GradSchoolGrad

to piggy back on what @went_away mentions about FSO or similar track, two fellowships that can give you a leg up on security area DC careers are Presidential Merit Fellowship and Boren Fellowship. Just something to think about no matter where you go to school.

The way I see it this is matter of passion vs. security. I think it is clear that you have connections and opportunities for which you are passionate about at SIPA. I would argue that from a job security perspective SAIS wins, and in a recession that is what I would care most about (especially since the SIPA pros are only marginally better than SAIS). Yes, SIPA support is unimpressively not robust in my opinion from what I experienced + heard second hand. Part of this has to do that SIPA is a program that covers many many many layers, IR, domestic policy, IDEV, and etc. Due to the lack of focus, its simply harder to support people. Also, by virtue of being in the Columbia system, they face massive amounts of bureaucracy that the more nimble SAIS doesn't. Also... good luck of breaking out of the NYC life mold. I have friends who tried at NYU schools (like former sorority girls who are normally accustom to being the social chairs of everything)... it simply didn't happen. Also, like I mentioned previously, granted SIPA does have some notable security stuff out there, you'll find a larger security community in SAIS (again granted it is more DC based). I think there is a lot to be said in power in the community that I find amusing that a lot of grad students don't care about going in but mention how much they missed it or glad they had it going out.

Wow... the world must be ending because I find myself disagreeing with @Mppirgradschool for the second time in a week. Normally we have been lockstep. First of all, I don't dispute any of what that person says, but I recommend you think about it from my perspective. So I would recommend SAIS because: 1. I will admit that is because I am biased towards those with more rigorous econometric training (assuming everything else is in order of course like management skills, tact, and etc.) because in world that is increasingly impinged upon data, that simply just matters more. Also, it is a safety blanket for you win the job market. I always tell the story of how my friends who went to SAIS faired better in the last recession because they were able to pivot their econometrics skills to other things, even if it is something crazy and unexpected like Wheat trade analysis. 2. I probably would need more clarity on how you define security/conflict resolution (its honestly a term that is thrown around like crazy), but I will tell you having worked in the IR - Security space in my previous life, I have found it to be littered with SAIS alums, but don't remember anyone from SIPA. I will admit that I was more on the US Government activities side of the house + tied to DC. 3. I really don't like how SIPA does its community (granted some strong micro-cohorts bonding does materialize), but by in large all my friends and SIPA never really got connected with their SIPA community as they lived their NYC lives. SAIS is very much a stronger community (granted it does get to be a bit segmented based upon topical interests. I for one thinks its really important to have a strong grad school community for your emotional well-being because grad school can be really lonely without it. 4. One of the biggest differentiators that you can acquire in the job market is how good your projecting / internship experience is. Bottom line, you win with DC. True, you might lose out a bit on some international NGOs (UN and etc.) by virtue of just not having the proximity advantage to network. Some thoughts about your considerations for SIPA: 1. I understand you have a passion for journalism, and although Columbia has great programming for it, I wouldn't recommend couching your grad school decisions on journalism. First of all it is portable, so you can do it and focus on it anywhere with marginal differences in quality between NYC and DC. Second, it is not exactly a great place for career establishment these days due to journalism economics. As much as it pains me to say this because I am a NY Times subscriber, arguably, Washington Post is probably coming out to be the better innovator (arguably) in journalism of late (you can thank Jeff Bezos for some of that that). I speak of this in terms of what you have access to between the cities, because that will be more important than what you learn in a classroom setting. 2. I looked at SIPA and said no to it. One of the things that really bothered me about Columbia is how much they like to brag about their celeb professors as marketing plays, and they have quite a few big names. I have heard over the years that some of Columbia's celeb professors don't necessarily have the best teaching quality or accessibility (this is what people tell me who worked in SIPA/gone to SIPA). Interestingly, SIPA's most famous academic (or should I say connected academic) is persona non-grata in many parts of the academic world - Jeffrey Sachs (just google Jeffrey Sachs academic dishonesty). I am sure overall, the celeb professors are value added in some marginal extent, but my entire point is that, don't let celeb professors of SIPA be a determining factor.

