GradSchoolGrad

@KyleR For defense policy (very broadly speaking), I would say it is a wash between SAIS and HKS, but it is important to know the nuanced pros and cons of each. With SAIS you get a lot more hands on opportunities (being in DC), but HKS does have a decent number of defense and defense related projects + decent defense connections. Also, defense (like many other policy areas) is also diversifying. For example, my old boss went to HKS and he is now doing defense policy via AI. Since HKS is part of the Harvard empire where it is very easy to go multi-disciplinary, he was able to grow his knowledge and network at HKS. I won't speak for him... but that diverse education/network probably would be harder to do at SAIS. I'm sure someone can give me a counter-example with SAIS.

Okay... knowing you are international student changes things... Assuming you care only about career outcomes and you got the same amount of money, I would do Duke. I have Georgetown DSPP pending grads on LinkedIn asking for help getting jobs because McCourt has always struggled with getting people good jobs (not career services fault... its lack of emphasis in the culture). + by virtue of being an international student, you definitely want STEM over non-STEM. Duke has a stronger background and resources for career placement in the data space.

Assuming that you are getting the same amount of money, I think it is a 100% absolute no brainer - U.Chicago MPP... I say this because: 1. Flexibility in career choice - as in your have the opportunity to change your desired career outcomes midway through the program 2. Harris is simply a much better resourced, managed, and organized program that McCourt 3. Really strong diversity (in background) of your classmates 4. I also want to highlight that Harris is a no joke quant program - probably the hardest (supposedly WWS and Harris have the hardest quant). UNLESS - you want to have a career focused on data science / data engineer / pure data analytics (as in your title would say ___ policy data scientist or data analytics ____). If you ooze data analytics (or want to) and bath in it., then DSPP is the way to go. If you end up really loving the data side, you can just have your electives be more data focused at U. Chicago MPP. Granted, you kind of would hit terminal velocity by virtual of not being in a data analytics program. HOWEVER... if you are getting fully funded for McCourt DSPP and nothing from Harris, and you are okay with having a data focused career... I would go with McCourt DSPP. It is better to come out of a recession with 70K in the hole (assuming 35K a year living expense) than 200K in the hole

I am actually really concerned that you got into Yale with no funding (at least you don't speak of any). Coming out of grad school 200K down coming straight from undergrad in a more narrowly focused graduate program in my opinion is a risky move. With UM, I recommend you consider negotiation getting higher scholarship (they should be able to give you something). If it was a single degree, I would go with MPP, just because it has a broader ranger of career applicability. If you have the time, patience, and money to do a dual degree, I would do it if I were you (make that I did do a dual degree myself). Not true how this is, but I have heard stories of people at UM having more scholarship negotiation leverage by virtual of dual degreeing - think about it , two programs covering you for 3 years vs. one program covering you for 1 year.

If 2008 /2009 was an indication of anything, older students will be more inclined to ride out the recession and go to graduate school as job situations look bleak. With low interests right now, student loans are arguably decently affordable.

Ever thought about dual degreeing Michigan Ford + SEAS? Not right for everyone, but something to think about. If you can negotiate enough scholarship from both, it might actually help to ride out the upcoming recession. I know Yale Forestry sounds tempting because you get the Yale brand... but from a practical career outcomes perspective, it is not as a straightforward of a way to get back into public policy / politics.

Go to U. Chicago (unless you want a Capital Hill career). It is a no brainer in pretty much every single way you can look at it.

@ab1987 Yes... you can take Harvard graduate school classes from Fletcher. HOWEVER... A: that will be a logistical pain to get from Somerville to the Harvard schools (especially if you end up living in Medford like many Fletcher students). B: Yes... you take a class, but what really makes an experience meaningful is collaboration and involvement. Hypothetically you can... but realistically, you don't get all the benefits of being a Harvard student and all the involvement opportunities.

I want to highlight that a lot of the private sector consulting folks are dual degree MBA/MPPs. There is a cohort of approx 30ish of them each year or or so. A good chunk of them choose consulting. Its not that hard for an HKS MPP only person to go to Deloitte and do government operations... The majority of HKS only people do not make it through MBB (McKinsey, BCG, Bain), though it is possible.

