GradSchoolGrad

Realistically, the problem isn't you, but what is going on in undergraduate education in the US. Undergraduate education is too often being commoditized (even in historically more competitive schools) and with rampant grade inflation, it is becoming more more difficult to decipher actual academic potential based upon an undergraduate transcript. Some schools are waiving it in order to acquire sufficient number of students when many students are logistically challenged from taking it during COVID times. However, the bottom line is that not sending it means not providing a data point. I'm not saying the GRE is perfect as a test and point of measurement. However, in my opinion it is rightfully viewed as having a reliable means of verifying the validity of a good transcript and possibly allowing the telling of a more complex story behind a not so great transcript.

@tacos95 actually has a point. It is ridiculous to put it up on a resume after graduation. However, when in school, especially if you have a weaker academic/professional background, posting it to show you are among the top performers can help. A lot of recruiters recruiting from grad schools (which is usually a separate recruiting process than their non-campus hiring) will want to know standardized test scores. I know some companies that won't take an applicant with a low standardized score unless it can be overridden by an internal referral.

Ha... I think its hilarious that we both pointed to Yale SOM... Jackson school is more focused on international relations stuff, not exactly a policy school though. But you can dual degree with other schools... Generally speaking, I don't recommend dual degreeing unless you have a very compelling argument (I dual degreed).

So some thoughts. 1. If you want to do Non-Profit Management, you'll be better served going to an MBA program that values social impact. I don't know how competitive you are, but Yale School of Management is probably the best school for that. Georgetown MBA is good too. The reason is because those finance management skills will give you a competitive edge. On the policy school side, the MPA would be better than a MPP. 2. If you want to do Public Management, MPA is better than MPP (generally speaking from a pure academic prep perspective... MPP exceptions to this would be like the Batten school at UVA). 3. As for Public Sector Consulting (no such thing as "Social Sector" Consulting in the mainstream at this point), the first thing I ask you is... ARE YOU SURE? It might be the most lucrative career post policy school (short of lobbying or entrepreneurship), but all my friends who are in it (1 exception) hate it with passion and always talk about leaving (but golden handcuffs... AKA: being contractually obligated to work there or else lose on bonuses and/or tuition repayment). I know someone who left within a year from grad school actually. The MBA connection can at times be true, but it isn't as straightforward. What really matters is what historical relationships consulting firms have established with recruiting policy school students. Sometimes, there is a connected relationship with the MBA. HOWEVER, there are plenty of times when the recruiter will tell the MBA school they want MBAs only and those in other programs are not eligible. Actually, at my policy program, we actually had a problem with MPPs cross-registering to take an an MBA class and then try to pass as an "MBA student" and go to recruiting events for consulting. The recruiters smoked them out fast. So basically, it is a case by case basis. I recommend you look at each school's employer roster over the years and where do people tend to go repeatedly over the years. As for public sector consulting itself, its pretty much Deloitte (the King of public sector consulting), other major firms (BDO, Alvarez Marsal, Booz Allen Hamilton), and boutiques (some of them can be super cool). There isn't really that much to choose from beyond that. 4. The best ways to learn about a program are to ask admissions to talk to student ambassadors (or whatever program they have like that). I would talk to at least 2 students and you should ask them the hard questions. if they sound too canned, you know something is going on. Asking people on this forum is not a bad idea. 5. Possible Considerations for Each School On your Roster: Goldman - West Coast School means West Coast network and more West Coast leaning policy perspectives (which is decently different in some areas). Wagner - Very weak student experience & culture. Due to active NY City lives, there really isn't much of a vibrant community Trachtenberg - not as data analytics intense as per MPP programs SIPA - Like Wagner, there are frequent struggles with community since NY City is a distraction to student bonding McCourt - Isn't career oriented (beyond data / Capital Hill stuff) and struggles to emphasize policy for purpose (counter-intuitive since it is Georgetown) Maxwell - it is in Syracuse - period... Price - Like Goldman - West Coast Sanford - Difficult to get experiential learning experiences in Durham Evans - Like Goldman - West Coast network - more difficult to transition to East Bloustein - struggles with brand recognition (I have met quite a few impressive students though) 6. What you are missing with your grad school considerations. Do you want an MPP/MPA that is quant heavy or not so quant heavy? If you want to avoid quant (or at least heavy quant), your options will be rather limited.

