GradSchoolGrad

So anecdotal, but everyone I know who went to think tank straight from undergrad or master's ended up leaving to go to another grad program (J.D., MBA, or something random) to move to a 2nd career after being so frustrated with Think Tank world. Maybe I just. run with a bunch action oriented people who have no patience. However, I wanted to give a sample of what I have seen.

Lots of programs have had quant resume for ages, including HKS.

Here are my thoughts: 1. About schools: I think you are way stronger of a candidate than you think you actually are. No one cares about 1 grade as long as your overall GPA is great. I think you shown enough math/programming skills to show you are dangerous even if you haven't done full blown econometrics. I actually think you are within striking distance of HKS Pre-Covid. Again - not sure how competitive this application cycle is. If you don't get into Harris, I would be surprised. I think the best options for you would be HKS, Harris, and Sanford in that order. McCourt is interesting because you are right about its quant advantage + network... HOWEVER, granted many professors have networks to Think Tanks, only about 1 person (if any) go to a Think Tank a year (pure think tank like Urban or Brookings, not just a research institute or org that has a research arm). I think its interesting that the 1 Think Tank alumni who comes back is essentially worshipped on career day, but few have been able to ride that. The reason is because Think Tanks are so competitive among PhDs and Post-Docs already, let alone the Master's crew. I bet McCourt will probably give you the most scholarship because they like people from brand name schools. However, if your Think Tank plans fall off the wayside, the school doesn't have a good culture or structure to help you with other career options --> AKA: unless you go to one of the few historic recruiting paths - Deloitte or Mathamatica, you are on your own. 2. Careers: Think Tank - you might want to think twice about doing the Think Tank role. Obviously there are some cool points, but: a. Not really a great place to work in terms of career development and mentoring (especially as Master's person where you'll forever be 2nd class to PhDs) b. Very very very rarely have I seen a person last past their early 30s in a think tank (without a PhD and some even with a PhD). At a certain point you are just stove piped unless you manage to go to the managerial track. Federal Government: The three easiest ways to get in the Federal Government are: a. Presidential Management Fellowship (what I recommend). It used to be super competitive, but not as much anymore. b. Pathways internship --> good luck finding those anymore... hence the advantage of being in DC is diminished c. Competitive Application --> Depending on demand this ranges greatly... and honestly you can backdoor this if you make targeted connections (which if you have strong Professors with connections, they can help you).

1. Stats and Micro-Econ puts you in a good position directly, but it would be helpful if you identified if your took Calc or. Econometrics. Your work experience is legit, but nothing extra ordinary. Like between straight from undergrad to Navy Seal, you are in the middle. 2. I honestly don't know the West Coast schools that well in terms of admissions, so I don't feel comfortable answering. 3. I am a big fan of Duke Sanford and UVA Batten MPP as awesome programs. HOWEVER... those are East Coast schools, and it doesn't really make sense for you if you want to stay out West. 4. Just drop CIPA from your list. It is like Stanford MPP - great University, but not a great program.

@EveningLeaves To answer your questions. 1. Exit opportunities from Federal Consulting generally land in these three areas a.. Transition to Private sector that does business with Federal government a lot (example - Adobe cloud sales team to Government) b. Transition to Private sector tangentially related to Federal Consuling role (example - user experience person does customer experience at Hilton) c. Transition to Public sector as a contractor or senior level career government official (higher end GS or special pay grades) 2. Its funny that you ask me about stress of Federal Consulting vs. Big Law. I would say the sources of stress can be different. a. In Big Law the stress is how you sometimes have multiple masters as an associate (multiple partners want things from you), making you work 90 hours a week on terrible work weeks. Also there are plenty of deadlines. Granted firms vary greatly, but generally speaking, you are too busy for the daily drama of things. b. In Federal Consulting the stress is generally focused on 3 areas. i. The drama. Because the hours are relatively relaxed + with lots and lots of opportunities for socializing --> there is a fair amount of intra-work drama that happens due to team dynamics + social events ii. The waiting on your client to do something (not their fault, but waiting on the gears of government to turn) to see if what you done for XYZ months/years with millions/billions of dollars Is a failure or not iii. FOMO on networking opportunities 3. As for me, I went to the tech space. Not a common MPP route, but I was able to do it because someone took a chance on me to let me work in a big tech company and I was able to turn that a experience around to greater career opportunities that are tangentially policy related. That being said, Tik Tok has been on a hiring spree of MPPs, but I WOULD NOT take that job because of all the negative perceptions about the company (not just the China thing, but how they are struggling with getting their act together from a business organization angle too(.