I want to highlight something that more people should focus on considering MPP programs, but for some reason not enough talk is about it. That is the flexibility to change how you want to apply your policy interests and the associated job that might come with it. (Background, I went to MPP in Georgetown and my sister did HKS MPP). Nearly everyone (emphasis on everyone) I know who did MPP had some level of change (sometimes multiple times) of what they were interested in doing career wise going in vs. what they were shooting for career wise on their way out. Three examples of how I see this manifest. A: Unexpectedly liking a policy topic area: My sister's best friend at HKS ended up doing Nuclear energy policy. Didn't care for it going in, but somehow just fell on it, and got a job in it afterwards. B: Same social impact goals, different policy area: One of my friends from MPP went in interested in Ed Policy, but then changed to housing. C : Same policy area - different ways of achieving it: I knew people who were once interested in international development at NGO or research institute, who realized they enjoyed approaching it from a technology solutions perspective Why do I paint these examples? The benefit with HKS, is a strong level of career flexibility via your graduate school experience. You have Boston (internship / project opportunities, a wider ranger of available professors, lots of other professional schools to collaborate with (public health, design, law, business, med, and etc.). If you think you are open to exploring new career opportunities, then HKS is the right answer for you. If you know 100% what you want to do post grad school and it is traditional policy school job + don't think you will change, then take the money at WWS and be awesome.

Okay... so I see you got money from CIPA and none from USC. That changes the calculus a little bit. What I recommend you do is go on LinkedIn (buy premium if you have to), and find out how many people you can see that went to USC Price school that are non-profit management vs. CiPA people in Non-Profit management. And then message some alums from Price in the industry you care about and see if they can talk to you about if the brand + the Price experience is worth it. My concern for you is this. We are likely entering a recession with this Corona madness. If 2008 recession is any indicator, it takes more than 2 years to recover from a recession. Non-profits are the first to suffer in a recession. So... the less debt you have coming out of grad school the better. However, one thing to keep in mind is that USC (all schools) people are super loyal to each other. I haven't met a single Cornell (from any school) person with that much school spirit out there...

Assuming you got the same scholarship (or lack of scholarship), for me it is a no brainer --> USC Price school all the way. Now... I will say that USC Price has much stronger pull and network out west than DC / New York. However, CIPA is so behind in pretty much everything, even if you were shooting for a DC job coming out, CIPA still wouldn't be a strong a case. At best its a wash, but I would still go with USC Price. Reasons are: 1. Your projects and research opportunities will be much expansive and interesting at USC - period 2. Much more access to leaders in the field public policy professors... 3. You are in a solid school with USC and not an institute trying to figure out its identity The only remote reason to even imagine going to CIPA over USC Price is if USC Price gave you no money and CIPA gave you full ride + stipend, and you have aspirations to be in DC / New York + really want to be in a program with a small group of people (some people like that summer camp flavor)

Pros of American: 1. Top notch facilities (they had a massive reinvestment) 2. Convenient DC location that is on the Metro Cons of American: 1. Limited brand equity - even in DC (University of Maryland's program is viewed better than American) 2. Limited national presence. Hilariously, I was at a research presentation event @ American University and I didn't see anyone from American University present 3. Prestige wise, you play second fiddle to the IR program.

I think we need to pull back what it requires to attend an awesome PhD program (assuming related to policy). 1. Grades. A- or higher GPA (and that is a bit of a stretch) 2. Letters of recommendation from stars in their field 3. Research output (alternatively, applied work, but unless it is something ridiculous, it matters less generally speaking). That being said, I think it is important to not go to a place that risks hurting you one of these areas. What does that mean? 1. If you are NOT comfortable with calculus, your grades might struggle with Harris. HOWEVER... assuming you don't mind math... Harris is a no brainer. It is arguably the most intense quant MPP program + you would get to know major academic leaders in the field. Plus, there are lots of energy projects in the midwest that you can do research with and would be relevant for developing countries as well.

I like most people, I completely agree that Princeton is a no brainer. HOWEVER... in total honesty, lets talk about Princeton's core weakness compared to HKS. Bottom line, WWS as a program is academically isolated as I believe one of the few professional graduate programs in Princeton (if not the only one). Princeton doesn't have a Med, Law, Business, Foreign Service, or etc. What that means is that if you for some reason want to go for a more non-traditional MPP/MPA collaborative opportunity or career outcome, Princeton won't have that easily accessible. The people from WWS that I know who played that game would try to collaborate with U. Penn (in Philadelphia). This is the one remote (and barely viable argument) for HKS over WWS. Yet, since you are interested in what seems to be very traditional career areas, this seems to be a moot point.

I think one thing you aren't fully considering with going to a PhD is your grades. Honestly, if you go to a top tier PhD without anything higher than 3.7 (or equivalent) GPA, you might as well forget it, no matter where you went to school. Interestingly, I know people with awesome Undergrad grades shoot themselves in the foot by having not so good grades in Grad school, but still want to do PhD. Bottom line, as long as you get good grades, it won't matter if you went to SAID or Harvard. The other piece is letters of recommendation. SAIS has plenty of famous people that are accessible (think about it, one school in DC and no distractions by other JHU needs - most of the time). At HKS - it can vary! That is because the faculty at HKS often teach non-HKS students and wear many other different hats.

