GradSchoolGrad

1. So yes, policy/international relations schools are trying to diversify from their historic international student base of Chinese international students (when I started about 40% of my class was Chinese international students). It simply wasn't good for actual diversity of experiences and there were lots of complaints about how the Chinese international students were reluctant to participate in class and diluted the classroom experience. There were lots of other issues that I can go into forever. So what US schools have been trying to is diversify the international student population beyond China - especially since the latest US-China tensions has made it harder to acquire Chinese students. That being said, because you are South Korean, you automatically are targeted as a diverse student. 2. Chicago Harris MPP So they are a very very good problem that is very very analytical based. HOWEVER, at the end of the day, they are an MPP program without that much of historic international relations bent (HKS MPP is kind of the exception of MPPs that do outside of international development). Can you hypothetically go work the international space and in multi-lateral organizations - yes, but honestly, the location + alumni base + formal connections are simply not as strong. Harris is a strong lots of things type MPP, but I would say their biggest strength is domestic policy from an analytical angle. Of course, they do have international elements to the program, but its not nearly robust as the schools I mentioned that focus on IR.

I think you are more competitive than you think you are. Actually the best MPP program in the Denver area is the DU's program IMO. If I were you, I would think about that. Since you are non-profit/local policy guy, I think the only other school it makes sense for you to apply to (granted it would be a bit of a long shot) would be Terry Sanford at Duke. You are unique enough, that if you explain how you made mistakes in undergrad and have since grown up, you might make it work. Especially since your GRE scores look great.

So my thoughts. 1. Don't assume your GRE scores. I have had plenty of people assume they would get so and so score and then end up with much less or higher. When you get, then figure out your competitiveness. As for GREs, I always recommend international students from less common or less standardized matriculating countries (Philippines is one them) to have good GRE scores to come with a great undergraduate academic portfolio. This is because there will always be doubt among the admissions committee about how to best interpret a foreign transcript from a University that they aren't as familiar with. If you come with great GRE scores, you remove that doubt. Every year there international students who wash out of American graduate programs due to academic issues or failure to speak English despite having good test scores. Not saying that you a problem with it, but Admissions committee doesn't know you. The more evidence you can bring, the better you are. 2. Otherwise, your academics are solid. Your quant skills are also solid. 3. Your minor gap is lack of work experience. The average person is. 26-27 years old with 3 to 4 years work experience. However, because you are from a more unique country, I think you should be fine. 4. Schools you should be thinking about given your interest in international security + multi-lateral programs (in no order) a. Harvard HKS MPP b. Georgetown MSFS c. Johns Hopkins SAIS d. Columbia SIPA All the other programs are simply not as direct as a route / don't have as strong reputations to get you there.

I cannot evaluate you honestly without your GRE scores + understanding of your quantitative skills/background at University. Also, what exactly are you trying to with your degree?

So some thoughts: 1. So the most common are MPP people that go for a PhD after about 1 or 2 years in the workforce. An MPP degree in itself isn't really maximized (IMO) without some time in the workforce for you to actually practice what you learn + gain community/contextual. experience. 2. Its usually not advised for MPP students to do a PhD because the MPP is a professionally geared degree and it is not meant to be academically focused. HOWEVER PhD's generally look favorably on MPPs (especially well-respected ones) IF you have geared your MPP more towards academic research. However, you just need to create compelling story of why that MPP interest supports your PhD interests. So. bottom year, it is an extra 2 years (to 4 if you add in work experience), but it does give you an extra layer of professional connections that can open doors for your professionally down the road. For example, someone with an MPP would be much more exposed to the law making an execution side of the house and find opportunities there rather than be limited to the academia game.

You are thinking too deeply here. Honestly, all you really need a professor who knows to access data and filter by veterans + can highlight higher education trends that you can proxy onto Veterans (granted with nuances and interpretations). Anyone who can coherently speak to higher education data vis-a-vie veteran filtering should do. Vanderbilt might be a good place to start because they have so many military partnerships with Fort Campbell next door.

Also, you do realize that the schools you are applying to have decently different curriculum?