@EveningLeaves Before we talk to you about schools... I recommend you read my posts about Federal Consulting first. Like you, I entered grad school gunning for Federal Consulting, but I'm so glad I got diverted from that path.

You are a pretty solid candidate (assuming you have some quant classes in college). If you have some semblance of leadership / managerial excellence, that might be the cherry on the cake. Unless you want to shoot for HKS and Harris, there should be no reasons for you to apply there (doesn't sound like it). Especially given how painful the HKS application is. What I would do instead is identify some West Coast schools as safeties that in the event of a worst admissions case scenario for you (deferrals want their seats back + surge in US application + Biden election halts slide in international students) means that you might not get into Goldman, other options that you might actually attend may begin to sound promising to you. In addition to Price, there is Luskin at UCLA, and Evans at UW. You don't want to get a full ride from a place you don't want to go to when you should have gotten a full ride from a place that actually aligns with your interest. Even if they do give you do get full ride scholarships, at most UC Berkeley might throw in like an extra few grand or so to sweeten the pot, but definitely not fill it. Especially if this current cycle has strong grad school demand, they might not care to play negotiation games as much as they used to.

1. Yes you are right about PhDs in Public Policy - looking more favorably on grad school work experience than other options. I was thinking PhD in general (actually most MPPs I know who go PhD route get one in Econ or Political Science). 2. As for student experience, I think we need to clarify between relative experience vs. absolute experience. Yes, most straight from undergrad MPPs that I encountered (from various schools) get star stuck WOW factor in the first semester/year because grad school does have more opportunities than undergrad + you do generally encounter lots of interesting people. So relative to undergrad, from the academic/professional angle, an MPP does at first generally highlight a good experience. However, in terms of the range of total opportunity in terms of: a. Access to internships b. Access to projects c. Total professional bounce between prior job to current job d. Social opportunities granted there is some variation by school, straight from undergrads miss out on a lot compared to other students in terms of absolute comparisons. 3. In general, when speaking with anyone, I recommend you identify how "real" they are willing to get with you because different people have different incentives and may only tell you part of the story. Some key examples: a. Student Ambassadors (I was one, so I know) are there to pump the school up b. Students in general --> most of them want to talk about the positives of a school rather than the downsides in order to make themselves feel good about about making the right decision (we are human, we want to rationalize our choices). Its interesting how many MPPs students I encounter who hated their experience + program still talk in public proudly about it to justify their decision. I think it is important to talk to students/recent alums in general, but you want to have them discuss the real downsides of a program too because they won't generally. c. Admissions --> Admissions' job is too boost applications period. Even if it isn't published (like undergrad admissions) it is internally reported among the University + discussed at conferences. So the admissions at Harris, are absolutely correct, you are competitive for Harris. However, generally when they have such conversations, they are taking it from the perspective of your ability to graduate (which obviously you don't have a problem for). However, what they are not taking into account is how competitive the application cycle is. Factors like professional experience, diversity, brand of school, and etc. then come into play. Also keep in mind available slots is also determined upon how many of those who deferred (and there was a lot from last cycle) want their seats back. Most admissions offices won't tell someone who is utterly unqualified not to apply. However, for anyone who meets minimum viability, they will encourage that person to apply. 4. As for your school choice, I think you are emphasizing the wrong things. You seem to be looking into what a school can offer you in terms of academic programming + marketing material benefits of a school. Don't get me wrong this is definitely important as a baseline (i.e. you want quant, so you should get quant). However, what I don't think you have looked into at is if a school gets you into your desired outcomes. If you did look into that, you would have highlighted: a. Regional preference in terms of where you land - From a network perspective, if you go West Coast, its easier to stay West Coast than go East. b. Policy Focus areas - each school has strengths and weaknesses for Policy Focus areas. I personally know people who transferred out of McCourt due to its lack of academic opportunities in Food Policy or Transportation Policy . c. Actual career outcomes and career support - Harris does an amazing job with career support. McCourt does a terrible job with boosting your career, and even the most gung ho McCourt fans will mention that. There is a reason why the average McCourt grad's post graduation salary is less than the average Georgetown undergrad grad (back when they published it in 2017 or so, conveniently removing students "they couldn't track"). d. Student experience - what type of student experience do you want? I'm a big fan of Harris because it is academic + professionally oriented. I like UVA Batten because it is collaborative and collaboration focused. I'm not a fan of McCourt MPP because although it is quant based, it is culturally deficient in terms of not being career focused, ethically challenged, and socially more like Mean Girls than an MPP program (and the straight from undergrads often aren't invited to many unofficial social occasions --> cliques are the standard culture) e. Academic programming factors that really matter. Honestly, the thesis at McCourt is outdated and should not be a means of attracting you to the program. Most schools got rid of their thesis because they want their graduation requirement to elicit professional skills. McCourt keeps its thesis because it is relatively cost efficient and they got some Powerhouse professors stuck in the 1990s. Some student programming that may actually matter to you are research partnerships, graduate student positions at research institutes, career connections (i.e. if XYZ firm/org saves 3 seats for students from so and so school), and ongoing collaborative research projects you can jump in on. 5. You got good grades, stop harping on them more than you have to. I mean as long as you get above 3.5 and do really well in your quant classes, you are golden academically. It doesn't matter how you do it. Beyond that they will look at your work experience and LOR and how competitive the cycle is. One thing you do need to appreciate is that being straight from undergrad is a demographic group that hurts you period. No program gets any kudos from admitting someone straight from undergrad. In fact its hurts their statistics in terms of years of work experience (proxy for quality of a program). Where as they might seek demographic, career type (teacher or business or etc.) diversity advantage, you are generally filler when the other applicants aren't as qualified academically. Except for special programs (sponsorships and etc.), most schools don't hold seats for undergrads.