So, there are three things to think about. 1. Getting into a school. I don't think you'll have trouble getting into 1/3rd of these schools assuming you have some work experience + solid recs and etc. 2. Getting scholarship. Without the GRE, getting scholarship will be much more difficult. GRE is a combination of helping their stats + extra point of confidence in admitting you regarding your ability to graduate. 3. Choosing the right school. It seems like you just went from the confetti of policy schools below Elite level HKS, Princeton, Harris... people can debate if SIPA is in that club or not). I don't think you given enough time on thinking what school best matches your career interests + policy area interests + desired student culture + location interests and etc. I recommend you think about that before you just throw names out there. For example, my policy school McCourt was honestly not a good fit for me (and many others). It was a good place for people to pick up quant skills or work on Capital Hill to matriculate into more analytical based roles tied to the DC space. It was not a good place to work on state/local policy or do technology innovation and etc.

So I'm a little bit split what to recommend to you. My initial thought is that Oxford sounds great because you know really well what you want to do and you can really focus on that. Oxford is an amazing environment for smart and involved people to openly discuss and share ideas and thoughts for each other. As for tech (and I am active in the tech space), its also one of those things whereby its really helpful if you are connected to a tech hub (or tech policy space) and granted Oxford is getting better about connecting to tech, it is still somewhat behind other MPP schools in terms of connections in the tech space. The more I think about it, it might help if you have at least 1-2 years of work experience before you go to Oxford. That will honestly put you in a much stronger position to discuss matters with your peers + have access to post graduation opportunities. Additionally, you will have a better idea how to target your tech policy interests. Probably most important for you, you would also be in a better position to get scholarship money from Oxford. I think what might help make your decision is where you see your career opportunities going forward. If you think you can have an awesome career boosting job after graduation, I would not apply to Oxford for the next cycle. If you think there wouldn't be any good opportunitie, 1 year at Oxford might be a good option.

What is your story? As in. 1. General academic background in undergrad (internships, major academic experiences, and etc.) 2. Do you know what you want to do after graduation? If the answer is yes... tell me what areas you are thinking and how sure you are. If the answer is no... tell me why you think Oxford is helpful. General background - historically Oxford has been a good destination for US students thinking of doing a 1 years Master's straight from undergrad. They USED to target high achieving students from undergrad (my sister was one of them). HOWEVER... they have been making a huge effort to really professionalize their MPP program to be competitive with US schools. So the main student body is aged 25 to 35. For those from undergrad, an Oxford MPP could be a great resume booster, to give you credential validation while only spending 1 year in grad school. HOWEVER... its a 2 year US program where you fully get the full range of professional networking + experiential learning + figuring out what policy/functional areas that you care about.

Actually a lot of schools are waiving the GRE of late, you just need to go check them out one by one. Also, please keep in mind, that the average work history for most MPP schools is roughly around 3 to 5 years. I went to grad school with 8 years. As for your current list, I generally recommend you not attend them (unless you have special reasons to do so). 1. American - honestly, not the strongest brand and its academic quality pales in comparison with better options. I have seen their policy graduate students at presentations (so hypothetically some of their students), and there wasn't anything impressive 2. Sciences Po - its a more academically oriented program. Unless you seek to come back to the US doing a very academic route or niche things with European context + connections, I recommend you steer away from it for concerns of people recognizing your C/V 3. Traditionally, I really really really like Oxford. Especially if you are straight from undergrad or have a really strong sense of what you want to do after graduation as someone with years of work experience. However, it is a 12 month program (school year + summer), so you don't have that much time to explore + have experiential learning opportunities. Additionally, it doesn't have as strong as a data analytics core training within the program (which is increasingly important in policy). I recommend that you: 1. Identify some areas (function, industry, or policy areas that you are interested in and figure out what some top options are. 2. Identify desired / no go locations. 3. Identify if you want to time closer towards Federal / Private Sector / State and Local / or International I could give you generic answers... but I think it is better if your further identify your interests.