I had a family member get in but chose to do another program in Oxford instead. I myself also looked into it. So two notes 1. This is not a good option if you are trying to go into academia or academic research. A good chunk of this is because this is not a quant intensive program. Compared to most US MPP programs, this is a quant low program. 2. This is however the right program for you as a means of seeking a professional outcomes afterwards. I really appreciate the culture of Oxford MPP and how: A. Your peers will really challenge you to achieve and strive professionally B: The British "academic pub scene" will really have your peers challenge you in why you believe what you believe. In my 2 days of visiting Oxford, I had more meaningful academic discussion of public policy than all my years in grad school in the US HOWEVER... I'm not sure how much you would gain (or lose to gain) if they did online classes and you weren't there in Oxford to absorb the experience.

So this is a very interesting factor about HKS (and it is not alone granted it is the most prolific) that is actually a mixed bag in my opinion. The Pros: 1. For those who want to dual degree with HKS and don't want to depend on getting into a Harvard counterpart graduate program as to their dual degree status, want a program not in Harvard, or for personal reasons need to mix locations --> this is an option that gives people flexibility. 2. You do bring in some additional smart people with good backgrounds into HKS, likely boosting the student quality. The Cons: I think it is important between identify the difference between mixing and matching + meaningful interaction as part of a greater community. Yes, there is more mix and match occasions. However, by in large, the dual degrees are just people who are known as dual degrees who will either: A: Disappear after 1 year at HKS --> relationships get curtailed B: Have to float to their other program later in the week / during the day for classes --> meaningful relationships are more difficult to come by And altogether, dual degrees have a harder time being part of the HKS community as they straddle both worlds (my former boss had the same dual degree as me, but he did HBS/HKS and we talked about this at length). Bottom line: You can say, it is better than the general HKS population gets something better than nothing. However, dual degrees are in some ways a disruptive population just by virtue of their regular movements back and forth. Also, for the dual degree themselves, its a lot of stress and pain to have to make priorities everyday between options from two (or sometimes more) places --> classes, friends, extracurricular, career, and etc. Basically, somebody is going to get less attention than you want.

1. My understanding (granted it changes here and there), Harris MPP has been as high as 50% international before. 2. Again, I think the private sector bounce is due to the number of those from HKS that want to go to MBB. There is simply a large cohort of those who matriculate to MBB. I am not going to deny that. When you say best placement, if you are talking about in terms of raw numbers going to MBB --> you are very much correct. However, the funnel (AKA: those people who get an offer vs. those who are interested) is according to my understanding worse than at HBS. Having had a family member that went to HKS, I will also add that there also tends to be some exceptionally well connected students (children of world leaders , billionares, and etc.) that you will find present in HKS who go there to get a degree and move on to exceptional job opportunities that aren't normal. You will hardly get that at Harris. Yes it would be great if a program opened the books and let us check out its data... but realistically no school will, and until that happens, we'll have to play Sherlock and put the pieces together. Extra Note* - I think the true value of HKS (besides the brand/alumni base) is the unique student experience. It is a very professionally cultured school and you are surrounded by professors, other grad students, and even undergrads (yes you do come in contact with them on occasion) that can be considered all types of interesting and ambitious. You do get that Harris, WWS, or any other top policy program... but not to the same scale (and I mean the whole University). I don't recommend anyone pay 60K extra for that experience, but it is something rather unique about HKS. P.S. When people bring up MPP alumnus, I get this tingle, because MPP marketplace has undergone rapid transformation over the past decade. People who graduated in the 2010 and I already have a hard time swapping stories, because the programming and competitive landscape has decently shifted. The job potential have also drastically shifted as well. I say this in general and not specifically applicable to HKS.

So speaking strictly to the career outcomes, some things I want to highlight about the Harris vs. HKS analysis: 1. It is my understanding that Harris MPP has the similar reach potential in terms of jobs. The only exception would be fringe opportunities such as tech start up or social impact investing (maybe Harris has some people in it, but I haven't heard of it from Harris). So what that means is that a. person going to Harris has a path to MBB just like someone going to HKS MPP does. Of course, what makes HKS MPP sparkle more is a greater alumni reach and brand prestige, and I am not going to deny that can help for career outcomes. However, some things that help with HKS career outcomes are (that I understand to be so, and I might be 2 years out of date): 1. You have a larger proportion of the cohort that goes into MBB from HKS MPP. So that is 165K a year (not counting bonuses) + consulting in general. People from Harris do go to MBB, but it is a smaller population both in absolute and proportionally. 2. Harris doesn't help its income since they have higher percentages of international students than HKS MPP 3. Harris also disproportionately attracts people that seek to go into research / academia because of their quality quant --> lower salaries (but not a bad sign of academic quality) 4. The midwest regional effects whereby you do have people come to Harris and go to policy jobs in the Midwest (granted they have a strong DC / international contingent) whereby salaries are lower period. Basically, I think you have to understand the story behind the stats. From a pure career outcomes perspective, yes HKS MPP has a marginally greater range of options, but by in large, nearly none of those opportunities are closed off to Harris people. Harris also uniquely has MBB recruiting for an MPP program as a core school (HKS and Harris are the only ones I hear about that have it). Maybe WWS does, but I have yet to meet/hear anyone that went that route.

