposes (almost 3 years + I'm assuming at least one promotion - possibly 2). The 2021 school application cycle is also expected to be less competitive than the 2020 one (though probably more competitive than the 2019 one) as you won't be dealing with so many deferrals. I think your big problem is that you clearly haven't done the research of what school requirements are + what programs are right for you. I says this because Johns Hopkins doesn't have an MPA degree. What you need to figure out: 1. Do you want to focus on International Relations / International Development? - if you want to do that it makes sense for you to focus on IR programs instead of MPA type programs? 2. How much do you care about policy analysis? - if you think you are a policy analysis person, you should try to shoot for an MPP (they compete in the same types of jobs as MPAs, but generally have a bit more of an edge on the analytical side of things). 3. If you really want to do public sector management and administration - an MPA does make sense 4. If you want to do things that interact a lot with finances (such as urban policy as it pertains to housing or anything involving tech or public private partnerships) - it might make sense for you to do an MBA. Increasingly MBA programs are have a social impact angle. More notable among them (as in those with social impact angles) are Yale SOM, Georgetown MSB, Stanford GSB, and Harvard Business School

I think you very much misunderstanding the curriculum of Stanford MIP. Yes, the curriculum is more policy oriented than most other IR programs, the central focus of it is still IR related (relations between countries). There is obviously an International development component to that, but it your goal is to advise on domestic policy, Stanford MIP is not equipping your with the alumni networks + academics in the best way. My recommendation for you is this (assuming you are still focused on domestic policy advising): 1. SIPA-MPA is great.. I would be surprised if you don't get admitted due to you highly competitive back ground + diversity 2. Drop Cornell CPA, there are much better safety net opportunities that fit you better. These are the additional schools I recommend you add given your disinclination to take the GRE. a. University of Chicago - Harris (if you want to focus on a very analytically driven policy focus) b. Princeton MPA (I'm assuming you have at least 7 years work experience). c. Safety - Terry Sanford MPP at Duke (I can give you other options but, this is the best in terms of domestic policy matters).

Special staff to which President??? Thus far it seems like your background is very solid. What I don't understand is why you would ever want to apply to Cornell MPA. It is pretty much a 2nd tier policy school (great University name, terrible . Someone with your competitive background could do so much better. What I also don't get is why you aren't applying to the top tier of US policy/IR programs? It would be helpful to clarify if you want your academic focus to be IR related or policy related. Right now it makes no sense that you want an IR program for Stanford and two MPA options from programs that generally use US domestic policy case studies. If you are looking for International development, that is another conversation to be had.

I mean there is a lot of information missing here. 1. Where did you go to undergrad and how difficult was your major? I mean some Art programs are super easy... Others are known to be painfully difficult. No one really cares what you undergrad major was, but if you did things like a honors thesis or performance, it shows that you sought challenges. 2. Public relations and comms - that is pretty broad. Please specify your level of leadership and experience 3. Why no GRE? The only reason why I think it might matter is if you don't have any quant classes in your undergrad. There are some quant (though not crazy quant) core classes at MSFS, and good GRE Quant score would give confidence in your ability to graduate. The International Trade class (which was a core class back when I was in school) gives non-quant students lots of heartburn. Normally, someone who recently attended a graduate program would be free of GRE pressures, but everyone in Georgetown knows that SPS doesn't require GRE. 4. Leadership experience? Scope of responsibility? People managed? 5. Why a Master's now? What do you want to do with it?

This is a graduate school forum. I don't think we would be particularly helpful.

I think you are exceedingly competitive. My concern for you is how much funding you get. This year is crazy because a lot of the funding money is short + there is much less to dole out after round 1. If you prioritize saving a year, doing so now might be worth. I however recommend you apply for Fall 2022 in order to a. have better chances at funding going against a less competitive peer group + schools that are less resource challenged + apply in round 1 and b. Not having to worry about the COVID restrictions on campus (granted I would bet they have on campus classes). Full Normalcy is expected Jan 2022ish.

Here is the deal. Your fundamentals are good, but not great. Your uniqueness is there, but nothing competitively extraordinary. Unless there is something you are not telling me, the biggest thing you are missing is a wow factor - things like, started a non-profit, lead XYZ initiative at an NGO, published on XYZ. What I'm saying is that unless you are Nationally sponsored with a school with a pre-existing agreement through your government, your chances are not good, especially for this year.

