GradSchoolGrad

So on paper you a decently strong candidate to get in. Funding could get interesting. With so many programs having financial issues and a surge in applicants + expect funding to lower end ($10K ballpark per year) to none. I think you need to appreciate where your weaknesses are: - Not taking the GRE. Bottom line, if your clone applied with a 85 percentile GRE or above and compete for one seat, that person would get in and not you. The GRE is simply confidence of your academic performance. - Pure speculation here (and I could be totally wrong) --> but I'm assuming you my have struggled to clearly and concisely explain what policy area you are interested in. Usually when someone says socially policy broadly without highlighting an area of interest (Education/Housing/Food/Healthcare/and etc.) that to me is an indictor that your essay may have you all over the place. Admissions offices like to brand someone so they know what diversity or policy area bucket to place people in the interest of "building a class". Being difficult to bucket, can create problems for that system. Schools In Particular: 1. U. Chicago and Ford are the most quant challenging programs here. If you have Calculus and/or Econometrics in your transcript with a B+ or higher, you should be fine. If you don't have Calculus or Econometrics, you are in a more challenging place. Chicago will take risks on people with interesting background since they have a robust summer school program. You might fit that bill though. However, I really hope you like doing calc based econometrics (in my opinion it is a moot point in today's era of software) with these schools. 2. UVA Batten MPP - I love this program a lot. Just keep in mind that there is a noticeable cohort straight from undergrad. Historically, they have also been open to giving scholarships as well. 3. George Mason MPP? - WHY? So this program has some cool professors that do research in really obscure yet interesting areas. However... the program experience is sub par + has major brand and career struggles. I actually knew people who went to this program just so they wouldn't have to socialize with their peers, knowing that have a non-existent community experience. 4. GWU MPP - this is an interesting program because they strongly emphasize doing internships in DC while you go to school. Helps with building your resume and dilutes the community experience. 5. NYU Wagner - great program - also struggles with community since NYC people generally have their own NYC lives. When I do the grad school talk with any Wagner person, biggest gripe is how there is little school alumni/peer support. 6. American SIS - I wrote extensively about SIS before. 2. Schools I recommend you also consider a. Duke Terry Sanford b. UNC MPP (if you need an ultimate safety that is still respectable) c. USC Price (if you have any interests in going out west) d. Syracuse Maxwell

So Georgetown McCourt is exceptionally strong in IDEV, but specifically in the area of program evaluation, but via certain niches. I personally don't believe in playing the niche game in grad school because peoples interests change (sometimes drastically) in grad school. People have gotten to some research organizations like J-Pal (though I haven't heard good things about the professional conditions there either). However for those dedicated IDEV people, it is a strong option. However, I don't remember seeing a Chinese international student interested in IDEV (I might not have met the person).

Oh and I do recommend you consider other programs beyond what you have already applied it.

So the biggest information gap I have right now to better advise you is to understand what policy areas you are interested in. That could significantly change my answer if you say your area off interest is IDEV and/or IDEV program evaluation. I also don't know NUS that well, so I won't speak to it. If you want to work for a research institution, between Sciences Po and Georgetown, you are best off going to Sciences Po. Georgetown MPP is a geared as a professional school and although you will have plenty of research opportunities, it is not best geared to help you work at an international research organization / research institution (outside of US domestic policy, which I will assume you don't have any interest in, and more realistically, it is already saturated with Americans interested in those areas). Yes, there is a small and noticeable contingent from Georgetown MPP who go work at the World Bank on a contractor position --> but emphasis on contractor position and not full time employee (and most don't exactly report the best conditions for professional development). However, more International students either go back to their country to work in their home institutions or a boutique one in the US. The vast majority of Georgetown McCourt MPP go to non-research professional careers after school. Yes, there has been some successful Chinese international students in the research space (I know all 1 of them in my class), but they mostly done well by focusing on data analytics part of policy. Sciences Po on the other hand has a better brand, peer group, and structure to support you for a career in international research. Granted, they have been working hard broaden their capabilities in the professional space, they are at their core, more of a research focused school.