So having both an MBA and MPP, I will tell you that my MPP program was definitely more quant oriented (granted I did go to a more applied side quant MPP program... but Harris, WWS, and Ford is more quant than my school). These are the 3 things that make MBAs more valuable that policy students. 1. Soft skills / Managerial skills - sounds tacky, but MBA students know how to manage people/programs much better on average. MBAs have classes on these and a lot of social events/extra curricular activities help develop these skills. 2. Understanding business concepts --> more money in that arena. This is probably the biggest value add MBA schools do from an education perspective. 3. Professional demeanor and culture fluency --> just being able to able to swim in the business environment and not get lost

Ya, salaries post MBA surged in 2017/2018/2019 for MBBs due to competition with Tech (they give stock options). 165K (not counting bonuses was the MBB in 2019.

Its like the difference between Mercedes (HKS) and BMW (Harris)... both can handle the autobahn in German style and luxury... You might sparkle more with the Mercedes, but at the end of the day, you park next to each other and in the same lot. I'm sure some car person could point out how this is an imperfect analogy, but I think most people can get the point.

If you are a US Citizen (no exceptions) who has experience with R, Python, SAS and similar languages + has a graduate degree + has an interest to be Federal government issues data scientist for major private sector consulting firm to tackle issues in defense, public safety, health organizations, and etc., please direct message me (only serious interest + good team players). I am happy to refer you within my company if you turn out to be the right fit.

Academia: My entire point about Oxford is that you can go to a top tier program (and yes Oxford is a top tier program in English) and still not succeed getting the prized post-PhD jobs in academia and or research. The market is pretty terrible for PhDs period those two traditional post-PhD jobs. Now I will say it is increasingly popular to work for industry post-PhD, but your opportunities depend on which PhD you go for... and honestly a lot of those opportunities you can acquire with just a Master's degree. As of which is a top-tier program, that totally depends on which type PhD you go for. Poli Sci (and depending on which area in Poli Sci) and IR. The traditional answer has been what US News and world reports says, which isn't completely accurate but its is an okay outline. Sometimes it is just about following a celeb professor. But generally speaking, the celeb professors usually align to the better schools. Oh and a little secret hat is under utilized is doing your PhD in UK (especially, Oxford, Cambridge, and London School of Economics). Yes... if you achieve those achievements you should be in good shape for a top tier PhD. All they are looking for is continued academic achievement. It helps if you start doing research (or have a research fellowship or a research assistant-ship) right off the bat. As for timeline... correct... they just want to know whatever you can provide whenever you apply. Work: So Booz and Deloitte GPO are the two government operations focused consulting firms have larger market share. Deloitte is probably the best option in terms of prestige of exit opportunities. I will say that everyone I know who went there hated and used it as a vehicle to leave, not as something to get excited about. I personally think that both are great options out of undergrad, but not the best post grad. I am concerned that they are focusing on consulting firms so much. Great MPA/MPP school can reference a wide range of employment opportunities and don't have to anchor on just consulting. Bottom line is that Brown as an MPA school is like Stanford MPP. The University might have a great rep, but the program is kind of 2nd tier. The University brand might help you at cocktail parties, but compared to the big hitters of MPA/MPP schools, pales in comparison for academic quality, presence, and job placement. PMF and Boren are to different things. First of all, the competitiveness for each depends on how the applicant pool. PMF competitiveness has done down dramatically (anecdotally speaking) because the luster for working for government as diminished. PMF is about working in the Federal Government, so you have to highlight competency and passion to work for the Federal Government. Boren is basically being funded to study abroad in a non-English speaking country and doing some sort of research. You have to identify what research you want to do and how that contributes to your intellectual goals. PMF and Boren Fellowship really help for federal jobs. DM me if you want to set up a call...