I went into my MPP program focusing on Ed Policy, and I, like about 60% of the people that I know who started in the same lane, switched to another policy area (I did tech, I know people that went to housing or labor). I almost did an MA or MA ED and I'm so glad I didn't or else I would have been locked into education without fully appreciating how terrible the job market is for Ed Policy + culture behind this space. I recommend you go to an general MPP/MPA program rather than an Ed-Specfic one to give yourself flexibility. Even if you stay with Ed Policy, a broad spectrum one will give you creative perspectives and solutions that you would not appreciate in a more siloed program. Bottom line is that outside of Academia and Think Tank research (which are brutally competitive and have limited opportunities to begin with), there are very few places that value truly value a master's degree focused on Ed Policy. The pure Ed Policy space in the US (as in they don't play extensively with labor, economics, or international) is actually rather small and clique. It matters less what degree you have than networking your way in and paying your dues. Honestly, I know people who achieved the same job title + salary without a graduate degree at these places just by going up the ranks. If you want to work these places, you might be better served just gaining work experience from there. These spaces also don't have much room for promotion or really do a great job of cultivating professional growth. Part of this is because once you go into pure Ed Policy, there is no many other places you can pivot from there. The pure Ed Policy space is also not really that innovative. You are going after the same old sets of government data that refresh every 5 years or so. The community as a whole is also skeptical of other perspectives on Ed Policy (such as labor, sentiment, or political influence) due to their very conservative posture (as in hasn't changed in the past 30 years or so) about innovation in the space. There are some budding areas of innovation in the State Ed Policy space, which are really cool, but they struggled to pick up scale. Outside of the pure Ed Policy space that are tangentially relevant (like training, jobs acquisition, social oriented, and community uplift) type policy, you are competing with social, labor, urban, and etc. policy folks who usually have a leg up on you as an Ed Policy person because they are exposed to a more creative policy space and community. Ed is also increasingly being disrupted. Its becoming more and more common for Harvard MBAs, Public Health, or Stats people to get involved in Ed Policy from an external lens. Better to know them than compete against them. Happy to give you any more perspectives.

Assuming you like IR, you should go IR. Endless realm of career opportunities and back up career opportunities. Political theory is by far the most stunted of all the Poly-Scii fields. Even in the UK, where theory is historically King, they are moving away from theory to methods based research.

Chill out. I seen life from the other end (University staff). It is pretty rough because you have students, faculty, administrative, other staff, and of late - parents wanting something from you at once. So things they could be working on. 1. Figuring out what to do with the deferrals 2. Triangulating projections of intake and aligning standards accordingly 3. Figuring out the budget available for scholarships (possibly even negotiating with the University on your behalf to minimize the budget squeeze) 4. Their other jobs (a lot of times admissions staff are dual hatted with 2ndary responsibilities). Given the unique situation of this year, some of those 2ndary responsibilities might mean a lot more. 5. Doing stuff the University wants them to do, completely out of control of the college.

So I'll comment on what I have particular detailed knowledge about: A: New Language If you want to pick up a new language, grad school is the worst time to do it period. Every single person I knew in both programs at most expanded upon a language they at least had some rudimentary knowledge of. Between the pressures of Academics, networking, sleep/social life, and additional projects those who have the ambition to pick up a new language from scratch will run out of time. You are correct that SAIS has some more structural benefit to picking up a new language (as in how you can flex language classes as credits). However, if you think you can pick up a Asian language in 2 years to be good enough to pass the graduation, you are already truly gifted or asking for not sleeping much. I know people who studied an Asian language for 4 years with 2 immersion experiences and still needed a fair amount of additional learning time to pass the language requireemnt. B: MSFS vs. SAIS You are right the SAIS teaches quant in a generally more structured manner than MSFS. You can however easily replicate the quant education at MSFS that you receive in SAIS via core + electives, but there is something said about everyone being in the same pain together. However in terms of South Asia and strategy, they both have strong faculty in this space (I mean there might be more niche things you are looking for that I am not aware about). The real strength of MSFS is having the academic resources of all of Georgetown and all its programming. I did projects with MSFS people involving business and healthcare, things you wouldn't get that much fidelity at SAIS. You might not think any of this matters now, but I always believe that having access to things and not needing it is better than not having access to things and needing it. SAIS essentially operates as a stand alone school separate from Johns Hopkins. It can decently get away with it by leveraging its DC network + opportunities. C. Princeton (they did a name change) The thing about Princeton is that it is a policy program with divided attention between domestic type policy and international type policy. Yes, there are international policy type people floating around with access to esteemed professors. Additionally, its class size is super small in comparison to other programs. The means: - a much smaller network - less resources and access to opportunities for your area of focus. Ya, there are smart grads floating around who felt like that got a great experience. However, its not exactly fun to be the ONLY professional school in all of Princeton and not having access to resources that MSFS and SAIS have. Anecdotally, I have met way more people from Princeton from the domestic policy space than the foreign policy space.