I recommend you be rather kinder and nicer about your tone there (not just me... your posts in general). You bring good points, but you can objectively disagree and go further without being so brisk. For the record, I am an immigrant to the US myself. That being said, I think we have some agreements, disagreements, and nuanced different perspectives. 1. Agreements: a. Yes, I agree with you that the worse case scenario looks pretty grim as you described. I am not disputing that. b. Yes, schools internationally having been closing the gap with US programs. 2. Disagreements a. I think that there is a very real world scenario whereby the Biden administration gets pressured by companies (under a strong economic rebound 1 year from now) to administratively remove the barriers installed by 2018. For some companies, it can be either have better access to international students or offshore, and they can make that pointed argument. Also, in tech, I know international students who picked up jobs during the height of Covid with policy degrees (focusing on the data side). Depending on how much tech rises as an economic giant (beyond the big players right now), the pressure will pick up. In no way am I saying I read the future, but this is a potential reality as well. b. The gap may be closing, but it is far from closed. How do I know? Visiting Professors tell me so. Americna students who go abroad for graduate school (Oxbridge including), have told me about how their realized shortcomings with their Top Tier grad school American piers. I even know of people who negotiated partnerships with American schools to compensate for the lack access to certain things at top Tier UK/Europe graduate programs. Nuances Having been coached international students as a peer and as a graduate for years, I have seen what international students to get a sponsored job and how they fail. These are some of my observations (non-exhaustive of course). 1. How they succeed (bottom line, plan for coming to America years in advance) a. Coming from an undeniably in-demand background and the grad school actually is a straightforward value add + credentialing. Example - Corporate finance at a bank, getting an MPP to do impact financing as an boutique investment research org b. Fully tied with the diaspora within the US. Example - Indian students, strongly linked with Indian professional community in US c. Coached to adapt to US career pathways before hand. Example - strong exposure to US ex-pat community d. Actually be aware of what jobs are in demand that are willing to sponsor 2. How I seen international struggle (some of these may sound silly, but I have seen it or people confessed it to me more than once during my graduate school career. Some of these are to be generally appreciated. I have also seen Americans be guilty of this as well, but disproportionately be behaviors I have seen among international students). a. Rest on their home country brands. This sounds snobbish, but I have seen too many International students start networking conversations by emphasizing their home country brands that Americans have no understanding of. b. Rest on their US graduate school brand. I have also seen international students focus too much on the brand of their graduate school, and fail to emphasize what their unique value add to a company. c. Struggle to network period. This ranges from refusing to network (yes I have met international students who have cried at the prospect of having to talk to strangers) to struggling with how to network. d. Being overly flashy with how great they are. Yes, I have seen international students go to companies and essentially demand jobs in order to improve US international relations because they have relative that is XYZ world leader. e. Think that every application sent online is read. Just because you send an application in doesn't mean that it will be read. Usually they are tied to either an AI resume screener or tied connected to a list of people vetted in person. Even if your resume is perfect, if it doesn't math the AI screener, or you missed the opportunity to talk to someone in person to vet you, your application doesn't matter. It is better to send in 10 applications via a formal screening process than 1000 applications blind. Every year, I get so many calls of international students asking me about their chances for going into McKinsey because they were top of their class in something, even if they have a limited idea of McKinsey actually does. f. Avoid making meaningful US student friends. These friends are the best advisors on how to network. g. Sabotage their peer international students. This astounding me of how international students would try to sabotage each other of opportunities by giving each other false information. h. Only look for jobs within a narrow band of interest (usually in areas that have intense competition anyway). In my thesis class, half of the international students wanted to work in international development focused on gender discrimination with one of the top 3 IGOs. Yes, I think it is a super important area. However, there are only so many jobs in that space. i. Look for jobs that they have no chance in getting. I will never forget how during orientation, 3 international students announced that their goal was to work in the Pentagon and advise the President of the United States. j. Failure to adjust rapidly. Markets and geopolitical situations change what sponsored jobs are demand. I found it was super interesting that I couldn't international students to change their career goals to what opportunities the market allowed for. k. Not follow the advice of well meaning people. I always thought it was interesting that no matter how often myself, alumni, or professional career coaches gave the same advice over and over again, international students wouldn't believe us because they knew of some distant relative or heard of someone who succeeded... and they are still unemployed.. l. Having a recognizable professional value. This does not mean great academic transcript. Too often, I have seen international students conflate grades with career potential. This means actually having and being able to communicate professional value in a coherent way.