1. I don't know Brown... - but I wouldn't go there period unless you want to go to academia or just have a year to explore stuff. They simply aren't one of the big hitters on IDEV by comparison to other options. 2. So normally I would say no shot in hell for HKS. If I was an admissions person, I would question your ability to graduate + be at a similar level as your peers academically. I say this with 2 assumptions. a. your MBA probably not be that competitive to get into because most top 50 MBAs I know will not take people below a 2.5 GPA simply as a litmus test. I see your MBA GPA (and 3.3 isn't that good to begin with. It varies greatly by school, but the average GPA at schools that still have GPAs tend to be roughly 3.5 -- I know small sample size of the MBA schools I know, and I can be outdated). So either way below average for your MBA and way below average for your undergrad. b. Your extra course work probably wouldn't account for much. Your leadership course is redundant since you have so much military experience. Your Master's Level economics course won't mean that much unless you are doing some level of serious econometrics (which I am assuming you aren't). It looks like you are hunting for brand and rather a serious sign of academic performance. It is more important to get a good grade at an undergrad level class in something hard at a state school than get a good grade at brand name online program for something that isn't that hard in the grand scheme of things. Now... the big unknown is what the impact of COVID-19 will be. If HKS loses a good chunk of its international students due to movement restrictions, they will need to make up for it with US students and they may lower their standards. However, I think you fail to even pass threshold. My Recommendations: 1. Pivot into what you want to do without going to grad school.. you seem to be better off without going through the pains of explaining your GPA + standardized tests and you have a pretty good work experience story. 2. (and I could be totally wrong... but this is a hunch)... stop branding yourself as having worked for a "top consulting firm"... People who work at top consulting firm never refer to themselves as having worked for a top consulting firm. They say the brand or the grouping (Big 4, MBB, T1, or T2). Your credibility is challenged by not utilizing the correct lingo.

So hypothetically you can overcome the short comings of Seton Hall program (we can talk about prestige, resources, alumni network, and etc.) by individually networking in New York. However... your topic area, Middle East + Southeast Asia in my opinion only lends itself to New York area jobs okay, it lends itself to DC + other international options much much better. I strongly recommend you go to Maxwell period because: 1. You will have a larger perspective of the opportunities out there 2. Your will have a much more legitimate brand to carry you. Botton line, people stop and pay attention when they see Syracuse by virtue of reputation and as silly as it sounds --> a US News rankings search (that is another long conversation). Seton Hall essentially won't mean much to a lot of people hiring. Not trying to be snobby, but this is what I have seen. My have encountered the same with my own policy school because it is only approx 25 ranked on US News and people have asked me point blank why I didn't go to a better school. 3. Lower living expenses 4. Accessible resources (that you don't have to compete for). Maxwell has lots of research centers + programming catered for the Syracuse population period. There might hypothetically be stuff in New York, but you have to compete with NYU, Columbia, Pace, Brauch, CUNY, Hunter College, and others. I could go on with other things... but I would say those are the big ones... For me it is a slam dunk to go to Syracuse (granted it might be annoying not to be so close to New York). However... I recommend going somewhere where you can make close friendships rather than be distracted by a city. Also... COVID will probably last into the fall... so you'll be better off in upstate New York.