1. What are you trying to do with your career? 2. Where (generally speaking) so you want work? 3. Why are you going to grad school? 4. What country are you coming from and do you intend to return? 5. Did you get scholarship funding?

So I actually don't know any current McK folks among my friends. I know former McK who are close friends who and happy to get real with me. Long story made short... the cultness might be a bit too much at times, but you are legitimately in a very collegial and supportive culture (though you are under the gun) + a great professional learning environment.

Yes. Its one thing to say that your work experienced sucked for long hours, but learned awesome skills (true for both), but the McK people actually talk highly about the people (in terms of culture, professionalness, and overall awesomeness). The J-Pal folks I know mention how awesome people are in terms of prestige and interesting work, but rather negatively so in terms of culture and professional development. *Comparing mental notes among my McK friends and J-Pal people I have met randomly

They don't have the same types as a massive program like MPP, but they still have a variation of types. It may be based upon geographic background/interest or etc. They also have lower baselining (so instead of +/- 1, maybe more), but it is still the same conceptually. I know because I been involved in convos where there is concern that a you have too many applicants interested in XYZ area and not enough interested in XYZ historical space where there may be a major program donor/program connection/etc.

What most people forget is that schools seek for diversity by type with the previous class as a baseline. For example, if they the previous years had 5 people from teach for America (TFA) in a class, admissions would try to do the same +/- 1, so the competition would really be among those who did TFA. The #1 person from TFA might actually be way less qualified than the #1 person from Capital Hill, but as long was the person is generally competitive, they are competing with their specific type more than competing against the entire applicant pool at large. Of course, in order to get a shot to even compete , you need to be deemed generally competitive in the first place to warrant going further analysis. My basic point is th A: It isn't hard to know if you are generally competitive. B. It is next to impossible to know if you are impossible for you type.

I think it is interesting a lot people from Policy side of IDEV (not so much IR side) want to get into J-PAL (and many talk about it like the holy grail of post MPP for IDEV). However, the people I encountered from J-Pal professionally and leaving it to go to grad school highlighted that it was interesting work but a pretty awful work environment (high stress personalities and not a collaborative work environment --> maybe I randomly talked to wrong people / the few that had terrible experiences. I will say that the 1 person I know personally really that went to J-PAL is not someone I want to work with or for. If anyone has any other commentary to give a more rounded perspective, that would be greatly appreciated.

Realistically, it would be unfair to do so because unlike MBA rates which stay generally stable, MPP (and many other grad schools have acceptance rates that a fluctuate massively on the reg (as in >5 percentage points) depending on the year.

In addition to their being a skills / credentials issue with PhD in History enhancing non-academic employability, is there an issue with the History field just going towards matters that there is no public demand for (general public market, commercial market, or academia generally - outside of history)? Anecdotally, all my history major buddies who went on to PhD world are mostly doing history in remote and obscure matters out of "passion", but they self-acknowledge that there is no real market for it. Is this just me or is this a micro-slice of a bigger issue? As I coach and mentor history majors from my undergrad of going PhD vs. professional sector, I was hoping to get some greater perspective of this PhD business (or should I say - lack of business).

This is the inherent conflict that you have. In the grand scheme of things, there are very few IDEV specific Masters programs, and they all housed in the better Policy/IR programs. I can't think of an IDEV focused program that actually have a track record of delivering people to IDEV jobs at the lower tier programs. Now, I can think of MPP programs that focus on domestic policy management at lower tier schools, but that a is clearly not what you are interested in. Yes, there are all these new programs out there like MIT's DEDP program and some of them come with the background of a prestigious University. HOWEVER --> This is the problem --> At best you might some professors with professional connections. HOWEVER, you do not have a coherent and systematic large scale program that is used to supporting people transitioning into IDEV careers. Yes, you will have MIT on your resume, but you won't have the network, the experiences, and the socialization in the field to make you truly successful in IDEV. If you want to apply to all these new programs or IDEV adjacent programs to best support your wife - got it. However, I cannot think of a full IDEV program that is mid-tier or lower tier. I honestly can't even think of a lower tier graduate school in the MPP/MPA/IR space that could give you a full scholarship anywhere (because those tend to be poorer schools too and/or poorer programs. But who knows! - maybe you might get lucky