Not taking the GRE is like going on a road trip with the gas tank half empty through Nevada. Sure, you might be fine, but you don't want to be the unlucky person going on a long stretch and find yourself out of gas with no gas station available. That is what Grad school is like for this year. 1. Getting in can be rough if there are more capable people than you. Granted you might be competitive in normal years, this is a crazy competitive year. 2. Schools will pay for higher GRE scores... not submitting your GRE risks your ability to get funding (or at least more funding). PMP generally matters in legacy businesses and industries (well some functions too - like supply chain). No one really cares in IR space.

So my awareness of the Schar schools comes strictly from the experience of their Master's students + my coordination of events with their programming professors. I will acknowledge that this is 2-4 years old awareness and I know they have massively invested in their programming, so there may have been meaningful change. The Good / Cool: 1. Schar has a large group of Professors in really cool and interesting research in really niche areas. For example, the foremost expert in White American Working Class political disaffection is in Schar. The foremost expert on Scottish Independence is actually in Schar and not Scotland. You should get the point. 2. Schar does have numerous unique connections with the Defense sector - especially as it relates niche things like NPT and bioterrorism 3. Its campus is in Arlington - not Fairfax, and is decently accessible to the metro 4. Lots of interdisciplinary options and freedom to craft independent projects (I knew someone who did this awesome project on Student Athletes and the NCAA. 5. Huge diversity of students in every which way - you get straight from undergrad to 50 year olds trying to do a late career transition with all sorts of diverse groups in between. Why I Recommend People Don't Go There Unless They Are Sponsored / Have a Highly Desirable Niche / In the Military for their MPP 1. Student experience circle 2017 feed back was that it was generally terrible in the sense that there is little to no meaningful student community and programming of value. It was very common to not have grad school friends or to socialize with grad school friends because people just went to class and left. 2. My friends who went there mentioned regularly about how unchallenging and easy the classes were. I know people who had high stress 60+ hours per week jobs who purposely chose the program just because they couldn't get promoted without a Master's degree at their company, and they knew how easy the programs were at Schar 3. A Brand problem. GM is viewed as a commuter school locally, and a lot of times people just don't take GM seriously compared to the other schools with graduate programs in the space: American, Georgetown, GW, Johns Hopkins, UMD, and if you want to stretch it - UVA... and that is just within the Capital Regoin 4. A curriculum problem - bottom line GM is on the much lower end of quant in their curriculum - like you can graduate with 1 basic level stats class for their MPP. This can be problematic when conversations are moderately data intensive (and yes this did happen when professionally working with a GM grad - great person though). Final Thoughts: My friends succeeded after Schar because they were all sponsored and need grad school to check the block. But they mentioned how bad they felt for their peers in non-defense areas in terms of employment opportunities + grad school experience. Again, this is dated to 3 years agoish. Things could have drastically changed.

In light of the recent OpEd about Dr. Jill Biden (you can google it if you want to see what it is about and controversy), it made me think about my many Ph.D. or ___.D who refuse to address themselves as Dr. ______. I hope this episode encourages more people to be proud of their accomplishment and have them be identified as Drs. However, I am not a Ph.D. or __. D. That being said, what is the norm? Why do so many Ph.D.s and ___. D.s don't proactively establish themselves as a Dr.? Do you think this latest episode will change things?

I completely understand your situation, and I hear stories of other people (especially international students) who struggle to take the GRE due to logistics in today's times. However, you need to realize that not requiring it doesn't mean that sending it won't help you. Yes, you come from a more unique part of the world and you have a unique professional background --> that makes you diverse. However, since there is not a consistent population of people from Indonesia and your university coming to US policy schools, admissions offices may struggle with familiarity of your institution. It would be one thing if you were the top 10% student in your school with a 3.7 GPA with lots of awards + a publication in English. However, you have an good but not great GPA from school that I assume is not English speaking. In order to give confidence that you can actually graduate in a difficult English curriculum, and that is where a great GRE score can help you and stop any doubts. You have to understand that pre-COVID, back when policy schools (even HKS) were struggling to get the desired number of applicants, policy schools had heartburn with international students that they took risks on who then struggled to graduate based upon the English material + teamwork dynamic or transition to the US style of education. Right now, based off of what you tell me, these would be the doubts I have. 1. This person clearly did okay to good... academically at the home institution, but how do I know this person can succeed with English classes whereby team work and participation is necessary. This especially since your IELTS is a 7.5 - which is good, but not great. You have to keep in mind that you are going for some of the most competitive programs in the US. 2. You did you work in a name brand International company (the accounting firm), but only 8 months (which ice fine... but you might have to explain it), because traditionally, people stay at least 2 years in order to gain the credibility. An 8 month stay at non-start up hints at initial career difficulty at high performing job. Not saying that is so, but that can raise concerns. What I'm saying is this. If you were an American student, I don't see you getting into either program based on your grades + if it was generic work experience. As an international student coming from a less common country (Indonesia) + being a former accountant with lots of career experience, that helps you. Without good GRE scores to give confidence in you, I don't know if it helps you enough to get in. Maybe it could because of the diversity factor. However, this is an extra competitive environment for US graduate school applications. You might slide by in a normal year, but this year could be tough.