So the problem for you is that going to the workplace and going into academia is two different strategies with potential for some parallels but it doesn't fit neatly --> especially with a 1 year program. So let me paint this out. Academia: 1. GPA, research, Professor/key researchers recommendations (which you usually can only get after you work with a professor on something)/and occasionally teaching a. so with GPA you kind of have to get an awesome GPA... AGAIN... if you slink below 3.7, you can kiss a top tier program goodbye. Here is the deal... unless you want to go into Academia and a major research org, going to a prestigious PhD matters a lot... and even that isn't even still a sure thing. b. research - the research and your research product (it helps if you have portfolio to highlight) should be part of your story about doing a PhD and show your technical skills c. professors/researchers - in your application packet you'll need someone to vouch that you are capable with research period. When you go below prestigious, you can still strike good, but the probability is a lot less (but of course it happens frequently). And trust me, I loved my high school teacher with a PhD from Oxford... but just saying your job opportunities prospects shift. I will also so that at the end of the day it also kind of depends on what your research top is. If you hit a research topic that is cool at the time and you are one of the few people that know about it, you can also win that way. However, that is heavily luck, because no one knows what will be cool tomorrow. d. not necessary but seen as a bonus --> experience being a TA Professional workplace / Consulting (what is available to you...) a. Project experience... the more consulting similar it is, the better b. Networking... expanding your network period... c. Technical skills that is valued in the job market at the time you are seeking to enter the job market (i.e. data analysis skills, cloud skills, intelligence design, and etc.) d. Applied Research (this is the only kind of crossover... and note this is different than theoretical research) Something to think about The federal government and sometime state government officially gives preference hiring to veterans (and their spouses), peace corp/americorp alums, and unofficially --> sometimes Teach for America. Since I'm assuming you don't have any of these, one way to get this preference is getting fellowships to get equivalency for preference. Two options are the Presidential Merit Fellowship (it used to be really hard to get, but not so much anymore) or the Boren Fellowship. Most important... the sooner you figure out what you want to do in life, the easier grad school will be for you.

Here is the deal --> at anytime, no matter how good or how bad the economy is, there are skills in demand and skills simply out of demand. Even right now, during the time of corona, I still see employers trying to fill jobs that they can't find enough qualified people for. For example the hot thing of the moment is data scientists. I know people who gone to MPP/IR programs who had the foresight to realize their interest in XYZ dead language as not being viable and and got smart on learned technical skills (either on their own, via classes, via projects, or via internships) and translated that to awesome jobs, in the recent downtown. So bottom line... your GPA means nothing (unless you are trying to go to PhD later on and your's is good enough to graduate). Get the skills and experiences you need to be viable in the job market during grad school. One of those most interesting things I once saw was when I was in a room where our professor went around and asked people what our thesis interests were. I felt like roughly half the people mentioned something about gender studies of women in a policy lens. Look, I have been in women's affinity groups since high school and taught classes about gender studies once, so I myself appreciate the importance of gender studies. However 1. there is only so much gender policy career options that are and 2. there was a lot of focus on an important area but there wasn't that much substance about using the thesis an opportunity to package technical skill competency. I think this speaks to itself.

I would say Harris is near HKS level of quality and not worth the $60K total difference.

So these are my difference/minor disagreements with what @Mppirgradschool mentioned about the analysis of Jackson vs. HKS. I just think that there is one major factor that is missing in the analysis is what I call resource access. By being in HKS, you have access to: 1. The larger broader range of Harvard (emphasis on Harvard not just HKS) resources. I always hear about Harvard resources being difficult to get ahold of. That might be true for some of their celebrity professors. However, I have collaborated with Harvard professors academic institutions as non-Harvard student for policy matters and I found them super accessible. Also, the range of resources given how many research institutions, special interest institutions, and etc. are immensely greater than Yale (and make that most other Universities in America). 2. Leverage to have access to non-Harvard resources. This manifests in the following ways: A. Consortium with MIT. So if you want to get into tech or international security matters (people forget that MIT has a super strong international security offerings) B. Consortium with Fletcher (although not that much unique stuff here in my opinion) C. Research organizations and industry within Boston that can be launching pad for many things. D. Extremely strong legacy access to many organization and institutions in Washington DC Another matter of interest is career flexibility 1. HKS students have arguably the widest range of job placements, from traditional MPP roles, to more fringe roles. I have seen HKS people be in start ups and play in tech companies in capacities I haven't seen other MPP play in. As for HBS/HKS/HLS relations. Yes, of the three HKS has the least competitive admissions, and probably has the least prestige and money. HOWEVER... there are historical and robust relationships with all three. My sister was an HKS student who played ball with her classmates in HBS, no problem. The Shortcomings with Yale Jackson 1. Your access to resources are simply less --> Period. Outside of Yale, there isn't that much institutions and organizations that can actively support you in New Haven. Yale simply has a smaller footprint that Harvard, so the school itself doesn't really comparatively compensate for the lack options on location. 2. SOM is much smaller than HBS --> student population wise, so that means less collaboration opportunities. Now collaboration does happen. One of my SOM friends runs an education conference, but total range of people you can collaborate with is smaller period. My SOM friends always joke that they forget there is a world outside of MBA except for the occasions when they occasionally go to the all-grad school events. One can say HBS might look down on HKS, but there is an extensive established relationship and collective activities. 3. 30 is just way too small for comfort. With less people there are less people per policy/IR field area of interest. That means it is more difficult to collaborations with. For example, if I was a Latin America person, I might find only 3 or so (out of a class of 30) that I could potentially collaborate with. Also, with less numbers there are less people per career interest type to concentrate for recruiting purposes. Do you think an organization will come to Yale (and travel to New Haven) when there are only 1 to 3 people interested in a certain job opportunity - nope. Now Yale does this smart thing whereby Jackson also caters to undergrad and have historical experience with undergrads. Their experience with grads however, I believe dates back to 2013ish. As a school, they only back to 2019. This is compared to HKS with extensive experience supporting their graduate students with career opportunities and enough numbers to make themselves seem relevant to organizations interested to fill jobs.