My thoughts: 1. You need to figure out if you want to do PhD in the long term or not. An MPP doesn't hurt you to get a PhD, but it doesn't really help you either. Also, if you get anything less than an A- GPA in MPP, once again. your chances of getting into a top PhD gets hurt. 2. I STRONGLY encourage you not to go to an MPP coming out of undergrad. Especially since you want to do research long term, it might even make sense for you to do a 1 year more academic Master's (good options are UK Oxford/Cambridge/LSE - assuming you can keep up your grades + do better on the GREs). If you go to MPP straight from undergrad, you are at a distinct DISADVANTAGE for all career and internal project opportunities. Also, you are simply less competitive period in terms of admissions. I will also say that almost ever undergrad I have known have had a notable worse student experience than the average non-undergrad, simply because they feel relatively alone (straight from undergrads are a small minority). 3. Your MPP list is all over the place in so many different ways. a. It seems like you haven't given deep thought to any of the schools other than what among the list of top schools have historically allowed undergrads to matriculate. I agree that Chicago probably makes sense for you, BUT there might be a surge of US applicants (this is already happening with MBA programs that publicize their application rates) due to COVID, making this competition cycle much more competitive than previous years (unless Trump gets elected, causing a crash of international students). b. Speaking from Pre-Covid situations these are my thoughts. i.. U. Chicago Harris - I think it will be really hard for you to get in. ii. Georgetown McCourt - I think you might have a shot, but I hope you are prepared for student experience that doesn't prepare you for careers outside of data analytics research + Capital Hill. Bottom line - academics is top notch, but this will likely be a lonely place for you, and I don't think its a good place for you to develop professional skills. You'll really be hurting being a straight from undergrad. iii. HKS - Unless their applications crash, no! They had some more straight from undergrads this past application cycle since their applications crashed due to COVID. Traditionally, you either need to a professional rock star (have your own start up / non profit or something) or have be sponsored (usually by the Federal government) to go there straight from undergrad. I don't now the other schools well enough to confidently say. I think the school that is the best balance of what you can realistically get in + will probably be the best for you is UVA Batten School. It has an awesome student experience and it generally is a stronger support structure for those straight from undergrad. c. You need to consider where do you want a network. If you go West Coast, you'll get a West Coast network, and makes it harder for you to go to DC / NY and vice versa. Oh and yes... get your GRE scorers up... or else UVA Batten might be out of reach. As someone straight out of undergrad, if you don't show your GREs, that becomes even more suspicious. Honestly, those who are most able to get away without sending GREs are working professionals who can more legitimately argue they really don't have time to study for GREs.

Good luck doing it with social distancing in tow.

@PhantomThief, lets play a thought experiment. I will go out on a limb and say it can be helpful for a grad student to dip into the undergrad pool out of true love + recreational amusement if he/she has an established and stable grad school life. That being said, do you have a cohort of grad school/adult friends (defined as those you socialize with purely for social purposes at least once a week)? If so, how many, 1, 2, more than 2? Not trying to be nosy, but just saying, if the answer is 1 or 0, you should be avoiding the undergrads period and burning rubber to be an adult because you are way behind. If you dip back to the undergrads, you begin hitting the negatives. Before you tell me you heard differently, tell us what, and from what perspective (like are they undergrads, grads, your parents, etc.)?

