GradSchoolGrad

1. Do Georgetown MSFS or bust for Georgetown. Conflict Resolution is a small program that doesn't get that much funding or respect. 2. Notre Dame is not a school I have seen anyone matriculate from in the IR space. I'm sure its a good program, but simply doesn't have robust programming + alumni base. 3. I think the two you are missing are Stanford's IR program (granted it is more Asia Pacific centered) and U. Chicago's IR program. 4. I'm curious... what do you mean by Ethical issue with Tufts?

1. You do realize Oxford is not in London, but a 2 hour bus ride outside of London and the town of Oxford has a significantly different vibe than London? (I have 2 siblings and a best friend from college who studied there). That is like the distance of Philadelphia from New York. The British schools are actually very rule based. When they give a minimum, it means you have to have some crazy story to justify defying it. 2. As for other schools... you need tell me what are you trying to do with grad school career wise? Are you just trying to buy 2 years to explore and hopefully end up with something generally good? Do you want to go into legislative stuff? Operations type stuff? Consulting? Research? What exactly are you trying to do. Also, what type of culture are you looking for? Are you trying to look for a tight knit student community or one whereby everyone does their own thing? Do you want a school that is more data focused or more operations focused? Do you want something that is more career focused or more academic? 3. I would say in your case try to get above 90 percentile. 4. So I would not do what I did. I focused on location and only location for specific personal reasons. It was nice I got a good scholarship, but ultimately, my school was not right for me. I view it as too academic, insufficiently focused on career, and ethically blighted. One of the reasons why I'm so active is that I want others to learn from my mistakes. Luckily I landed really well since grad school, but I was a hair away from screwing up my professional aspirations since I chose poorly. \ 5. I'm also a bit confused why you want an MPP. I think you might be a better fit for a social impact oriented MBA (assuming you got your GRE scores up and there is some career alignment there).

Since the board seems to be quiet, I'll start. Background, I interviewed extensively for Public Sector consulting + have lots of friends who are in it. I personally ended up choosing against it and went with tech space instead. Pros (in no particular order): a. One of the higher paying public sector facing jobs out there (possibly only second to lobbying). You should be making around 6 figures (or at least very close to) for these jobs. b. Compared to commercial consulting, great hours (roughly 8AM to 5PM) and little to no travel c. Terrific exit opportunities, both with continuing public sector and private sector opportunities. d. Relative job stability: As we see now, while commercial sector is doing layoffs and "performance based terminations" Federal consulting its so far rather stable, if not safe. e. You honestly can have a outsized level of impact in defining the role of government Cons (in no particular order): a. Increasingly Federal Consulting is more staff augmentation given how objectively speaking, the current administration is leaving many Federal roles unfilled. Staff aug generally speaking is relatively not as career developing/challenging. b. Limited project flexibility as Federal consulting project lifespans can go on for years and the expectation is that people stay on them for at least a year (plenty of exceptions abound). That means if you are stuck on a project you don't like, well you are stuck on it for a while. There also isn't much of a high tempo on learning new things. c. Federal government can be painfully slow and simplistic. There are lots of stories of consultants doing waiting for the gears of government to turn or doing simple things such as managing client emails since progress is held up by bureaucracy. d. Changes in policy can mean that all previous work can be made meaningless if the initiative is in conflict to new policy. I actually know lot of people that transitioned to commercial consulting after they saw 2 years of their life end up in smoke because a policy change made their work meaningless. e. Rigid firm organization --> having been described as more rigid than the military or Catholic Church. By rigid, I mean limited ability to drive your own career on your own in terms of choosing your projects, your project areas, and etc. It is more top down driven than individual exploration in an open talent market (which tends to be more so in commercial consulting). f. Expectations on regular (multiple times a week) team socialization --> Interestingly, the #1 compliant I have been informed about Federal consulting is the expectation to partake in "mandatory fun", which usually involves going to some establishment that involves alcohol. Unlike commercial consulting where team mandatory fun can only realistically happen a few times a month or so due to work tempo,Federal consulting has better hours making more opportunities to gather for happy hours at around 6PM or so. However, people have reported that they find the regular bar/restaurant events exhausting and unhealthy as alcohol is readily made available (although no one has ever been pressured to drink, it becomes the natural thing to do). I want to highlight that there is some variation in this among firms, but regular drinking activities does tend to be trending at a lot of the bigger Federal Consulting firms. g. Golden Handcuffs - difficulty to exit due to the lure of tuition repayment and annual bonuses. People legitimately often live a lifestyle that they can't afford outside of Federal Consulting paycheck. Exit opportunities with Federal consulting generally mean a dip in salary in the short run (all comp included --> salary + bonus + in kind cost savings such as extensive free meals + benefits).