I think I have a slightly difference of opinion with @Mppirgradschool... whereas we normally agree on most things... but I guess it is too late now.

Bottom line, if you want to be in academia, the shortest way way is stay in academia --> BC GSAS and do research + teach. MPP technically is and should be a professional school that is about getting people into policy practice. People do go from MPP to academia/think tank, but that is the painful way to do it. Not to sound awkward about it, but simply put --> Brandeis MPP is nothing special. I bucket it under the run of the mill MPP. I recommend you go to BC and do some awesome research and make your dreams come true.

Actually, of all the schools I have ever visited, Fletcher was by far the worst in terms of flexing. I think it is because they feel overshadowed by Harvard and feel the need to compensate. I also heard so often from Fletcher people that it is practically like going to Harvard since they have access to Harvard classes, some Harvard resources, and Harvard club access some places. I want to be clear, I went to Georgetown McCourt. It has a drastically different culture than Georgetown MSFS (or make that any other graduate program in Georgetown for that matter). There were 4 major aspects to the culture there that added up to all around nuttiness. 1. The Visible Social Elite - Mega Flexers: There was a notable number of them with crazy high levels of self-promotion. If it was based on something genuinely meaningful, I would get it, but for the most part it was just self-promotion and hyping up brands. I will say this crowd did have good backgrounds but were the people you did not want to be stuck on a group project with. 2. A very clique majority society: A majority of people belonged to cliques and would talk about what cliques they belonged to regularly. This created a very much ingroup-outgroup culture on many levels. This was actually worse than I had seen in undergrad (and my college was majority Greek social scene). 3. A large group of people that are highly comfortable to wallow in dissatisfaction: A common topic of conversation how bad life is (grades, rejections from internships, job challenges). I'm not talking about your run of the mill gripes, but it was frowned upon to have a positive upbeat can do attitude about things because other people will feel bad that they aren't being positive and comment about it. What this meant was that the culture was to blame other people and never take responsibility for anything. Example (real comment I heard): I can't get the summer internship I want because the Harvard kids have better brand than me. 4. Be afraid to have meaningful political/policy conversations: Never in my life have I heard so little political/policy discourse, which is really sad since this is a graduate program. People preferred to be "nice" and never have any political or policy discussions. The way this manifested is a public culture of agreement. Be it left wing, right wing, or anything in between, views publicly mentioned was just acknowledged and rarely debated because that was the right thing to do. One of the most popular people in McCourt was a rather extreme right winger, but in a culture of "nice", everyone just thought his views were "cute" and there was no desire or interest to learn about how and why he got his views. Anyone who broke the norm would be told to hush. I was when I simply asked an studen to expand on his opinions in a class discussion setting. However, I was told I shouldn't be stressing people out to justify their policy opinions. To answer you question, I did find people I genuinely connected with, a few were people from some of the cliques, who didn't take it seriously. But most of them were the "independent operators" who managed to find ways to disregard the grad school society and do things their way. I always realized the culture was strange... but I never realized how problematic until I randomly went to a talk about how the #1 problem and solution of any organization is its culture --> the picture became clear. What a Good Culture Looks Like: Surprisingly UK Schools (Oxbridge) Some of my family members went to graduate school (policy related programs at the top UK programs), and that was a culture I marveled at. It wasn't perfect. However, what I really admired was how it was the cultural norm to go to the pub after class and talk about ANY and everything. Classmates were legitimately curious about each other's views and everywhere was a safe space to exchange ideas and challenge each other. There was some flexing going on, but it was a .. I'm doing XYZ awesome things, let me help you do other XYZ awesome things too. I also found HKS to have a rather positive professionally oriented culture as well when I visited a family member who went there, but that was for a less significant period of time than I was at the UK schools.