It would be helpful if you share your "differing opinions" rather than just saying that you have heard them, which isn't helpful whatsoever to help you.

Good luck with that. Undergrad students generally think it will be a bit a weird a grad student is trying to hang out. Grad students will think its weird you are trying to dip into the undergrad pool. You can't win either way. Cut your losses now and pick a side. Time to grow up. The undergrads will probably tell you the same.

Well, the best way to feel young again is to start hanging out with people who graduated from undergrad, maybe starting with your grad student colleagues. Youth is relative. If moving on from college graduation is tough for you, you'll have a harder time when you turn 30. Move on now before you waste more time reliving college.

So lets break this down into two groups. 1. Staying in the country. That varies greatly among countries and you face a fair amount of uncertainty for all countries. 2. Returning to your current country. I think this is very nuanced. Two things to consider a. Brand relevance power in your current country. There are countries (I don't think it is right, but its true), where getting a particular brand gets your a certain job, or easier access towards a certain job. b. Actual international professional reach. Some schools have established powerful alumni presence + institutional presence within other countries. This may or may not apply to you. I recommend you identify what are the jobs you want (or where) coming out of grad school and between talking to the current employees / doing LinkedIn stalking to see where some of the influential people / flood of new employees come from.

Actually MPA/MPP are actually less political than you would think. So much of it is the technical aspects of interpreting data + plus developing structures for policy. My ex-Boss (HKS guy) noted how a Human Rights activist and conservative firearms lobbyist became best friends over surviving quant classes in their MPA program.

Ya... but if they made it 6 year career experience, then the person with 5 years will be annoyed and so on and so forth. At a certain point, they had to put a marker down to cater the experience that they want. So B.S. Thesis vs. Master Thesis is interesting because it depends on program. I spent more time on my B.S. Thesis than Master's project (partly due to how poorly structured the Master's project was).

Yes, but comparatively speaking, a Master's Thesis is a Goosebumps children's novel whereas a PhD thesis is like Moby Dick (slight exaggeration, but I think you get the point). The expectations, level of scrutiny, and process involved has greater time investment + levels of complexity in a PhD vs. Master's. It is not an apples to apples comparison. Its interesting, I was talking to someone who complained that his Executive Masters program didn't have an age limit and had to deal with all these co workers with relatively lack of breadth and scope in terms of workforce. Not saying that is you, but those numbers are out there for a reasons to bolster program experience.

You really don't like rules, pre-reqs, and requirements from institutions I see. As for the PhD, I didn't mean to say you didn't care about the subject, I mean caring to go through the pain of the PhD in the first place. Assuming this is a traditional PhD, there are comprehensives (which has a decent failure rate depending on discipline) and thesis. Both can be painful.

I would say email Princeton to get an exception to policy or clarification of definition for 7 years. I am assuming that on Day 1 of school, you would be at 6 years. If you add all your full time summer internships + other college jobs, you tip at 7 years. That might be just good enough to fly. It is usually a bad idea to go to a PhD unless you really care for it and it doesn't sound like you do.

So in my opinion, it makes no sense for you to do an MPP program if your focus is to be a data scientist post graduation. Every person I know from an MPP program who became a data scientist, did a lot of self-learning / boot camps / maxed out data electives (or a combo) to get there (AKA: lots of extra work). However, if you want to get a broader exposure to the policy environs in general, then an MPP makes sense. The top 3 most quant focused programs are U. Chicago, Princeton, and if you want to go crazy with quant - HKS (but not in terms of graduation requirements). Some other thoughts: 1. Part of me thinks the you might be too advanced for some of these programs already. I would check to see if these programs are sufficiently difficult enough for you, or if you can jump ahead to your appropriate level of difficulty. There might be something to be said if you spent the first semester as a necessary refresher and dive deeply during the rest of your academic time. 2. Part of me thinks that a you should expand you grad school search into an advanced stats/data analytics in general and do public facing projects. 3. How to Think About These Data Programs: So these programs are all relatively new (started within the past few years) to A: capture profit from the grad school market and B: posture towards the big data future. In my opinion it is better to go with a school that had a robust computer science capability that is leveraged by the policy program (Harris + CMU Heinz) vs. a policy program that organically built a data capability to adjust to the future (McCourt). This is because especially for someone at your level of competency, you have robust comp sci + other statistical analysis entities to draw expertise has. McCourt makes up for its lack of institutional data strength (heck you can find LInkedIn postings of them hiring for Data oriented professors to grow their program) through exposure to industry (that would be government facing entities). However, at the end of the day, though the program is solid + the Director is super awesome (I know him well as a Professor), your alumni base focused technically on data is simply not that large.