Just an additional thought. Giving your clinical condition, you may want to think about going abroad for graduate school from a mental health prospective. Going abroad for graduate school is stressful no matter what. On top of that, the American graduate school experience is decently different than other graduate school systems (including UK, CAN, and AUS). I have seen plenty of international students (without clinical conditions to the best of my knowledge) get completely stressed out with adapting to an educational experience they are completely unfamiliar with. You and your medical professionals know yourself better than I do. I just want to remind you that no matter where in the US you go for graduate school, it will be a stressful experience, at least in the beginning. Those who can manage the high stress generally grow to like the experience. However, I have known a few who persistently struggle.

1. I'm assuming you went to a US school. 2. I think you can pull this off as long as you have someone who can vouch for your economic/math/analytical skills on the professional side of the house. You can have the Causes of War professor comment on your ability to learn/interact with others and etc. 3. I know of some professors who won't write letters of rec if you didn't get a A- or above... but that is dependent on each professor of course.

First off. 1. We have no idea who the next administration is... That may help make decisions clearer. 2. Anyone thinking of graduating from a US school now, need to think 2 years from now (when they graduate). At a certain point it is reading the tea leaves. However, we could also be under a 2015 situation whereby the job market was hot for people in STEM fields. (not saying that is necessarily the case). 3. There is a reason why institutions globally value a US education (yes part of it is brand, but there is more than that). My friends in grad school from top tier international schools (including other grad degrees), always noted that they were more challenged in US schools than they were ever expected + had a better overall education experience. In terms of higher education practices (interdisciplinary integration for example), the US is on the cutting edge. Of course you need to be smart about it and think about risk. However... you need to think about risk holistically and just knee-jerk reactions about what is going on right now.

Sure. 1. So Georgetown MSFS is most known for (and in my opinion, has an over-exaggerated perception for being so) as a school for government service. Traditionally, this has meant strong career pipelines into the foreign service and other federal agencies (it is in DC after all). In a market environment where government hiring has weakened in some areas (i.e. Foreign Service), Georgetown MSFS has found itself able to pivot in other government agencies (such as the International Developmental Finance Corporation), Federal Consulting, government related invested projects, and etc. Basically, adjacent career pipelines that benefit from the strong Georgetown brand + being in DC. 2. SAIS being a very quant oriented program means that it is known for strong quantitative analysis. That means its graduates can weave between traditional IR jobs and more data analysis jobs. I knew someone who graduated from SAIS during the last recession who was able to transition into wheat trade forecaster for the Department of Agriculture. Again, SAIS can do make this play due to its long brand connections + DC location. 3. GW Elliot has got some really interesting niche plays (aside from being a strong IR program in General). The three that I am most familiar with (and I'm sure there are others I'm missing) is that they have a really good reputation in are: a. China b. Global Health c. Space policy Basically, with niche plays, you have a more straightforward path to earning credibility by connecting yourself to the right people. The problem with Fletcher it is in a difficult position to leverage its primary job market brand value (NGO, IGO, Non-Profit) to give its a students a broad spectrum bump in the job market now that that area is under hiring duress. Traditionally this brand strength has overcome its challenge of being in Somerville and can actually be considered rather helpful to get top notch professors (or so I understand). Now Fletcher, also has a pretty good brand strength in government service (although all have commented that they find themselves easily outnumbered by MSFS and SAIS folks). However, since it is not in DC, it is harder to pivot that brand strength to other government service adjacent career opportunities. I will honestly say that, I have heard good things about Fletcher being a place to do PhD and a lot of those market factors are not as relevant for that education pathway. I'll let someone more in the know comment about that.