I have always been an advocate of mental health and being open about it. I think what was interesting about my graduate school experience was that for the first time I was in an environment whereby self-identification of having mental health issues + openly discussing treatment regimens was a highly regarded means of community involvement and participation. Just to highlight this better, the way this manifested were: 1. Regular conversations about individuals comparing mental health treatment regimens 2. Numerous conversations by classmates (some I call friends to this day) that I was being insufficiently healthy + not a great mental health ally because I do not actively seek therapy to be diagnosed with a mental health condition and seek active treatment for it (full disclosure, I was shamed into looking into therapy options, but I financially couldn't stomach the costs). 3. The popular established notion that having a mental health issue was a litmus test for having an inclusive conversation. I only thought about this as I had a virtual grad school reunion whereby the same conversations came up again. Maybe I should think about things differently. Please let me know. However my standing thought has been: - Mental health should not be trivialized and are matters that should be respected as private health issues. - If someone does reveal a mental health issue, it should be treated with respect and dignity, but not a Flexing Olympics of who has more mental healthy issues / treatment access - It is perfectly okay not to have a mental health issue and no one should be shamed/guilt tripped into believing they are insincere for not having one. Any thoughts and guidance are greatly appreciated. I am not looking for affirmation. Just some perspectives to help me grow.

I also want to highlight that MBA schools generally speaking are more competitive than Policy/IR graduate schools. There is also usually a trickle down effect I noticed anecdotally whereby those who don't get into the MBA school of choice trickle down into Policy/IR graduate schools (like good ones too - HKS and etc.). I have met quite a few Policy/IR graduate students who open note how they are only there because they couldn't get into their target MBA schools. I don't think its a big supply factor stressor, but nonetheless, it adds on to all the challenges of this applications cycle.

Everyone feels like this at some point in their life (if not multiple points). It is the challenge of getting older. I recommend you can: A: See a therapist about it - I believe Canada does have generous therapy options B: Just face reality and become an adult now. No point in chasing something that is fleeting anyway.

You are right, I might have over-exaggerated his lack of chances at SAIS a bit by focusing on Princeton. That being said, it is only 2 years of work experience and NDI is reputable but not exactly a super brand (rightly or wrongly) to get him out of a quant low-mid situation - slam dunk style. That being said, taking Calc classes before next fall won't exactly help his chances for admission (because they need to see grades) At the end of the day, it really all comes down to how competitive the applications cycle. I think you have 4 other unknown variables: 1. US Presidential elections 2. International student appetite (related to #1) 3. Chinese student apathy for US education (related to #2) 4. Vaccine progress - if 1918 pandemic is an indicator, that lasted about 18 months, and that virus had a more deadly mutation. HOWEVER... the only grad programs that publish their application numbers (MBAs) have highlighted they have had a rise in applications. That isn't exactly a good indicator for other grad schools (applicant perspective) + those deferring from last year are not good starting points to be coming from as an applicant. All that aside, I know people who got into SAIS with low-quant background because they had awesome work experience. They hated their lives. As in, were stuck in the library and weren't able to eat dinner with their wives on many days. If you want to go through that, more power to you. However, time spent in the library is time not spent doing projects boosting your resume or networking.

In all fairness, Princeton MPA will be much harder than SAIS. SAIS does at times take some risk on a candidate who may not have all the quant in background, however usually they are people with extensive work experience. However, indications are that this will be an exceptionally difficult application cycle due to COVID-19 by virtue of deferrals wanting their slot back... but that could easily change by many other COVID factors TBD. As to answer your question. 1. Emphasize quant based projects and how you used data to be successful 2. Highlight Math aptitude and curiosity. Can you please highlight why you are dead set on SAIS? Sounds like there is a story there.

Kiss Princeton MPA and SAIS goodbye. I honestly don't know why you want to do Princeton MPA if you are going IR unless you are trying to do something super academic. I would say Georgetown MSFS and SIPA are both more robust options (in terms of academic opportunities).