Some thoughts. 1. It seems like you just made a list of the top brand schools and haven't done a more in depth look at each school. I say that because you include Oxford MPP on this list. Oxford MPP has a US GPA minimum to apply (I think it is around 3.7) and it is pretty up front and center on their applications webpage. 2. You need to give more consideration to Geography because although most strong schools feed into DC to some degree, outside of that, they have broad regional strengths. If you go to Princeton, it will be more challenging to go back to West Coast (it was after all a small school) vs. Berkeley Goldman. 3. I think you need to think about how much you want to make your life miserable by academically learning calc based econometrics while having the demands of networking + extracurriculars + sleep + social life while in grad school. I know people who spent so much of their grad school experience surviving quant, they screwed up the career side of things. I don't think this you, but I also know people who washed out of / had delayed graduation because they struggled with quant so much. 4. So right now the challenge is that no one knows how the application demand cycle will turn out. The big mystery factors are international students (I bet somewhat tied to the election) and COVID-19. However, traditional wisdom indicates that this will be a hype competitive application cycle for ALL grad school programs. MBAs (which are more open about their application demand, have seen increased application numbers). I mention this because you are in the category of students with impressive professional life but require taking risk regarding the ability to graduate. The risk profile each school is willing to take on you is dependent on how competitive this application cycle (lets not forget scholarships). 5. Right now your combination of weaknesses are GPA, lower than desired quant GRE - given the caliber of schools you are shooting for and you don't have other backers for quant, and lack of higher level quant classes in undergrad. Had you had a high quant GRE, you might have a more legitimate argument to the admissions committee. That being said, my pre-COVID take on you is: HKS - awkwardly a slight maybe, they like diversity and you are unique enough... but if you face an uphill battle with quant Berkeley Goldman - don't know the school's admissions well enough Princeton MPP - No - probably tied with Chicago as the most quant program. Chicago - Harris - maybe - Chicago invests in summer camp to give folks like your a better shot. Just keep in mind it will be really heavy quant classes Georgetown. McCourt - yes and you'll probably get a scholarship. However - unless you really care about data analytics and want to pursue a data oriented job, it doesn't make sense for you to go to McCourt. Also, folks from business are rather rare in McCourt. Duke - maybe U Mich - unlikely LSE - don't know the program well enough. 6. I recommend you maybe apply in another application cycle so you have time to bump up your GRE or face less instability.

A lot of people have been asking me about their thoughts regarding Federal Consulting (Deloitte being the big hitter) after graduate school. Before I give my thoughts, I wanted to give everyone a chance to provide some input. @tacos95

I think that is a separate topic, but I will do you a solid and start a new threat for you to discuss it.

