GradSchoolGrad

I strongly recommend against applying to Fletcher MALD (I know this is a controversial recommendation). See my posts about it here:

So again, I think those 3 routes are a good way to go about it. However, to expand on the 1st route (holistic experience), in addition of HKS and Berkeley Goldman, I recommend you think about Carnegie Mellon Heinz school and U. Chicago Harris as I previously mentioned. I picked those because they have both a strong engineering programming on top of policy. That way you have the most flexibility to induce engineering into policy. Schools that don't have a strong engineering/sciences with their policy programming my likely have less opportunities for your specific interests. Johns Hopkins-? what program??? Yale doesn't have a policy program - why are you talking about? Princeton has a really good Policy program but I personally don't like Princeton because it is policy school is its ONLY professional school + you don't exactly have technology stuff around you.

You are right in the sense that it is not a perfect estimation, especially with international student interest being unknown (although likely higher now with Biden as President vs. Trump 2nd term). I think it is great that you are identifying debt to salary ratio now, because although ROI is something people have broadly discussed in IR and policy schools, I found final career outcomes to be rarely discussed during the admissions phase. Most people I encountered in my years of grad school coaching have the apply first and figure out economics of it later attitude. So even if the debt doesn’t make sense, people will apply and see what scholarships they can get.

1. You will get into places but won’t get funding (except maybe McCourt - assuming you are MIDP not MPP) because this year is crazy competitive. 2. I don’t think you will get into HKS ID due to how crazy quant that is and you do have a sun 3.0 GPA. Ability to graduate comes into question. 3. NO ONE cares how powerful or mighty your recommender is. More important is what they write and how well they knew you. The only exception is if there is a school affiliation (alumni... which always helps).

1. You need to figure out what you want to get out of policy school a. If you want to have a holistic experience of integrating policy with data analysis, HKS and Berkeley are both good places to go for general range of topics (it might be helpful for you tell us what you are interested in as well in terms of a policy area) b. If you want to have more academic self-driven research/discovery of policy opportunities --> Oxford and Cambridge MPP is the way to go (keep in mind that these two programs are quant low and do not give you the opportunity to have a summer internship) c. MIT TPP is basically an extension of engineering with some policy concepts/environment and etc. Its a very very very narrow way to do policy. If you want to focus on policy as it ties specifically to engineering, then you are probably in a good place there. Good luck doing a broader range of policy interests there. This is similar to Vanderbilt Peabody's MPP in Education --> in the sense of a very narrow focus 2. Although your AW is lower, I think with the exception HKS, it might not be too much of a problem. You present a lot of diversity being French and being an engineer. 3. Instead of Columbia SIPA (which honestly is stronger for international relations than its policy oriented education), I would consider U. Chicago Harris or Carnegie Melon Heinz instead.

So if Law School is the most snooty and Med School is the snooty (I define snooty as in how where you go to school can really impact your career in the long run), MBA is somewhere in the middle. That being said, your roster, based upon only on quality of career potential, I would only apply to: 1. Carnegie Mellon 2. Indiana 3. UGA Below that, I wouldn't even bother.

Here is the deal. AW usually doesn't matter unless it is terrible. 3.0 isn't terrible. It is more like the low end of acceptable. Manage your time however you want.

I mean, it really depends on other factors in your application. I scored a 4.0 and about the same for the rest. I was able to get into graduate school programs by filing an optional addendum that I am a published author (x4). If your background doesn't include much writing, the 3.0 might seem problematic. If you have done a lot of writing, you might want to highlight that.

My proof is that I don’t know a single person who got a scholarship from my year group in MBA (granted it was 4 years ago) who took the GRE. The reason is because all the ranking magazines like US News, Financial Times, and Poets and Quants only track GMAT scores. So you getting a good GRE doesn’t help a schools rankings. Now some schools are changing, but GMAT for scholarships is the general rule.

You do realize that although MBA schools will accept GREs, they are generally much less likely to award scholarship for GRE test takers and strongly prefer GMAT to justify scholarships!

I mean, this tell you everything that you need. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/admissions-aid/masters-program-admissions/how-apply/letters-recommendation The key point of emphasis is to highlight this in a story form and not a check list. The more your recommendations can speak of these qualities for you in story form, the better off it should be. So basically, I should be equally excited to read your LOR as an article from a newspaper.