I think you need to understand how they are quant heavy. They are quant heavy on data/economic analysis, which only really gets at on part of math. The reason is because in a more data centric world, in order to be fully competent in understanding the details of the policy formulation/performance side of the house (emphasis on policy... not politics), there is a strong argument for understanding analytical methods and processes. Quant should also be understood in terms of two ways. Depth of quant and scope of quant. A program like NYU Wagner is not too deep and not that broad. My program at Georgetown McCourt, was moderately deep (we had to understand Calc principles, but not do Calc per se), but really intensely broad (5 mandatory quant based classes). A program like Chicago Harris is intensely deep, and moderately broad. Some programs at Johns Hopkins are intensely deep and intensely broad in terms of quant.

Bottom line is that you got to be comfortable with doing Calculus based economic analysis (mostly derivatives). If quant is something that pains you, I recommend you consider less quant oriented programs because. I legitimately know people who either failed to graduate or had a late graduation due to struggles with quant at an MPP/MPA program. They simply didn't appreciate how quant intense the program was. Yes, one of them was Princeton MPA student who somehow negotiated spending an extra semester in order to meeting quant graduation requirements.

I do agree, that they are incredibly career focused and one of the best funded schools at Tufts (I don't have the stats in front of me, but that sounds about right). However, I view them as being in a weaker position to take advantage of that career focus. They are less able to make gains from their dollars due to structure issues. Here are the issues that I see: 1. Diminishing Core Career Strengths Fletcher has historically been known for being strong pipeline for Non-Profits/NGOs/IGOs with maybe a second (though less significantly so) towards Government Service. Those two spaces are simply diminishing in attractiveness and opportunities due to changes in the last 10 years (everything from social, to geopolitical, and etc.). The career services has been making a strong effort to diversify their pipeline into private sector via their DC and New York trips, but the bottom line is that there is strength in being known for something. 2. A Brand Problem Fletcher has a great brand within the IR space, but the problem is that outside of the IR space, I would argue that struggle with brand recall, let alone brand sentiment. This is purely anecdotal, but I will say that even within the DC policy space, I have seen people look at a Fletcher resume and ask what school is that. Historically, Fletcher can focus on their ares of strength and be okay with having lower brand recognition. However, with many job routes leading outside of the traditional IR space + interdisciplinary be the way of the future, this limited brand scope is going to be a problem for Fletcher students. 3. A Capability Problem Yes... Fletcher is connected to Harvard and there is a long established relationship there. However, at the end of the day, Fletcher is not Harvard. Just because your neighbor lets you borrow their pool here and there, doesn't mean that the pool is your's to fully enjoy. I say this because, Fletcher sans Harvard is in a rather weak position to be interdisciplinary. Although Tufts has tried to improve the situation, there is still a rather sharp divide between Fletcher and the Tufts undergraduate community and limited organized synergy. Tufts doesn't exactly have other major professional schools in proximity (that being the keyword) to the Somerville campus for Fletcher students to co-create/collaborate with. Logistically, getting to Harvard from Somerville (Remember you have to go there and back) is burdensome. Columbia, Georgetown, and event GW can point to their interdisciplinary offerings range as a source strength that can drive career opportunities - something that Fletcher lacks. Yes, you can be a certified negotiator at Fletcher... but you can do that at lots of places. 4. A Location Problem As an IR school, it helps to be adjacent to the IR network and IR institutions. Fletcher is in a suburb of Boston (not even Boston proper). This matters because this limits the amount of networking that you can do, but live projects that are accessible. You can't exactly hop on over to do a project during the semester to boost your resume as you could if you lived in DC or NYC... or even a bigger city like LA (don't get me wrong, I love Boston). You are stuck waiting for a summer internship. Harvard and MIT don't struggle with this location problem as much because people are more willing to come to them + they have invested in massive and well-funded centers that make them a destination to begin with people in the IR / IR adjacent space. + have their own organization connected project to partake in. 5. A Competition Problem Fletcher faces tougher competition from all angles. US only: a. Within the US - MPP/MPA schools are getting more into IR relations type matters b. Other IR schools are expanding their programming c. New market entrants are coming onboard - like Yale, to the IR related grad school game. International: British schools like Oxford and LSE are strengthening their program offerings in IR/area studies/policy in an effort to try to attract the international student population. Bottom Line Fletcher will likely persist to have amazing teaching quality and a strong student experience. But with its core strengths mattering less and its dynamics confronting tough situations, its IR space focused brand value can only carry so much water.