Do I think that you are competitive to get into good programs - maybe. I have some major questions 1. What is your major? - it may determine your diversity 2. What quant classes / professional experiences do you actually have? - could determine your competitiveness 3. What exactly want to do? Do you want to do real international development or are you more about domestic policy programming? - how strong of a story you have can also determine things. 4. Is your University internationally known? Does it have experience with sending students to Western graduate schools? Grad programs are more comfortable with admitting students from schools they are more familiar with among International students (although they also they at time take risks). 5. Did you get grades from your MIT program? If you didn't get grades from it with an academic transcript its not considered a real academic degree of any sort. Its imply a certificate. As for funding... Even if I was on the admissions committee for every single MPP/MPA/IDEV school, I would not be able to answer the question about funding. I think it would be very difficult - period, and if you do get any scholarship, it would only be a partial scholarship. It depends on how much money each school has and how competitive your peer group is. If you are applying for 2nd round or 3rd round (or equivalents) for this year's application cycle, I would say its will be insanely difficult to get any scholarship. Schools are simply struggling financially, and for an international student to get any scholarship at a top school, they have to be truly impressive (well regarded schools, prior awards/scholarships/fellowships, interesting life experiences, starting a non-profit, and/or something akin to that). You might have a marginally better chance next year, a likely less competitive year, but only marginally better. You have to realize that doing IDEV from an expensive US graduate school is really economically painful. At most, a Washington, DC job with 4 years work experience in a real IDEV role is 80Kish on the high end, roughly 50-60K in the middle, and some as low as 30. So with a top school costing $130K (minimum - and I'm adding in living costs) + how loans have compounding interest (I also don't know the mechanics of international students getting loans for US schools) --> simply it is not a good idea to take loans. Basically, if you have to take a lot of loans to afford a US school, I really recommend that you don't do it!

So I interviewed for the McCourt Scholarship (I ended up getting the scholarship tier below that). It is one of those things whereby the a board of people decides who are the party favorites between background + prestige. Historically, they like people who went to brand name schools. Its not lost on many that everyone we know who went to Harvard, Oxford, or U. Penn either got interviewed for it or became a scholar. On my way out there, there were a lot of complaints about how a lot of scholars were more tied to brand name backgrounds rather than being truly interesting people that wanted to get involved. Supposedly, they reformatted their selection process to de-emphasize brand name backgrounds and actually get people with compelling stories. What suffices as a compelling story and what doesn't is up to the Scholarship Committee, and with a New Dean, I don't know how their priorities will sway. I will say that a I have noticed that a the more recent scholars (the past year) have come from generally less prestigious backgrounds but very compelling stories. This is ultimately not just about how interesting/compelling your husband is, but how is everyone else that a is applying in a competitive application cycle. Your husband had roughly the same GPA and background as me, so I'm pretty sure from a basic stats perspective, a few LSAT points left or right won't make a difference. Basically, I would say he is a good position, but you can't be certain. https://mccourt.georgetown.edu/admissions/mccourt-scholars/ Note how the 2020 scholars come from less prestigious branded backgrounds but have rather unique life experiences. Also note that there is one URM in every year group. HOWEVER, URM is a broad spectrum, but does not take into account what country the person is from. For example, in the 2016 cohort, the British person was a considered the URM.