Now that Joe Biden won, expect international student applications to sky rocket.

The deal is this. HKS requires a quant resume. If your quant resume is thin on academic quant, then they would look for professional quant experience. If you got professional quant experience (essentially OJT), you might be good. HOWEVER, unless you have a Dean's reservation, I highly doubt on your ability to get into HKS if you have a weak quant. It would go figure into your ability to graduate (and people do wash out of HKS too). Also, keep in mind, the this is a way more competitive application cycle than usual. You might big able to barely squeak by with the a weak quote resume with brand + professional experience in the past, but its just gonna be harder to do it this application cycle.

You are truly highly competitive. HOWEVER... Harvard MPP may not accept you due to your lack of quant. Princeton SPIA is interesting. In the past they have taken chances on those who have a lower quant background but great professional experience. HOWEVER... I wouldn't recommend you taking that risk. I known people who struggled to graduate (as in taken an extra semester due to difficulty to meet the quant requirements. I don't know enough about Stanford Ford Dorsey. I think there are two ways for you to think about it. 1. If you are interested in foreign policy or IR, I recommend you consider Georgetown MSFS or Columbia SIPA. They got quant but less quant. Some people might say Fletcher, but I personally think Fletcher has major issues going into the future (many would say that is controversial - which I admit it is). 2. If you are interested in domestic policy (or a broad range of random things), I recommend you think about Duke Terry Sanford MPP (you probably could get some good scholarship there), Carnegie Melon Heinz - MSPP (they have a good DC campus option) as a safety. 3. Oxford MPP is interesting. If you just need a grad degree to check the box, go for it. Its 1 year vs. 2 in the US. I really admire the British higher education experience. The issue with Oxford MPP is that you won't be picking up much technical skills. It is relatively quant low among the MPP university. Please keep in mind that even though you are highly competitive, this is a much harder application cycle than most due to the rise of application numbers. 4. I do recommend you get one academic LOR (yes it can be awkward hitting up old professors, but I did it). At least someone who knows you from a more academic light.

Recommendation --> don't go to grad school. Get a job... build your career and go to grad school once you have at least 2 years experience and can apply in a less competitive application cycle. Here is the deal: 1. The only two schools I think you might have a moderate chance of getting into are Cornell MPA and UPenn MPA. Although the Universities have a great reputation, I recommend all people to avoid their MPA programs (even if they get scholarships) because the programming, resources, and structure simply isn't there. Basically, there are much better things you can do with your life and career in most cases the go to those schools - especially in your situation. Keep in mind that this year is going to be more competitive than previous years with a massive surge of Americans applying to grad school during a bad economy. If Joe Biden wins the election, you'll probably have an uptick of international student applications too. 2. Being a full time student + full time job/internship (whatever you want to call it) is INSANE and a terrible idea. First, I doubt you can pull it off in this economic environment where it is next to impossible for an international student to get an off campus job. With University budgets being slashed, its probably harder to get an on campus job as well. Second, its drastically diminishes the quality of your graduate school experience. I know two people who did it (Americans) and hated their lives. 3. Your true weakness isn't your lack of quant or 3 points lower GRE score. It is your lack of professional work experience. Schools are willing to take more risk on someone with a lower quant background if they have quality professional work experience. If you want to go to a good MPP program straight from undergrad with full time work experience, you need to be a crazy rock star. The people I know who did it had at least 3.7 GPA, publication credentials under their belt, top notch quant (like math Econ or engineering classes), higher brand University, and prestigious internships + 90 percentile GREs. You got some of those, but missing some. Additionally, your degree isn't seen as academically difficult. If you had professional experience that went with it (I knew someone who worked at a major US newspaper with a journalism degree), you degree can work to your favor and make you diverse. However, journalism as a degree without quant classes makes a admissions committee question your ability to graduate. Policy schools are very sensitive to international students struggling to graduate because it looks bad on the school and they have recent scar tissue of admitting large number of Chinese students and many of them struggled to graduate due to a combination of language issues, struggling culturally with class participation, and academic backgrounds that were less relevant for the MPP class material. 4. You need to make new friends. You don't need to go to a prestigious school to take quant classes to prove your quant capabilities. All you need to do is to take classes online from a respected accredited US institution. I did it through Colorado State and Michigan State (one tick up above Northern Arizona). I'm sure there are many other ways to do it. Please understand what really matters is how difficult your classes are and the grades you get. A school would look more favorably with you getting an A in advanced calculus based econometrics or mechanical engineering than a B+ from Cornell doing Calculus Level 2. Also, keep in mind, different policy schools may be looking for different things. Schools that have a robust summer school (like U. Chicago Harris) probably are looking for general quant competency (which you can get with professional experience). Schools like Princeton SPIA or HKS are looking for proof of econometrics and calculus. Schools like McCourt are simply looking for some math based Econ with some basic calculus art a minimum (obviously if you have econometrics, that only helps you). EVERY SCHOOL is different. HOWEVER even if you take these classes and get As, you might not be able to get accepted due to your lack of work experience. 5. I'm curious what you mean by local Asian University. The deal is that policy grad programs as recently as 3 years ago was flooded with Chinese international students, and then a lot of schools realized they are over-reliant on Chinese international students and it wasn't good for their diversity. How Chinese international students are viewed these days in terms of diversity probably varies by school. HOWEVER, I have talked to non-Chinese international students who are very sought after in bringing in diversity. This might be one of your key advantages if you are non-Chinese. HOWEVER... it doesn't not overcome the doubts any admissions person would have about your ability to graduate given your lack of quant classes.