The smartest thing to do is actually to talk to real students or recent alumni. Most schools have student ambassador like programs. However, to be really smart about it, it helps to talk to someone who isn't a student ambassador, who is pressured to sell the school and not exactly give the 100% honest opinion (I know, I was one). The problem with the website and virtual events is that they are ultimately sales events (in fact a lot of the people who run it are PR/marketing people. You do get interesting insights and structural understanding of a program. However, there is a lot under the hood that won't be mentioned. In terms of knowing, I think that depends on if knowing someone relates back to the school and the depth of "knowing". For example, I know my family members who gone to schools and done a lot of comparing and contrasting, and I think they are amazingly insightful "knowing someone".

Since you were an Econ minor and I am assuming that you did some level of Calc in college + econometrics. Given that + your identified stats, you should be fine to get into any of the schools that you identified based on Pre-Covid conditions (since this application cycle has lots of unpredictability regarding student demand going either way). I think the big challenge for you is to get scholarship from any of these schools. This will especially so since so many people deferred and will want their scholarships back. Your other challenge is that you are a South Asia international development person. You run the risk of being not diverse in work experience because so many people are South Asia development people. In fact, I struggle to think of an international development person who doesn't have experience in South Asia. That being said, these places can be a bit snooty and like people that come from brand name undergrad programs. If you really want scholarships, I recommend you think about other schools. whereby A: International Development is not as common in the school, or B: They have a big pot of cash to manage a small program So some programs to think about (in no particular order): 1. Georgetown MSFS - with a Dev Concentration (general overall terrific program) 2. Georgetown MIDP - if you want to be quant focused (this is under the McCourt School, but is a much better run program than its maligned MPP program). 3. Georgetown Global Human Development - if you want to focus more on the relationship management / operations side of the house 4. Yale Jackson - new school dripping with cash

Wow, I haven't heard someone interested in The Hill/WH in a long time. Please keep in mind that in both places, your past business background well more often be ignored than seen as an asset. By that, I mean some, 23 year old hot shot straight from undergrad can easily have more clout than you even though you a grad student + work experience. Network rules the roost over resume. You are also getting to the point for being on the older end of starting congressional staffers. Just be comfortable with that. 1. So if you want to do Federal level policy advising with Congress or the White House you have 3 avenues. a. Go top brand (i.e. HKS/Princeton --> which I think you will have trouble getting into, b. Go DC (McCourt and GW Trachtenburg are the two best options) *If you do McCourt, your life will be very lonely, as in you won't see much of your classmates outside of the classroom since you'll be working. The McCourt school programming won't be able to do that much for you if your Hill/WH dreams die. However, you have a shot at leveraging the Georgetown brand + GU Politics networking. If you are okay with going alone, that might be a good option. c. Focus on local issues with federal relevance and try to bring that to DC (so assuming you want to stay out West, Berkeley - Goldman and Price @ USC make the most sense for that. This might be the most fun option for you rather than slogging it out on the DC circuit. I don't know Goldman or Price that well other than their geographic strength though. I recommend you talk to someone from the schools who has figured out the pathway. I know it has been done before.

1. Yes, the lack of Calc will be a bit of weakness for admissions. Here is the thing, taking Calc at a community college is an intention and not demonstration of quant skills. Basically, don't do it for admissions unless the school gives you direct guidance to do so. 2. Yep, you do need some quant skills to get to your career goals, but since you said that, it doesn't make sense for you to go somewhere like Princeton or Michigan for career purposes. 3. As for your interest statement, that varies by school and I don't want to lead you astray. I will however tell you that policy schools are overpopulated with Ed people and branding yourself as an ed person can at times make you not diverse. Ironically, I haven't met that many Food, Transportation, or Housing policy people. 4. Got it about scholarships. Okay school thoughts. a. The best school you could realistically get into is probably U. Chicago Harris. HOWEVER... that school my be excessively too quant for your career purposes as it is probably tied with Princeton and Michigan as the most quant intense. However, unlike those programs, they do offer Math Camp which should level the playing field for you. So if you shooting for the top and don't mind some first year pain, U. Chicago is your place. b. I think the best school fit for you (that you can realistically get in) will be Terry Sanford @ Duke. I know you love hearing this as a UNC person. However, Terry Sanford really is the best quant-mid MPP program focused on social policy. A lot of social policy is state and local policy issues, and Terry Sanford is spot on for that. c. UVA - Batten school is probably the best school that you can get a sizable scholarship at. d. UNC MPP is probably a good safety.