1. Being an auditor is great! It makes you unique 2. Your biggest problem is no GRE -it brings into doubt your ability to graduate

I was hoping some folks can give some input about the George Mason Schar School graduate programs. I know people who went to that program 2 years ago or so and have consistently the same feedback. I wanted to check to see if anything has changed.

I am speaking specifically for the Grad programs, hence this is Grad forum, and this is the first time I have ever engaged in a discussion about undergrad outcomes.

Okay, 1. your lack of math (realistically only Calc and econometrics counts. Basic college Stats - barely) + low GPA + no GRE basically is sealing U. Chicago Harris and UC Berk - Goldman out of range for you --> as more quant programs. This is especially problematic because program evaluation is considered high quant (at least academically, and you are challenged coming from a point of major disadvantage). 2. You don't want to tailor for schools, because you never know what schools want and after reading 200 + essays, people get good at smoking out potentially disingenuousness. My entire point is that you need to figure out a brand instead kitchen sink mess. An example for a brand (and I'm pure speculating here) - Tech solutions for social/urban policy (if you want to narrow it down to something - employment opportunities and etc. - the better). Basically in 7 words or less, you want to highlight what you are functionally targeting (tech solutions in this example) and area of interest (social policy). Personally, my brand (at least going into policy school) was Programming and budget for higher education policy 3. Okay great you got leadership 4. You tell me what touched policy the most (being honest about it). I don't know your life. A normal person would see an NGO work on resume and think oh, this person at least interfaced with policy. You have to tell the compelling story and make the connections. 5. Okay great - note that you had to part time employment in order to financially supported yourself) + had multiple issues with illness (obviously put in a more meaningful and persuasive way). 6. At a certain point graduate school isn't worth your time and money. I would draw the line at the Scharr school. Unless you are going into the Scharr school with a Top Secret Clearance, prior background in one of their niches (like bioterrorism), or you are employer sponsored, it is simply a terrible idea. a. Professionally the school does a terrible job developing you as its student organized structures and support infrastructure are utter disorganized. What I'm trying to highlight is not only a weak student community, but an insignificant one. One of my friends who went there (employer sponsored) actually purposely chose Scharr so she wouldn't have to make friends, knowing in advance there are no community pressures. b. I never seen any Scharr student at conferences, research presentations, and competitions who wasn't Niche, Top Secret Clearance, or employee sponsored. c. Outside off the defense sector (and those were the military folks, Scharr people simply exceedingly rarely go to generally competitive jobs or get scholarships (like Boren) - period. d. The reputation of the program in DC (emphasis on in DC) is that its a place for people who don't want to go to an intense masters degree in order to satisfy their work life balance interests (which very reasonable and understandable) or simply not challenge themselves. Basically, you wouldn't really get any real career benefit. You might as well pivot without graduate school.

So normally, I wouldn't really recommend this school due to its (in my opinion, although it is a great program - it is too small and too removed from Washington/New York - lets be honest centers of power). HOWEVER!!! - if you want to live, breathe, and dream Asia security issues - Stanford's Ford Dorsey Master's in International Relations might just be up your alley. Academically, it is a stellar program. The other one out west that does really well with Asia IR is Middlebury's Monterrey Institute - it is a bit niche though... I would think of it as a safety. If I were you, I would take out Fletcher MGA (its an expansion program and not its standard flagship MALD) and NYU MSPP (again not a flagship program, you don't want to play 2nd fiddle) and replace it with Stanford. If you think Middlebury Monterrey works for you (after doing some research, maybe use that as a safety).