I like a lot of your posts, and I have even reacted positively to them in the past. I think you might be troubled by comments because there is a misunderstanding of how and why I'm looking at Fletcher (and other schools in general). First off, I want to highlight that yes, I am not nor was I ever a Fletcher student and nor do I pretend to have had that experience. My exposure to Fletcher comes in 5 areas: 1. Following Fletcher as a Higher Ed watcher - after having done Higher Ed industry comparative analysis in my prior life both for a research organization and a higher education institution 2. Robust professional connections with the Fletcher alumni/student community running back a decade (and they have talked about Fletcher at length). Personally, some of my best colleagues and some of my worst came from Fletcher (strangely none in the middle), so I'm not exactly biased by that. 3. My social network of Fletcher alumni (many that graduated in the past 4 years or so) 4. Fletcher's sales pitch (both to me back when I was prospective student and continuing to this day as I find out via the non-profit graduate school coaching I do). 5. Recruiting conversations at the organizations I have been in and I have had with other professionals in the various fields I have been in (IR, National Security, and IR). That being said, I am speaking about Fletcher from the perspective of overall higher education strategy per its value proposition as realized by its students. As we know very well, actual experience does not necessarily relate to value projection. The other thing I want to highlight is that I am speaking about Fletcher in relative terms. As I stated before, there are many things I like Fletcher and I think they are trying hard to do the smart thing directionally (i.e. DC and NYC career trips have adjusted to the IR student demand decently well). However, I speak of Fletcher relative value propositions given ts overall positioning + challenges against that over the OVERALL graduate school market (not just other IR). The reason why I started this post, because I just find Fletcher to be fascinating higher ed case study of an IR school that his historically done well establishing a solid reputation for itself in a very different way than its peers. I was hoping to solicits others thought on if the Fletcher way will suffice in the future given challenges, some IR wide, but other unique to Fletcher. So just to give you some perspective in how I think about things. 1. The Harvard connection: I totally realize that Harvard cross registration is only a part of its school offerings. HOWEVER... since I started looking at grad schools a decade ago to today, it has been a major element as part of its sales pitch, one of the top things mentioned by any Fletcher associated person trying to sell Fletcher to me. As a non-profit grad school coach (AKA: I don't get paid), to this day the #1 question I get asked about Fletcher relates to the relevance of its Harvard connection/cross-registration. Every single alum I have talked to has mentioned the opportunity to take classes at a Harvard school as bragging point (or access to the Harvard Negotiation certificate). I bring it up just to the get the issue out of the way. 2. Interdisciplinary Education Yes, Fletcher does bring many professors/instructors from many disciplines to teach its students. From that respect, Fletcher is without doubt an interdisciplinary program. However, what I'm highlighting that Fletcher is missing out on is having robust (key word) and collaborative institutional partnerships with the many other schools within Tufts to fully leverage a multi-disciplinary programming. Yes, creating hodgepodge of talent can be helpful, but having sustained institutional collaboration truly delivers robust resources, experiential learning opportunities, connections, and networks to students beyond the roledex of a professor. Fletcher definitely does have formal agreements and connections with lots of orgs and education entities, but RELATIVELY speaking compared to its competitors, they are not as robust. To paint this better, at GW someone teaching a legal aspect of international relations at the Elliot school usually has the resources of the law school since it is most likely a dual hat faculty role. Tufts has no law school so such is not possible with Fletcher. Tufts also doesn't have business school. In fact Tufts is missing lots of professional schools present in most major universities. Don't get me wrong, Tufts is an awesome place to go to for undergrad, but its lacking major graduate school assets to support Fletcher. From value projection angle, its simply more helpful to associate a school with a Pantheon of collective brands and capabilities rather than a stand alone organization. 3. Industry Bucketing I'm bucketing multilateral institutions and non-profits (which includes research arms/humanitarian non-profits) together because that is how it was careers were bucketed for me when I first locked at Fletcher and went to Fletcher in person (three times). Maybe this is outdated, but clearly based off your identification of Fletcher strengths highlights I'm not off the mark. 4. Georgetown MSFS Pivoting Please note that by MSFS pivoting, I am noting an overall more expansive career outreach throughout the DC environs (which Fletcher is trying to do itself, but without the strength of being in DC) into other Federal government agencies + Federal consulting + other. So some things to highlight: a: MSFS has had a historically robust Federal consulting pipeline (granted I personally am not a fan of the space) among multiple firms (so more than just Deloitte - granted that is the big hitter). My understanding is that people do go from Fletcher to Federal consulting, but it is not really a school for Federal consulting. I want to highlight that Federal consulting and Defense consulting are two separate things. b. Yes, post Trump election where foreign service was drying up, I saw a lot of people pivoting to Trade and economic development (with a trade angle) government organizations, supported MSFS. By this I mean outside of PMF (which did itself have increased advertising as well). c. I also saw interesting private sector Pivots. i. Netflix recruiting at MSFS for management of its international Portfolio ii. Google recruiting for international tech policy roles iii. Mapping companies iv. A play towards Government data analysis (I still think MSFS is behind SAIS in this angle). Basically, I'm highlighting how MSFS made hay with its DC location + connected relationships with all the big brand grad schools in Georgetown. Something as simple as MSFS students could network with Georgetown Alum from any single of its grad schools + undergrad programs that tends to index towards DC + NYC (sheer power in numbers alone) made the value proposition super helpful. I'm sure we'll still disagree on somethings. However, I hope you recognize that I am legitimately coming from somewhere.