Well I think I should probably explain my comments in two pieces. 1. Some of the prestigious post MPP development roles - World Bank, JPAL, and etc., I have heard anecdotal feedback that: A. It isn't the best working environment --> the biggest thing B. Relatively low compensation C. Ambigious impact D. Disappointment with professional growth and development 2. The reason why I am less than interested to reunite with most people I know who went to such programs (exceptions are always abound) is because these were the people I knew in grad school always talked about chasing the dream to work at XYZ prestigious organization as a means of flexing their self-importance. In all fairness they were very intellectually capable beings. My issue with them wasn't arrogance per se, but lack of interest in actual impact. Instead, it was about proving to themselves they can do it to outdo others in the field, and not to make a difference. That was one of the most interesting things I found in my MPP experience + saw when essentially camped out at Fletcher (and I will note that my family members who gone to MPP or other policy related / IR programs did not have the same experience). I imagined that a lot of people went to MPP or IR schools to make some level of impact that they were passionate about out of the interest of public service, innovation, or just doing something cool. Instead, I found a disturbing proportionality of people that I met who saw graduate school as a vehicle to advertise/justify how great they were because they could succeed (or at least perceived to succeed) in XYZ field. Conversations (even in class) were more about how so and so could take credit for XYZ rather than the opportunity to improve people's lives. For example, when I was visiting Fletcher, a very representative conversation I had with someone was a student felt so proud she was able to publicly challenge high ranking government official guest speaker and being able to 1 up someone so high was a indicator of excellence. I prefer classmates, programs, and learning environment whereby the focus is developing solutions and not self-aggrandizement, but I have learned that a big part of the public policy space (academically and otherwise) is about showing off your flexing on a regular basis (be it justified or not) over making meaningful solutions.

I think generally under some of what you want to do now, JD isn't the right degree. However, at the end of the day, you don't know what you want to do... so there is no way to guide you when you don't have a compass. I think you just need to start socializing with people in areas you are interested in and get a feel what works for you. I think you are really undercutting your opportunities in MBB. There are opportunities to work for non-profit clients at all 3 MBBs and at least McKinsey and BCG (I don't know about Bain), they have significant social impact or policy oriented consulting arms that you can do side projects in or even jump into and can be jumping off points. Also McKinsey and BCG have robust federal practices (they just aren't talked about much), if you want to have a greater feel for urban planning centered work or public health. I was reading a Washington, DC metro analysis once, and it was done by McKinsey. Like I said, to get the meaningful letters of recommendation at MBB to go to an awesome law places and etc, you need to be a rock star at MBB first. Just look at former Presidential Candidate Pete Buttigieg. He had an economic redevelopment project at McKinsey. Also... I would be careful about what you wish for about going into JPAL, World Bank, or YPP. I know a lot of people who are really unhappy at the World Bank (contractors and full time). In some of these organizations, the people I know from my school that went are people I pray, I never have to see again.

So my biggest advice to you is to make sure you absolutely know what you want to do in terms of a policy space. I meet so many people who start going into policy schools thinking that they want to do one thing and then realizing that they want to something completely different on the way out. I recommend that instead of thinking about going to grad school, focus on rocking your first year at your MBB firm. At the end of year 1, do a pulse check on an exit strategy and then network to hunt for more information. When I graduated undergrad, I thought I was sold on going to IR school and set a timeline for myself and everything. Between appreciating what people really did coming out of IR school and changing life interests, I shifted my grad school interests and life goals.

1. That might be a WWS thing, but I met a lot of former consultants in other top tier policy schools. 2. I bet if you engaged them, that is a preference and not a hard and fast rule. I will say that one real thing is that in some parts of public policy spaces, there is definitely this hostility against people who came from the private sector. Increasingly, I have been hearing anecdotes of sentiments for purity (AKA: culturally preferring people who stayed in the public interest space). Thoughts like "we don't think so and so would be a good fit for our public policy organization because that person has too much private sector experience". However, I speak of this more to a domestic policy lens. On the flip side, consulting skills are beginning to be more and more valued across the policy space... period. For example in K-12 education, there are organizations that take former MBB consultants to whip up plans for the regions/states to execute.