Just to add some color to this. IDEV is a general trajectory and at the end of the day your experience + skills + connections (alumni/school pathway/networking or otherwise) will determine if you manage if you land the jobs that you want or not. That being said, there should be two distinctions to be said: 1. There are lots of directions you can go with IDEV, which generally fall under function and/or area of expertise. A program + its resources can supplement you if you don't have the skills, experience, and connections to land certain jobs. 2. IDEV is also changing. It used to be that IDEV was NGO, non-profit, and government space. Private sector is now playing more and more of a part, so there are more and more unusual jobs coming out. A program that has partnerships with various different disciplines/connections can help you navigate the brave new world of IDEV. HOWEVER... to know the nuances, the best solution is to engage students and recent grads. That being said, you can kind of get a sense by LinkedIn stalking (you might have to buy the Premium version though).

1. It makes absolutely zero sense for you to do an MPP/MPA and then follow up with law school consecutively. You are adding in time and money and honestly you are not getting any meaningful career benefit. If you do go that route, it makes more sense for to do it as a dual degree candidate (since its 3 years rather than 4 altogether). That being said, I'm assuming you haven't taken the LSATs yet. Some law schools do take GREs. Not to add to your application load, but you might want to really cull the list and apply to some law schools that let you dual degree too. At the very least, consider programs that will let you know go in as one and then dual degree mid-way (Harvard Kennedy School is a good example that lets you do that). 2. I recommend you don't even think about part-time. What I have seen with some people who do the just "just in case option" is that do the math of opportunity costs and get cold feet with full time. Just like with a marriage, you shouldn't tempt yourself with going to grad school half-assed given your limited career experience. Given your relatively young age, I recommend you either don't go to grad school or go to a good grad school. Also, not to be mean about it, but the average part-time student in MPP is less competitive than the average full-time MPP student at McCourt. Given someone of your calibre, I am assuming that you are a go-getter type person. Yes, I have known one or two part-time rock stars, but they stood out because they were the extreme exception. They would also be the first to admit about how annoyed they are with the program + their peers + opportunities. Also, I think you would be the best backgrounded part-timer at McCourt I have ever met / heard of. You never want to be the most capable person anywhere - that means you have limited real learning opportunities. You also have to appreciate that within the Georgetown community at large, McCourt isn't exactly highly regarded. Its actually the black sheep school. So to the wider world, Georgetown is Georgetown, awesome. However to Georgetown alums, it helps, but it is McCourt and not a more well-regarded program like MSFS, Law, MBA, Nursing, Med, or even CCT. 3. Chicago Harris and Michigan Ford - I would say are some of the more quant heavy school period. Harris is academically inclined, but is academically inclined in the sense of being quant heavy. Michigan Ford is so too. If you don't want to do too intense quant then don't touch these places. I recommend you look at Carnegie Melon Heinz because granted they are quant high top (but I believe less than Harris and Ford) because: a. They have the DC campus option - whereby you do 1 year in Pittsburgh and your 2nd Year in DC. https://www.heinz.cmu.edu/programs/public-policy-management-master/washington-dc I think this would be a good back for you if you don't get into HKS and etc. Plus - your first year of school is so crazy focused on academics anyway, might as well do somewhere with a lower cost of living + get back in touch with non-DC America. b. I have been impressed by every single person I have ever met from Heinz (Policy Conferences / Competitions). Every single one of them that I have met are really up to speed on the latest and greatest in policy innovation and experimentation in the space that they have chosen to focus on. 4. Goldman is very West Coast Policy. In over simplistic terms - California and the Pacific Northwest to a lesser extent have noticeably different policy dynamics vs. the rest of the country, especially the East Coast. Of course some of their people go to DC, but it is very much a regional school. 5. LBJ is a great program and there are lots of niche policy areas that you can play in. HOWEVER, if you want to get back to DC, you don't really get an advantage with LBJ. 6. SPIA... you do realize that SPIA (formerly known as Woodrow Wilson) is probably the most quant intense program out there??? Also, I do believe it has the lowest acceptance rate of the MPP programs. I personally don't like SPIA because SPIA is the only professional school in all of Princeton. What does that mean --> Limited collaboration opportunities. I know so many SPIA kids who had to network their way into U. Penn to collaborate on stuff (i.e. education). To make your life easier, I recommend. Reach (it is a reach for everyone) 1. HKS - MPP 2. Oxford - MPP (in case you want to resort to a lower cost option)... use this instead of part time. Target 3. Duke Terry Sanford For Scholarship Money/Safety 4. Carnegie Melon Heinz 5. LBJ Also consider law schools to dual degree with (note on top of the GRE or LSAT, Law Schools require you to go through ICAS now (so more fees for applications) https://www.lsac.org/applying-law-school/jd-application-process/credential-assembly-service-cas 1. Harvard Law School (I think they take the GREs now). 2. Duke Law School (I think they also take the GREs) 3. Georgetown Law School (I think they also take GREs). I can't speak to Duke, but I do believe that Harvard Law School and Georgetown Law School lets you switch hit dual degree with schools they have partnerships with (so for example, Harvard Kennedy School MPP 1 year and 2 years at Georgetown Law).