So I will speak to MSPP from someone who has been watching higher ed trends and someone who has an MPP and familiar with the Policy Grad school landscape. Bottom line is that I view Penn MSPP like Stanford MPP, great University, comparatively under established and under developed program as a professional terminal degree. 1. Penn (like many other schools including Harvard) has been expanding their roster of grad programs because bottom line - they make profit. This has been part of their strategic plan for years. It may sound strange at first because they have a huge endowment, but endowment is not the money they have accessible. Additionally even though the tuition will be similar to that of ungrad, you don’t have the same costs (i.e. student life stuff). They however can attract students because of the Penn brand. 2. I have only seen MSPP come on to the scene very recently, which leads me to suspect it is a relatively new program, so you are going to have new program problems. I have friends who went to their Ed Management Masters and their feedback was that they had decently interesting peers (although wide distribution), but academics ranged from great to half baked, depending on class. 3. What really concerns me for you is that this isn’t part of a Policy school or Institute, which indicates that you are not likely going to have the same level of institutional support that you would get with an MPP program as part of a school. Sounds silly, but that matters. This is especially concerning since Penn has Fels which owns an MPA program, suggesting there was some crazy internal politics behind the scenes for not being at least partnered program with Fels. Having it be tied to School Work and not policy means that you are not being prime positioned for Social Policy oriented jobs. The other problem is that there is likely not much of an alumni base for you to draw on for career purposes. 4. I recommend that you pick programs who have better established links to social Policy career and move beyond what looks good on paper. Some ideas for you. Carnegie Melon - Heinz school , both data options and more traditional degrees. Chicago Harris - one of the most data intense MPP programs out there Michigan Ford - another data intense MPP with good social policy angle

Clearly, you didn't read what the person spent time writing to make a point, and just saw one thing and reacted to it. That is rude. As a fellow Canadian, I expect better.

There is nothing wrong with the term “Unis”. No one says it in the US and has mixed usage in Canada. That is why it was a dead giveaway that you at least not from the US and most likely in a larger Canadian University.

I'm not going to waste my time on teaching anyone how to conduct proper professional communication or how to user proper word choice. I hope people partaking in this board can make smart decisions based upon comprehensive assessments of the nuances rather than broad generalizations from someone who has had over 100+ negative post reactions (obviously for crude language and preferring to throw around accusations than trying be legitimately helpful).

Well then, you don't seem to care about what we say so feel free to listen to your "many folks". Please stop wasting our time unless you want to have an intelligent conversation about this. I know Canada has great "Uni's", so as Master's student, you should know how to instead dropping pointless one liners.

Interestingly, one of the more prevalent cases of undergrad dating I saw were non-traditional age applicants trying to relive their college years from 5 to 7 years ago. Most straight from undergrad grad students actually sought to avoid dating undergrads because they were so done with undergrad life. The exception is pre-existing relationship. For example, a girl from high school that you dated but now you are in grad school at her University and she is a Senior.