I don't think you realize that your "very different' undergrad education" actually makes you more competitive by virtue of making you unique + messages the ability to handle quant (I believe you are a science guy). So that actually comes as an advantage. I totally get the money thing, but there is money and timing. These schools will be around next year and their financial situation can't be worse than this year to dole out money (with the exception of Princeton which garauntees). As for nuances, I recommend you talk to some student ambassadors (or equivalents) + get on the phone with some recent alums that are in your network. It will help you make better choices among the limited choices I understand that you do have.

They don't reveal their numbers (unlike MBAs) since MPP programs don't want to be perceived as playing an admissions numbers game. Anecdotally, everyone that I know who qualified for Princeton MPP at my policy school who weren't location tied (except for myself) applied for it. I have heard back of the envelope numbers from people in industry say roughly 25% admissions rate for HKS in general and 15% for Princeton MPP, but that was year's ago and uncertain reliability. I would take it with a grain of salt, but I would say it is directionally correct. MC/MPA and Princeton MPP isn't a straight forward apples to apples comparison. MC/MPA still has quant but is not as quant intense at Princeton MPP. Princeton MPP is kind of geared more towards career switchers going deep in Policy than career advancement per se. HKS MC/MPA is geared more towards Policy leadership roles. I mean hypothetically, there is a lot of cross over in terms of jobs being targeted, but the programs are decently nuanced with different strengths and weaknesses. Overall, it sounds like you are targeting a top tier program that fits you broadly in terms of timeline and eligibility, but I think you have failed to do your due diligence in researching the nuances to see if your goals actually align with each program's strengths and weaknesses. Otherwise, you wouldn't be asking so many of the same type of questions over and over again in more unique situations. Not trying to be mean. Just trying to help you make a plan for next steps.

Ya but NYU Wagner and Columbia SIPA (assuming you not doing IR) are much easier to get into than Princeton MPP due to supply and demand (# of students apply vs. # of seats available). Huge difference.

Hey man, I went to grad school with 8 years of work experience. It wasn't the end of the world. If you are really eyeballing Princeton MPP, I would just apply next year. If you apply this year and they smoke you out as A. Being unqualified or B. Being unqualified and knowing you are unqualified after checking with admissions Worst case scenario is that it could look really bad for you and you become an automatic reject next time you apply. Like I said, I don't 100% know Princeton's admissions practices. I'm just speaking to industry common practices I have seen. Also, it is likely easier to get in for the fall of 2022 class than fall of 2021 class. I mean at this point, especially without submitting standardized tests + being on the lower end of career years, you are coming from a position of weakness and not strength so you need every advantage you can get (not disadvantage).

Unless that person giving you advice has insider information, that is a terrible idea. A lot of times (and in no way am 100% sure Princeton does this, but every admissions officer I encountered in IR and Policy does), admissions offices have Graduate assistants do initial screens of resumes to make sure you match up the pre-reqs. If you are in question, you go into the questionable pile (if not outright rejection) for adjudication. That is when the professionals do a further screen of you. If the person who originally told you no is a graduate assistant, then that means you didn't pass the sniff test. If it was a professional admissions person, that means your story will likely be remembered (they won't remember your name, but they will remember your unique story from your resume). ALSO - especially given how you are the lower end of career experience, your resume would be given more scrutiny, lowering your chances of actually getting in. If you want to take that risk, then it is on you. I am just giving you a real shake. Honestly, what is so bad about taking the GRE for HKS or waiting a year (maybe you wrote it before and I missed it)?