There are lot of things that concern me here. 1. Why are you posting and not your husband? This is the first time I have ever knowing seen posting by proxy. It is a bit strange. 2. Why does he want a dual degree? I have seen 4 different cases of JD/MPP (McCourt)? a. Seeking to focus soon a part of law that is extensively social policy oriented (working with abused children is an example). b. Trying to have 4 years of school in order to avoid going to the job market (I'm serious) c. Passion in policy but realizing the paycheck will come from law d. Trying to get scholarship from McCourt, hoping it can be shared with GULC Usually b, c, and d have regretted the MPP part of the JD/MPP --> at least with McCourt. As for scholarship. McCourt (like most MPP schools) do not publicize their stats. Mostly due to how it can swing wildly from year to year in terms of the quality of people they get. This year will likely be extra competitive, I just don't know how much so. As for taking the LSATs --> I know a few people who convinced McCourt admissions to accept the LSAT as a substitute for the GRE. However, those were years when McCourt struggled to get applicants. This likely a good year for McCourt admissions. Being an URM does help him to a certain extent in terms of getting scholarship, but is relative to his cohort of diversity. It also helps for him to be interested in a policy area that is not excessively over-represented. I think your husband should be able to get into McCourt easy. Given the uncertainty around application numbers due to COVID, it would be difficult for me to guess the extent of scholarship he gets. I bet he would get some, but not sure how much. Please note that if your husband is a go-getter, he will find McCourt extremely frustrating. Most people I know who were dual degree JD/MPP with McCourt highlight how they really didn't like their McCourt experience due to the low interest of individual achievement. The only exception I know is someone who focused on the policy side of things and never really delved into the law side. I have written extensively about McCourt here:

I mean so much of funding is OUTSIDE of your control. It is about how much money school has and how much money they want to put forward. A prestigious policy school could have a University run into financial trouble or all of sudden have a wealthy donor make a 100 million dollar donation. This has more impact than you ability to be competitive. If you want to be better off was can applicant at large, this is what you need to do on top of what you got. 1. Leadership experience --> a promotion in your job or running a social organization 2. Being published for something (Academic Journal would be great, the press would be fine 3. Social leadership or experience (this is usually a bizarre concept for many International students, but American schools love people who are also social leaders). AND YOU STILL may not necessarily get funding.

Tell me if what I am about to say is completely wrong though (which it might). 1. Do you think that one of the reasons why History PhDs don't do as well in the job market as sister fields (Political Science and Sociology) is because history doesn't really touch on data analytics and data based story telling? Anecdotally, In my collaboration with PhD, I was amused by the lack of familarity with excel, stata/SPSS, and tableau --> foundation tools for those other fields which have lots of cross-marketability with non-Academic job. Ultimately, what I'm alluding to is that due to how the way history has been studied/researched hasn't really evolved with the times, nor has the right skilling to get history academics to be professionally competitive. For those in academia, there might be a trickle down effect whereby undergrads don't want to take classes in something / major in something whereby the field hasn't modernized enough sufficiently. 2. I have noticed that my super successful non-academic career History PhD friends (and they earned their PhD within the last year or so) spent their dissertation time aligning with organizations with deep pockets (e.g., government organizations that have a vested interest in history to shape their current operations), but they told me this made them weirdos in the history department who were "passion driven". Is there something to be said that history has too long been history for history's sake and not enough history for practical application? If I'm off base let me know. I looked into a History PhD a while ago with an interest to go professional sector (like consulting for the CIA in my Jack Ryan dreams), but these were the concerns I had with the field that made me stray away (I went to Policy instead). I wonder if they are still relevant.