Okay, not to be mean or anything, but by not explaining that you were in Canada it was rather unhelpful for everyone to give you feedback. I'm sure it is unintentional, but there is a reason why when most people post, they at least highlight the country in question they are referring to outside of the US, or else otherwise most people think general US (since the vast majority people here are referring to US schools). So quick takeaways: 1. Even in Canada, I wouldn't recommend it, but the strength of my case does weaken decently compared to the US. I still think generally speaking, there is a lot to be said about moving forward in your outlook rather than dipping back. The reason why I acknowledge that my case weakens is that in Canada, the higher education is less focused on defined community social constructs than in the US (though some schools have been trying to Americanfy). This means that you have a less structured undergraduate community (as in really confined to the undergrad community) filled with robust Greek life + defined University wide student life events and structured programming + dependency on campus logistics + lots and lots of campus traditions. I actually view this as a general strength of the US undergraduate system over other countries because it builds in campus wide connectivity and develops diverse social experiences. Granted there are some issues, but that is an endless conversation for another time. However, what this means for us, is that the in my opinion, the average Canadian undergraduate might be missing out on all these experiences, but does mature faster at "Uni" because the person is forced to live more independently in building their own social structures, given how relatively detached campus life is. Just some background on me, I lived in both Canada and the US and although I went to schooling in the US, I am very familiar with the Canadian university system and culture and how it is different. 2. It would have also been helpful, if you explained your perspective about looking at it from an undergrad angle previously. Yes, from an undergrad perspective, there is usually nothing wrong with an undergrad dating a grad as long as they are close in age. Even in the US, the undergrad would be generally as getting social props to have nabbed a grad student the same way someone would feel about a freshman dating as senior (generally speaking). However, on the grad student side, others can and will look on with some level of discomfort... or at least curiosity. Rightfully or wrongfully, there will be a lot of suspicions about dipping down + the undergrad taking advantage of the grad. Just imagine, if there was grad program picnic that allowed +1s and someone brought there undergrad boyfriend and girlfriend. There would be a general mismatch in terms of range of conversation. This will especially be true if you go to grad program with a lot of people that are not straight from undergrad. At my grad program, we had 2 situations where one of my fellow grad students brought an undergrad date to grad social functions. In one case the age difference was 9 years. The other was 2. Either way, by in large we felt really annoyed because we had to suffer through socializing with an undergrad (who had limited awareness of grad school/adult life) more keen to talk about spring break than anything we cared about. Interestingly, the most critical people were those straight from undergrad. Their perspective was that they couldn't believe their classmates were squandering the opportunities with the grad school experience to dip back into the undergrad scene. Additionally, the two undergrad dating grad students to this day are remembered for dating an undergrad as one of their primary identifiers. I actually had a phone call with a grad school friend a few weeks ago where we talked about so so, the undergrad dater. This is not to sound mean, but this is just how people naturally react. At the end of the day, love is love, but this is a reality you need be aware of. Now in all fairness, I am speaking more from the context of US grad programs, which also are more socially structured than Canadian ones (generally speaking). Additionally, the situations I speak of involve Americans and Canadians, but only those at US schools. However, the points are still relevant, but they may be more nuanced.

1. By virtue of calling it uni and your lack of familiarity with the likely ages of the US/CAN undergraduate system suggest that you are not a US/Canadian graduate student, or at least not from the US/Canada. Please give us more context on what is going on because it feels like you just completely not understanding our feedback with your aggressive push-back and your focus on age. I can't comment about your friend until I know more about your context. 2. Yes, in the US/CAN cases that I know of, the undergrad was seen as someone who took advantage of the situation and the grad student was someone dipping down. Just to confirm.