As someone who came from higher education grad school industry research + went to grad school in an adjacent space + with roots in the IR community, I appreciate Fletcher as a school with traditionally great student experience but lots of challenges going forward that make it arguably less competitive than alternative options. Happy to discuss this openly and honestly with anyone else from the space or curious.

So I don't know what you career goals are. However, increasingly things that are more data focused or medical focused are being designated as STEM designated degrees, including some MBA programs (some these are MBAs with a STEM major option) and Data Analytics programs. However, the key thing to understand is that your base of knowledge and value will be driving by data analytics and/or health. https://blog.accepted.com/mba-programs-go-stem-certified/ HOWEVER... please understand that getting an MBA or Health related grad degree doesn't necessarily help you get into international development. International development is a very clique world and traditionally they have frowned upon MBAs. That is changing though... but I don't know how fast it is changing.

1. I strongly recommend you come into any graduate school with at least 1 year's work experience. That being said, it makes the most sense for you to apply to enter in Fall 2022. For the following reasons: a. You have ~1 year of solid work experience by the time you apply - making you more competitive b. I could be completely wrong because I can't predict the future, but the general thought is that Fall 2021 entry year group will be insanely competitive as a lot of Americans seek to take refuge from the recession by going to graduate school. 2. You are thinking about applying to graduate school all wrong. Right now you are just targeting brand names and top academic experiences. You don't have a compelling story why any of these school mentioned fit you and why you deserve a chance to get into these schools. I recommend you: a. better understand how each graduate school option can best prepare you for your career and experience goals. You can do this by just talking to students at each school. Most school admissions officers have student ambassador programs whereby you can talk to students and learn about the pros and cons of each school. I recommend you take advantage of that. 3. Your resume is about telling the story and not about the details. Stop worrying about the small details... I mean some details really matter - test scores, GPA, career experience and etc. However you need to make sure it weaves well with the story you are trying put forward with your recommenders, statement of intent, and interview (if there is one). Oh and of course... always be truthful.

Your undergraduate GPA is relatively low. Granted you do have work experience, unless you have really good GRE scores, Higher level programs (including Fletcher) may be out of reach for you (at least Pre-COVID). You also might want to do a reality check on if you want to work at the IGOs like the World Bank and UN. They are relatively low pay, not great progression, and vary greatly in terms of workplace experience.

My thoughts: 1. I think you are competitive for less quant heavy programs (then again, in. the era of COVID, it is hard to tell if there will be a grad school application rush or a struggler's to get enough applicants for IR). For these programs - MSFS, Fletcher, SIPA... Out of four tiers (Top Pick, Highly Qualified, Able to Graduate, and Waitlist), you are probably between the low end of Tier 2 to middle of Tier 3ish during Pre-COVID times. 2. I strongly recommend you not apply to Johns Hopkins SAIS given your lack of background or interest in Quant. That program is huge on calc based econometrics. 3. I also strongly recommend you don't go to Fletcher Tufts... Great student experience, but for lots of reasons we can get into, I view the school as being increasingly challenged by shifts in higher education + IR. 4. I think SIPA, Georgetown Walsh, and GW Elliot are probably top picks for you... I also recommend you go one down just in case applications go crazy and you need a back up.

So I think these are the things you should think about: 1. You should probably limit yourself to programs in big cities or those with have major hospitals given your medical condition. 2. I think you need to be more clear exactly what you want to focus on. Is it more about policy administration or public policy formulation analysis? Those are two related but distinctly different things. Administrative law is generally broken down by type legal category (i.e. labor law, education law, or etc. in the US). If you are interested policy administration, you might want to think about getting an MPA. If you want to focus on policy formulation, an MPP is right for you. 3. Since you have no interest in staying in the US, I then strongly recommend that you only consider programs that have a historically large international student population. Preferably one that is diverse too. By diverse, I mean you don't have the international student population dominated (66%+) by students from one country. So examples: - HKS - SIPA (Columbia) - Harris (Chicago) - Goldman (UC Berkeley)