Just curious. What do you see as the non-academic jobs available to History PhDs these days? - Federal government? - Consulting? - Advising media productions? On a separate note, I found this website to be super interesting: https://gradschool.duke.edu/about/statistics/history-phd-career-outcomes-statistics The problem is that they don't narrow it down by year group - just 2004 to 2019

1. I want to re-emphasize, I think you would find yourself extremely unhappy at most MPP programs (and nearly all the lower tier ones)--> even if you can get in due to the lack of opportunities for you to play tech. 2. It would be irresponsible for me to identify schools that merely exist but have little to no demonstrable history of ROI for the student. You have to realize if you have a degree next to your name but no internships / research experience to back it up, you have just wasted your time and money. If you go to one of the cash grab players and do not find yourself with a meaningful experience to help you pivot, that is 2 years and at least $125K wasted. 3. Since you refuse to provide the data I am asking for, I cannot realistically give you further guidance on what you might be potentially viable for. 4. Also, this is a crazy competitive year for all grad schools (even the mid-tier ones). You would probably be better off applying next year. Your application would be stronger if you had a promotion as well.

1. In the US, your background is actually advantageous compared to someone who is already currently in the policy or security space because A: You have more quant coming in than the average person B: You are unique (as an engineer) and under-represented International student (Pakistan). Hence, I would stop worrying about your engineering background and view it was a strength. A Data Analytics program might be easier for you to get into, but it won't have a direct connection for you to get into the security space. Even if you do, you won't be doing policy work per se - more the number crunching side of it. 2. What you really should be concerned about: A: Internships and Jobs: By virtue of being a non-US citizen, you become highly uncompetitive for many security oriented internships and jobs since lets be honest --> most of them in the US are US centric. B: Security/IR programs don't have much funding to give to begin with. Also, I don't think you are competitive enough to get funding other than essentially the worst schools, in which case your return on investment isn't worth it in my opinion. This is especially true this year whereby the better schools are drowning in applications. 3. What I recommend you do Instead of very narrowly closing yourself off to security studies only, I recommend you approach it more holistically from an international relations + foreign policy interest angle on employment, logistics, politics, and economics of security apparatus. It will give you a wider range of appeal, career opportunities, and etc. Also, I would prepare to not get any funding. One thought is simply to apply next year because it will likely be less competitive.

I think your sentiments are directionally correct. However no one knows the extent of the impact because policy schools don’t release numbers. I think it will vary greatly by school. For the elite schools HKS and Princeton it probably got a lot more competitive. However the further down you go the prestige line, impacts will likely moderate. Less prestige schools have to compete with: 1. New policy programs that are being started, expanding the supply of seats 2. Specialty Masters being started (like U. Penn’s social policy MS), draining away some demand. Additionally, there has been a noticeable drop of Chinese international students going to Policy school since the mid 2010’s, further reducing demand pressures. One key thing to appreciate is that in person MPP programs are cash cows for Universitys, but MBAs are not (they are often still profitable but not as profitable).

Wow... this is different. A. I recommend you check on if the schools of your interest has a robust international student office (or something similar) to support you in all the paperwork to come to the US in the first place. You are also taking some risk in gambling that there will be in person classes in Fall 2021. I mean, I think there will be, but you never know the future. That may add to the complexity of if you can actually manage to come to the US for school. B. If you seek to focus on IR/Security studies, it makes no sense for you to go to a Policy school. If you care to pick up data analytics, it makes more sense that you just cross-register with some Politics or Policy focused statistics classes. Policy school doesn't really cater towards Defense as a whole. Some policy school might touch on IR more robustly than others, but you need to go to an IR school for that. C. If you seek to go to a policy data analytics program, you might want to appreciate that it might be difficult to touch on defense/security related issues. Your data experience will most likely be tied to social issues simply because that is the data that is most readily available. D. You being from a technical background actually helps your ability to get into a school because it makes you diverse. I would not worry about hat. E. Reddit stuff does not count as volunteer stuff or work experience (unless you are making money off of it or contracted to do it somehow). Otherwise, all the Facebook page managers would add that a to their resume F. What I recommend you do is to look into IR programs that have a quant angle (or at least options for it). Such programs would be: High End - Johns Hopkins SAIS Middle - GWU Elliot, American SIS Low - Middlebury - Monterrey, Denver - Korbel I say this because then you get the best of both quant and security issues.