Just to add on to @kreitz128, in addition to course load, you want to look at what the career trajectory trends are. Generally speaking, if you want to go into IDEV as analysis person or program evaluation person, MPA/MPPs are the way to go (assuming you have a strong quant foundation at those programs). If you want to go into IDEV as more a relationship based or management type person, you are better off with professional IR based masters (and increasingly - MBAs as well). The confusion comes in how a lot of MPAs and MPPs assume roles that are relationship based and management based roles (either straight from grad school or a year or so in). This is common, but it is somewhat of a career pivot and not a direct career progression. This generally doesn't happen the other way around whereby an IR professional master's program person goes into an analysis/program evaluation role (NOTE* a huge and notable exception is Johns Hopkins SAIS given its highly rigorous quant nature). In the end I recommend you go with what works best with your life goals. If you are cool with sitting at a desk crunching numbers and coding + doing presentations whereby you translate technical language into simple English, a quant heavy MPP/MPA or JHU SAIS works best for you. If you like working with people and managing teams and IR Masters/MBA is for you .

Let me try to simplify you life: *First off - you are EXTREMELY competitive, and I can see you be competitive for almost any school you apply to 1. Figure out if you want full time vs. part-time. I strongly recommend against part-time because the bottom line is that you will get a sub-part experience just by virtue of time limitations alone (let alone school programming challenges). If you want to go the financially conservative route, feel free to apply part-time. However... you will have could ofs... should ofs for the rest of your life. Also, expect next to no meaningful networking from the part time programs. I knew 0 McCourt part-time folks who didn't work for Georgetown who managed to work for the community. If you do part-time --> Its between Georgetown vs. GW... you basically snagging a brand, so you might as well go for Georgetown If you decide to full time --> 2. Decide if you want a quant heavier or quant low experience. If you are okay with quant low (or quant lower, then Oxford, Cambridge, and NYU Wagner should work for you (I don't know LSE well enough). Just appreciate that you won't really be gaining any meaningful marketable technical skills. You are just doing theory and getting case study exposure. I strongly recommend a quant heavier program because if you go to grad school, you might as well come away with a meaningful marketable skill. If you go quant heavier route --> 3. Get rid of the schools that don't have robust programming to help you with your career (as in they don't have the world's best track record with putting their people in the most competitive public policy careers). Get Rid: - So get rid of McCourt MPP (on their website, the career outcomes is actually misleading if you read in between the lines because they only advertise those that they keep track of.... approximately 25% to 33% (depending on year) they conveniently don't have data for or do not care to publish. What this allows them to do is mask those who aren't employed or have employment the isn't cookie cutter/desirable to publicize. Its interesting how the career trajectories (or lack there of) of people I know + myself (I am employed, but in an function and industry that is not a traditional MPP pathway and in no thanks to the program) is not advertised. Oh and the McKinsey guy is a support person Chinese international student and not a front line Consultant. - If you don't want to live in New York City area / Northeast after school, get rid of NYU Wagner. It has a strong national brand, but its career trajectories are strongly regional - GW will give you an awesome scholarship, but if you do care about brand prestige, it won't do you any favors from a brand prospective, especially since you already have an awesome undergrad brand. I recommend you Add at least 2 of the 3: - Carnegie Melon Heinz (look into their DC campus options too if you don't like Pittsburgh) - Duke Terry Sanford - probably one of the best options for domestic policy. They also do really well for State and Local - U. Michigan - Ford Schools - this for you would probably be a good safety (I don't normally say that ever for anyone, but I think you are an exceptional case. Note - this is probably one of the harder quant schools).