1. My first thought is that JD is imply a terrible idea. Joint JD/MPP is 4 years of education. The 3 years of JD would essentially be a waste of time for you because it teaches American jurisprudence and there is a reason why US law schools generally have so few international students. People don't get a JD to teach. People get a JD to practice law or do non-bar requiring jobs that still have a tie in to the American system of regulation/legality. 2. I don't know enough about how HKS looks at international students so I can't comment if you can get in or not. Traditionally, very few people have matriculated to HKS straight from undergraduate (I have heard the statistics of 2% straight from undergrad pre-COVID or something like that... but that also includes US federally sponsored scholarship students -i.e. Pickering or Rangel Fellowship). I will say that if your intent is to stay in the US via OPT, you will be graduating HKS (or any other public policy school) at a major disadvantage because you have so little work experience, it will be difficult for you to acquire work unless you just happen to occupy a niche space that is highly in demand - you should know . 3. It is also very concerning that you have shot for Harvard HKS and haven't thought of any backups or alternative considerations. I strongly recommend you consider if the Harvard HKS student culture is really what you want. Maybe you might do better in a smaller school environment at Princeton or a more academic environment of Harris. Or maybe you might want to go for a big city life like SIPA. Chasing for a brand usually doesn't work well.

So here are my thoughts. 1. You really need to tighten your story of what you want to do career wise coming out of grad school. You have a good start in wanting to focus on LATAM, but you are all over place in terms of possible career outcomes. Right now you are picking "industries". Clearly some are from your prior professional experience. However, right now it is confusing because there is limited pattern among your industries of interest. Obviously, you can change your mind in grad school. However, for the time being, I recommend you have a more focused functional considerations. For example, do you want to be more legal, more operations, more data analysis, more consultant oriented, stakeholder engagement, or more stakeholder driven, and etc. (I realize at a certain point, they kind of blend together) 2. I have seen it happen for someone with limited work experience + grad school to matriculate into a job that is = to post undergrad (assuming some competitive internships) or at best case scenario --> post undergrad plus 2 years work experience, so your grad school doesn't really give you a real boost in terms of salary or responsibility. When someone has more work experience coming out of grad school (again at least 2 years, but arguably, the sweet spot is probably 4), you: A. are more competitive period to get roles B. are more competitive to get roles at a more senior level (if it is individual contributor) or even management role C. I have seen people take a legitimate salary / responsibility cut, but they are career switching and grad school sets them up in a desired career path that they probably could not attain without grad school 3. Grad Certificates don't really matter (I know... I have 4 of them hanging on my wall right now). What matters more is having legitimate project experience, but it via graduate school, research, or summer internships 4. In terms of next steps, I recommend you think really hard about what is right for you. Some food for though. A. Think Tanks sound cool at first, but honestly with just a Master's you are most often a 2nd class citizen inside the organization (exceptions to management and fundraising roles) as PhDs are considered prime time. Also, its grueling hours with little career progression. B. Political consulting is rather cool... however these are boutique firms (relatively speaking) and very relationship driven. Also you can focus on a certain area, but they generally require you to be a bit more generalist towards a functional area (i.e. defense, trade, and etc.) C. In terms of NGOs... those vary. You would be surprised what are good places to work and what are bad places to work. Normally, if they have graduate school pipeline that helps. 5.Schools thoughts: It seems like to me, given your current line of interests (notably with the legal), you wouldn't really stand to benefit with high quant. So it makes way more sense for you to go to Georgetown MSFS over Johns Hopkins SAIS. It also doesn't really make sense for you to go Princeton since that high quant and less notable for the IR stuff. U. Mich MPP is the same way. If you do choose to do a dual degree with JD, you really need to anchor your school decision on the law school. Bottom line is unless you really got to a top tier law school with international connections, it gets really hard to do international law (there are obviously niche areas for certain schools... I'm thinking along the lines of trade).

Can you please give us more clarity on what policy/international areas interest. I can't really give you good advice without understanding what your desired outcomes are. I will say, I recommend to everyone they have AT LEAST 2 years of work experience before they start an Policy/IR graduate school program (exception goes for the British schools). The reason is because you don't want to be uncompetitive among your peers (grades don't matter) for job opportunities by virtue of have much less work experience. So many times I have seen those straight from undergrad / only 1 year or so work experience struggle to use the grad degree as an appropriate job boost (it has happened! but rarely).