This goes back to we don't have enough data about you to give you meaningful insights. 1. GRE scores??? You need good ones to compensate for bad grades 2. Compelling story about bad grades? - did something happen (illness, death, etc.)? That can further mitigate 3. Leadership experience / potential? --> lead anything? 4. Diversity - got it you are a data guy, that helps you... got anything else? Veteran? 1st to go to College in your Family? You can overcome bad grades if you can sew some element of that together. Right now, your only real advantage is that you are decently unique as a data/psych/kind of sciences guy, and I could potentially see a school that prizes diversity to view you as a diversity add in terms of background. You might want to figure out your actual value proposition first so you can more accurately figure out what schools are for you --> especially when you are basing your school choices on rather surface level assumptions. As for your top schools 1. They make zero sense. a. U. Chicago isn't exactly a tech haven... It has a great brand and great career stuff... Its one thing to go analytical. It is another to do tech with them when they don't exactly have a strong tech network built in or geographically located. b. MIT, CMU, and GA Tech are essentially engineering/science based policy programs. Although you may have some academic capability for it, you don't have the background for it. They like people who at least tangentially come from engineering or cyber respectively. Notice how it isn't run by government or policy department, but a hard sciences departments. You are a quant psych guy... that is a rather large stretch. 2. Other schools you mentioned. In my mind, Brown, William and Mary, and Lehigh also make zero sense. It doesn't matter how much the Professors may have researched an area. Unless you are going into academia or research (which you may), professors don't exactly help you get into jobs. Also, those schools may have great brands due to their undergrad, but they are essentially seen as cash grab players in the higher ed space (because MPP programs deliver profits for schools) with little real meaningful return on investment in regards to job success if you attend a programmatically challenged and under-resourced program. . 3. GWU MPP now begins to make more sense, because they are all about having people do a lot of internships while going to school. Assuming COVID subsides, you can truly benefit from that by marketing yourself as having sciences experience (because GPA doesn't matter anymore non-science application policy space once you get into school). 4. Fletcher starting a Cyber Security program is actually concerning for me. It is one thing for Georgia Tech to do coming from an engineering angle. Fletcher has lately gone wild trying to do expansion Masters to compensate for their weaknesses in Tufts not having other professional schools to collaborate with (except for Medicine, but that is downtown Boston). Generally speaking, you don't want to be a person joining a new program --> stuff isn't figured out yet, and being a guinea pig is never fun. 5. Okay SAIS - MEPP makes sense now. I really hope you love Europe don't regret being siloed with Europe. Also let me warn you, it is a one year program, and those fly by fast and often don't give you sufficient experential learning opportunities to truly boost you resume as a 2 year program would. 6. Duke Terry Sanford specializes in State and Local Domestic Policy (I mean they do lots of other things well too, but that is what they are really good at). I think you would find yourself rather lonely as a tech guy there. 7. I can't speak to LBJ

So Princeton is a really awesome program in terms of brand prestige, access, academic rigor, and access afforded to you (everyone who goes to Princeton goes for free). THE PROBLEM IS is that their policy program is their ONLY professional school for the entire University. Everything, and especially Health Policy/Social Policy is becoming more an interdisciplinary game. It is good to collaborate with business, legal, medicine, and etc.. The Princeton name will really help you with that and Professors will have contacts to support you. However, lot of times it means going outside of the University, so that means you need to do things on your own. Syracuse suffers from a similar problem, but in a different way. Unlike Princeton, they have a lot of good (but not great) professional schools neighboring Maxwell (the policy school). HOWEVER... Syracuse is in the middle of nowhere Syracuse New York, so it isn't exactly that easy to do a live collaboration / research project with. The upside is that Syracuse is generally academically highly regarded among the policy community. That being said, I personally view HKS, Duke, and Michigan to be the top options for you on the public policy side. If you were to go MPH side, Harvard Chan, Johns Hopkins, and Columbia should take the cake.