Here is the deal, beyond someone who has shown Calc/econometric competence, there is a risk about the ability to graduate. That might sound silly to those unfamiliar with the schools in detail, but every year there is small but noticed proportion of students who either wash out early, fail to graduate, or have to delay their graduation. Almost every case I personally know was in some way shape or form related to quant struggles. Yes, I know someone who delayed graduation at Princeton MPP in order to meet quant requirements. As for overcoming the quant requirement with other impressive factors about yourself. The answer is - every year, each school builds a new risk profile based upon a combination of expected application numbers and target class size. This upcoming application cycle will be really unpredictable. I could see this as being both one of the more competitive cycles in recent memory or a slack one. This could be a crazy competitive application cycle if the perfect storm of: A. Those who deferred from last year, seek to claim their spots B. The weaker economy brings people to loiter at graduate school C. Heightened awareness of policy issues drive people to go to policy schools. However, if their is a massive drop of international students, economy free fall, and/or COVID having a 2nd surge going into next Fall, the application cycle might end up being not as competitive after all and schools will have a more slack risk profile. I bring this up, because how willing a school is willing to take risk on your lack of calc/econometrics based upon how interesting your background depends on how competitive the application cycle is. If there are people in front of you with interesting backgrounds and have a more proven ability to graduate, obviously you look less appealing. Some examples for context. 1. I knew a Military Academy graduate who a sub 2.5 undergraduate GPA who got into Chicago Harris. However, he was an engineering major and had some very challenging deployment situations. Chicago Harris, probably took the risk that his ability to overcome extreme hardship (comparatively) might mean his ability to conquer quant. Now I will say that MPP programs with robust "math camp options" like U. Chicago Harris - will generally be more risk willing in taking people who don't have as strong quant background but willing to take chance on them based upon interesting background. 2. My sister was in HKS with Ashley Judd (the actress), who shocked people with how quant capable she was because she actually had a solid academic background at the Honors college at the University of Kentucky with some quant classes. My point is that, even with a celeb, she had credentials (though people doubted her at first). I think you want to understand the types of program quant difficulty as well. There is depth (level of difficulty) and breadth (scope). Another twist will be that those with more depth, will generally be less risk willing (i.e. Princeton MPP). Those with medium depth but high breadth (my program), will be much more risk willing. ONE THING TO THINK ABOUT... its good to challenge yourself, but you don't want to go into a situation whereby you are miserable either. Do you want to kill yourself (figuratively speaking academically) just trying to graduate the curriculum in order to get a slightly higher brand name degree? I know plenty of people who focused too much on school and screwed up on the career angle because they didn't sufficiently focus on the networking/career discovery side.

So roughly 1st/2nd year graduate student and junior/senior - approximately. It is natural to rationalize whatever situation you may be in / want to get involved in and look for differences. Ultimately, you make the decisions for your life. However, just appreciate that if you seek to dip in the undergrad pool, the natural perception from others (myself in included if I heard about this randomly in public) rightly or wrongly is that the grad student went the easy route because the person didn't want to become an adult and the undergrad made the power play and took advantage of someone who had to dip down. Again, this isn't about age. This is about what position you are in and what social norms are relevant to you. Look, I don't know you, but so many times I hear people trying to justify positionally imbalanced relationships with age similarity (for example, 30 year old doctor frustrated that her 34 year old boyfriend still clean pools for a living and tries to fix him). It has value as a point a reference, but it is generally less relevant, and your case especially, less relevant.

1. So I think you need be aware of how specialization within MPP. In some schools like HKS and SIPA, they follow a subject matter cohort model, meaning that when you apply, you need to declare what subject matter cohort you want to lean your MPP towards. Hypothetically, you can change cohorts, midstream, but each programs has their own bureaucracy. Focusing on foreign policy will generally extend from the subject matter specialization of that cohort. Some do lend to foreign policy better than others, and it is on you to best determine what is what. Some programs do an a la carte style where you in mix and match any classes you can get ahold of to "soft specialize" in anything you want. However, I would just make sure that the program actually has alums and strengths leaning towards foreign policy. I'm painting this out to help you best reflect how an MPP helps your career goals. 2. There is being good at math and being good at econometrics / calculus based econometrics (some schools require this to some extent - i.e. HKS). Usually being good at math helps, but not necessarily. This is why quant intensive quant programs like to see demonstrations of higher level quant potential (i.e. high Calc grades in college or econometrics in college) to be more specific.