Okay, clearly we have a major gap between what you think schools look for and what they more realistically look for / view what hurts you. So lets reframe this: Your strengths: 1. Your work experience. It sounds like you are in a leadership role and you are in a high intensity job. My bet is that you are probably are in are reputable brand name firm too. These are things that public policy schools look for. Another thing is that coming from finance makes you very unique compared to most of our colleagues at policy programs and helps with a school's interest to become more diverse. Not to be mean, but it sounds like you haven't done your research on policy schools and what they look for in terms of perspective students. If you go on some websites, its pretty much all there. Its 100% fine (even potentially advantageous) if your work experience is completely unrelated. 2. Your passion for social impact (you just were messaging it poorly). You want to highlight how you care about making social impact and realized by XYZ activities (just don't mention the Asian thing). 3. Academics. Same deal as before... Weaknesses: 1. Why policy school. You need to do a better job explaining what your career goals are (broadly speaking) and how policy school can get you there. Just saying Federal consulting or Federal employee with out more of story won't get you far. You also need to better explain why policy school will make a difference for you, both in terms of career and making social impact. Finally, you need to more coherently explain why you want to pivot your career. Right now I'm just hearing speaking in vague thoughts and generalities. You need to weave together a coherent story. The first thing you might want to do is have some meaningful conversations with students and recent alums with significant pre-grad school work experience. Schools. I think you are within striking distance of SIPA and Harris, if you manage to tell a convincing story about your interests in policy school. I would say the schools that are the best fit in order are: 1. Harris --> best able to leverage your quant skills. Also, they have a robust consulting pipeline (commercial and public sector) 2. Terry Sanford --> Strong focus on social policy 3. Wagner --> If you want to focus on an operations and programming perspective, that would be a good opportunity. I already explained why I'm not a big fan of McCourt for you. I think very uniquely for you, I would like you to reconsider SIPA. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't view them to be a strong school for social policy. They got some flashy stuff going on, but substance wise I view them as their core strengths being all things international relations/international development. They have a social policy focused cohort but social policy folks don't exactly go running towards it.

So here are my thoughts: Strengths: 1. Academics: I think you can mitigate your freshman year issues with an addendum explaining your Freshman year woos (assuming you have a good story there). Your grades in key class items are generally good. Your GRE is amazing. NYU is a pretty good school from a brand/difficulty perspective. + you check of the major boxes of showing quant proficiency. Weaknesses --> Everything Else 1. Work Experience --> Maybe there is a messaging gap, but although your work is showing great intentions, you are not really highlighting that you did anything of significant intensity / extreme difficulty. Don't get me wrong, I totally applaud what you are doing in being a good human and etc. However, based off of how you are currently describing it, it shows good intentions, but isn't identifying your ability to overcome hardship/challenges in any capacity. You have to realize schools are impressed by work experience that highlight that you can make a meaningful impact by doing the hard stuff and going for big things. Another issue with your work experience is that it doesn't make you unique in anyway. If anything, Policy schools are disproportionately overpopulated with teachers, social workers, community resource type folks (I'm bucketing them in one group because schools generally think of them in one group). 2. Academic Interest --> The easiest way to make yourself less competitive is to highlight that you are interested in social policy broadly (this can vary decently by school) and want to go to the social policy cohort (for those schools that have cohorts). Again, in terms of resources set aside to social policy, there is disproportionate demand, both from those who come from the social policy sphere and those who want to switch into it. You don't want to be disingenuous and lie and say something else, because people can sniff that out in essays and god forbid you have to do a soft interview (some schools present the opportunity to do so). 3. The Asian thing and Policy Schools --> So this is interesting. The bottom line is that most policy programs are trying to be more diverse. It used to be being more diverse meant having loads of Chinese International students and identifying them + US asians bucketed as minorities with all the other minority groups. However, with the draw down of Chinese international students, this has generally disappeared as a practice. That being said, being Asian doesn't really help you as schools are trying to boost historically disadvantaged minorities. Also, I am fully aware about the issues of Asian poverty and etc., but not to sound mean, but that is not something that really flies well in public policy schools beyond brand spectrum impacts (like oh Obama care impacts XYZ Hispanics and XYZ Asians). Asians are simply not as severely disadvantaged in the US as a minority group in comparison to others (African American, Hispanic, and Native American) as a whole, so there isn't a real public policy targeting impoverished Asians other than some language programs. I honestly can't think of a single policy school professor I ever encountered who could mentor you in this area appropriately. Asian studies professors, sure, but not policy. I say this because you are really indexing the Asian community thing, but perception rightly or wrongly could work against you. 4. Career interests Right now you haven't coherently identified why consulting (or what type of consulting) or being a Federal employee. You need go in to an application with a story and right now you don't s sound like you have one. You also mention you want an MPA, but you do realize some of the schools you mention only provide an MPP??? My Take: I think you'll be able to get into NYU Wagner, McCourt, and Batten Pre Covid. Of these schools, NYU Wagner is probably your best fit. If you want to go to McCourt, I really hope you are able to be a solo operator because the culture won't really help you work on your career opportunities. If you want to go to UVA Batten, I hope you really like team dynamics and values based education, because UVA Batten has the most intense team building and values based emphasis. Harris, Sanford, and SIPA might work for you Pre-COVID, but given how COVID is currently suggesting higher application rates, I think those look really rough for you.