Honestly, you already have a MSFS degree from Georgetown. You really checked box in terms of relevant professional higher education. The only real thing for you left to do is to pivot to a completely new area - requiring another focused Master's or any PhD.

1. There is next to zero value for you getting an MPP degree (especially from Oxford, which is a great program but is data low... so its not like you are picking up additional technical skills). Also, Oxford requires minimum 3.7 GPA (US) to even be considered for admissions. 2. Similar deal with HKS MPA-ID (granted it is much more quant heavy, which will have some value added... but most of the classes would be redundant for someone of your experience). I think you are smart with the SAIS - PhD, but I'll defer to someone who knows their PhD program better

Bailey, Ed Policy PhD from Ed schools (rightly or wrongly) is really bi-furcated. You basically have National Leaders (Vanderbilt - Peabody, Johns Hopkins, Stanford, Harvard Ed... and I might be forgetting someone here - maybe Michigan???) that view themselves as the elite and everyone else. *Note UGA sometimes is bucketed in this elite group... but not really. From a professional prospective, it doesn't mean anything. Peabody folks sit side by side undergrads only in the professional job market. HOWEVER... from a research + national resource perspective, there are a lot of advantages of being part of that network. It is one of those, if you know one person, you tangentially have access to the all-star team of ed policy folks type deal. I'm telling you this because my bet is that if you don't submit your GRE, you might have a better chance of getting into one of the National Leader schools (if you don't mind moving). It is better to start off your career with a network advantage than without it. I of course don't know the details behind your transcript and work history. However, I recommend you just look into it. You'll still be fine going to a major state school PhD program (and Georgia State has a good program). However, beyond the regional benefit (so if you want to do Atlanta stuff, Georgia State will be awesome for you), you'll have to work harder to get access to data, personalities, and resources. The way around that is connecting with a rock star professor, which are sprinkled out among all schools. Bottom line, if you can, I would shoot for one of the national leaders.

Hey this is for Public Policy and International Affairs... NOT Political Science graduate programs.

I mean at the end of the day, you have to weigh your priorities personally. However, assuming that you can figure out the money issue, I still recommend the top British schools over the European schools because bottom line: 1. The British schools are simply more international (and for all intents in purposes, I mean mix of EU and non EU as it stands now) than the European schools and in terms of outlook, student body, and exposure. 2. They are more interdisciplinary (AKA: in many ways more cutting edge) 3. Have better resources (slightly subjective... but I can defend it in detail if you want).

1. You should not be worried about your professional experience. As long as you made impact in your organization - that is all that matters. 2. I think Johns Hopkins SAIS, is the only place where you lack of quant might challenge your admissions. However, more realistically, do you really want to go through that quant pain if it doesn't really help you get to your career goals? 3. I personally don't like Fletcher given its challenged future. See my previous posts about it: That being said, ID is becoming more and more multi-disciplinary, and it really helps to go to a program that gives you access to multiple other disciplines involved in ID. For example, if you go to GW, you have a strong potential to consider ID from a public health angle due the strength of its Public Health School next door to the Elliot School.