So you are what I call an X-Factor candidate - as in, there is something unique about you that make you highly appealing for diversity in so many different ways, but you are weighted down by many negatives that you do accurately identify (an some you don't). A. So first off, I want to highlight the information gaps. 1. Did you take Calculus or econometrics in College? (or AP equivalent in High school?) with a B+ or better - if it is a yes - that helps with showing your ability to graduate 2. With you Quant experience, is it coding only or does it involve calculus based econometrics? It isn't unheard of to learned calc and calc based econometrics on the job, but if that a is a yes, you need to specify it aggressively in the optional statement / recommendatioons 3. How do self-brand yourself in terms of policy? You give an entire buffet of things you are interested in (your buffet is somewhat unique though, which works in your favor!). However, big picture in 5 words or less: i. What area of policy do you care most about? ii. What functional aspect of policy do you care most about? 4. Demonstrable leadership? Answering this helps me determine what you actually prioritize. B. Your strengths that you don't realize I would argue you have the best of both worlds in that you are unique enough that you wouldn't be seen as one of the many Teach for America, Capital Hill, Peace Corp, and etc. droves, and you would be seen as someone that is genuinely unique as a quant guy. Additionally, you may not have directly been applicable to policy, but you touched policy, so the natural sentiment would be your interest is genuine and not some guy fishing (unless your essays are awful). C. The depths of your weaknesses 1. Yes, your GPA is on the low side, but if you have a reasonable excuse - given your academic accomplishments, you can somewhat nullify the concern. Things like i. You had a part time job in order to support yourself ii. you were the first in your family to go to college iii. you had an illness (physical, psychological, or otherwise) during school iv. are you in an under-represented minority You get the idea. If there are mitigating circumstances, you want to highlight it (but be honest). 2. I view your GRE to be your biggest weakness. The biggest cloud hanging over your application is if your ability to graduate. If you submitted strong GREs, that cloud is lifted and can overcome your poor GPA. However, if you don't submit your GRE and even if you have decent excuses for your GPA, your lack of GRE submission suggests you have something to hide. Non-competitive GRE submission means trend of non-high academic performance. Either way isn't good. D. My thoughts on your schools If you get scholarship funding anywhere (unless you are from a major targeted support cohort (first to go to college, URM, veteran, peace corp, and etc.) I would be shocked. I think the best you might be able to get in would be GW MPP. If you get into GM Scharr, you should just not go (or more like don't apply in the first place). Granted, there a lot of information gaps, so if you have significant factors that improve your standing, that assessment could change. I always want to remind people about the celebrity Ashley Judd. She went to Harvard Kennedy School with an MPA in the late 2000s. Everyone thought she got in because she was a celebrity. However, everyone also forgot that she had an illustrious academic, leadership, and social career in undergraduate at the University of Kentucky (I think she might have went to the honors school - could be wrong). She ended up being an academic rock star at Harvard Kennedy School, and her classmates were shocked. My point is that even for celebs, professional experience needs to be matched by some decent level of academics because schools want Ashley Judd.

Okay got it. So UNC or Syracuse probably wouldn't be a good choice for you anymore (even as a safety). You would want to look with schools with International connections + strengths. Its actually interesting that schools like Duke Terry Sanford actually make more of an effort to invest in centers that gets students involved in international stuff to compensate for not being in a big International city.

you never really specified where international comes into play in regards to your decisions.

The way I view it, with the exception urban design and maybe public transportation, Urban Policy issues are best appreciated via its functional area (i.e. Ed Policy, Housing Policy, and etc.). This is because there are major linkages (i.e. funding from the State) and dependencies that are either a. broader than urban area and/or b. similarities to non-urban areas. Take education for example. If you were focusing on NYC Education, you would would find more academic transferability researching rural Colorado Education (I mean obviously there are differences) than thinking about it from an Urban prism. That being said - would there be an value to going to NYC and getting plugged into the local scene to then work in a New York social/urban policy related org afterwards - yes. However, in my opinion, it is better to go to a great MPP program (i.e. Duke Sanford) and the learn the holistic ins and outs off a functional area + learn how to be a real professional + build a cohort and alumni group that takes care of you + have a collaborative dynamic that helps you do research/applied achievements.