1. Regarding quant - enrolling and getting grades in are two separate. Grades verifying your level of aptitude and is what really matter. That being said, there are less quant programs... Oxford for Example - way less quant (although they kind of expect you coming in with a good understanding of research methods). 2. When I see a list that is essentially the whose who of the top 5 programs or so, it suggests to me that you probably need to better consider: a. where you want to be location wise post graduation - because location matters b. what career out comes you want coming out of this. 3. This is what I don't understand - why are you seeking policy programs when you want to be involved in foreign policy. I think you should more aggressively go for International Relations programs whereby I think you would be in a good spot to got awesome scholarship money and quant matters less (it still will matter a bit). I'm thinking Georgetown's MSFS program and stuff like that should be a solid lock for you. 4. Until you take the GRE, don't count your chickens before that hatch.

Thinking of 3 couples off the top of my head (out of 3).

That likely indicates that given their risk profile, they expect a robust application pool and have no incentive to. If I were you, I would emotionally establish them as GRE requiring and work with that.

I mean you are at the first few months or so which you are probably feeling some college nostalgia (I remember too!). You probably started doing some post-college adulating but it hasn't sank in yet. From a longer term perspective, (like a year or so). You will rapidly be transitioning your life and going for fledged as an adult - even as a grad student. Yes you are still on campus, but your viable life horizon/environment Is beyond the campus gates now (or if you are in a small town or something), now extends to the entire adult community. I paint this out because maturity (or lack there of) comes in two directions. 1. Individual personality - and yes that can vary greatly, so hypothetically a 19 year old can be individually more mature than you. 2. Phase in life - this you cannot change. Bottom line is that however mature a 19 or 21 year old might, their incentives and interests are fundamentally different than yours. Simple things such as social expectations are notably different and create different norms. I am in my early 30s. So yes, I see the effects of people who dated undergrads as grad students in vice versa. I mean, I'm sure some great relationships come out of that, but among those I know anecdotally (included married folks), there definitely as a less than flattering narrative against the grad student. Even in their 30s, the people I know who dated grad students as undergrads talk about its as a conquest. Even those who are married, the power dynamic tilts towards the one who was an undergrad, and the dating narrative was that the undergrad was made the power play against the grad student. I am also amused by how many people I know that started in an undergrad - grad relationship, the former undergrad makes fun of the grad for having to sink to the undergrad pool to begin with.

It is one thing to hang out with people your own age (or even older) in undergrad (I mean there are some 24 year old 5th/6th year seniors out there) that are living the undergrad life style vs. hanging out with people graduated from college and on their own living there life however. There are people in the workforce that are 22 (sometimes even 21) that still figuring out the world, but are at least living the adult scene. Part of the reason I say this is because among my friend groups, I know people (grad school and workforce) that struggled to leave college. They either hung out near their college and basically extended their college life while having a job/grad school or tried to live the college life away from their alma mata. Yes, this often meant dating college girls. Right now, as we are a bit older, these are the people are struggling more in life with relationships, career, and etc. because they didn't lean forward to grow up beyond the college world. Like I said, love means a lot, and for some maybe a new college relationship is just right. I'm just highlighting that there is risk. If you are just thinking about it in terms of math and a number, you are missing a lot of things that matter.

My point is that it isn't about age... it is about phase in life. You finished undergrad and are in the next stage of life. The example of the 30 year old is to highlight how easy it is to backslide to undergrad scene. If you want keep on reliving undergrad, that is your choice. I'm just trying to highlight the risks of backsliding. I would say after college graduation, phase of life trumps age.

So that you also won't be able to tell because programs shift their risk appreciation portfolios every year based upon expected application demand and target class sizes vis-a-vie resources. A lot of what I and other people speak to are traditional measuring sticks of competitiveness (Pre-Covid) and passing the minimum barrier of reasonably being able to graduate the program. No one knows how COVID-19 + political volatility will impact policy school applications + matriculation for this coming cycle - so much instability.