I think it is important to break down the details of what consulting jobs are. MBB (McKinsey, BCG, and Bain) - which started at about 165K + 35K bonusish (but who knows with the recession) does on occasion take HKS MPPs. But you have to have a really compelling case + network to even get an interview. Even after you get an interview, the vast majority don't make it past the two rounds of interviews. NOW... for pure Government Operations Consulting (which can start anywhere from 90K to 130K) like Deloitte, IBM, and lots and lots of boutiques MPPs from HKS have a greater shot... but I will say that most people I have met haven't really enjoyed Government Operations Consulting (including people who came from government).

This is a no brainer... if you are dedicated to international relations / development economics - SAIS will be a great fit. If you had broader interests, or were unsure about your interests, then HKS might make sense. At the end of the day, in that space, 5 years later no one will care where you went to school in that career space.

If possible, I recommend you go straight to PhD and skip a master's if your goal is to do PhD level work (either teach or do research). Your only excuse to do Master's is if you really really really want to do applied work and want to build your applied network in the long run. However, 2 years of school tuition + opportunity + being 2 years older is not worth it generally speaking form my perspective. I will say that Education Policy PhDs are comparatively not as competitive (for example compared to History or Political Science). As long as you get into a top 10 school for Education Policy (Vandy, any Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Stanford, and etc. I think you should take it in a heartbeat.)

So here is the deal about consulting. 1. It is crazy competitive to go to MBB. Even if you come from Harvard Business School (HBS), the majority of people who want MBB roles don't get an interview / pass interviews. At HKS, you get a shot, but the odds are against you, even if you sufficiently prep for it, and they will be longer than HBS 2. You really need to make a bet here, knowing the risks. Lets paint this in some worse case scenarios for you in wish you may wish you went to an alternative program. A: For HKS, you could very well end up in the same job that you could have easily gotten had you went to SAIS, but be in the money hole. Sure you might have the Harvard name and 2 great years to talk about, but you won't be able to afford the membership to go to the Harvard Club with student loans (even if you get funding, you won't get much) in mind. The recession takes a while to recover, so the job market is tight. B: At SAIS, you might not have much debt, but you realize you don't like IR / international development so you are stuck in the field. Now lets paint the best case scenario A: At HKS, you really like the innovation and and broad spectrum education, and really take advantage of the network to take a job you really like... and tell yourself the debt was worth the road you are going on. B: At SAIS, you find your love for international affairs/development and really like the focused education and opportunities to dig deep. DC gives you plenty of opportunities to build your DC network and stretch your academic chops.

1. It never hurts to negotiate. Just be prepared for a no. The reality is that HKS has a decent waitlist of great candidates. Why spend money on someone that they don't have to? 2. My sister went to HKS, yes the Harvard name is shiny and a great talking point at bars... but honestly, her friends who stayed in the policy space got the same jobs as people out of other top tier programs. Now... I will say, with HKS, you do get a network that is unmatched and they are exposed to extraordinary opportunities (those that ride a bit outside of policy in my opinion) and innovation that other places simply do not get. 3. When you say you are interested in consulting, what type of consulting? Government operations or Commercial? If you want to go to a McKinsey, Bain, BCG, your only options are HKS and Harris. If you are good with a Deloitte and want to work in their government operations office, you want to make sure to check which each school to see if they are core recruiting school I will say that I have never met any of my friends in MPP land who have actually liked working in Government Operations consulting. They just tolerate it at best (Golden handcuffs theory).

@graduate2020 From the superficial examination, it seems like JHU SAIS makes the most sense as they are giving you the most scholarship and very generally speaking, it isn't that much of a brand or opportunity loss vs. HKS if they are giving you no scholarship. That beign said, what exactly is your A: specific career path interest (details do matter) B: how much flexibility do you care for (as in if you realize you don't like you can pivot) C : How much does networking matter to you? D : Does the language requirement bother you?

1. I graduated this past Spring. I know McCourt was at most 10% straight from undergrad at most in my start class (that includes the international students) with an average age of 25 or 26 upon entering. Terry Sanford at Duke MPP I know was single digits numerically straight from undergrad for my start year group (among the Americans). Where are you getting your numbers from? When did you graduate from grad school/or what year are you in? 2. The oldest military vet in my MPP program was 31 starting out. The oldest I have ever met or known of in an MPP program is 34. I am an Army vet. I know we pull up the average, but given how we are still a small population at most schools (at my program there were 6 out of 130ish or so) , we can only do so much. 3. In the two employment documents from HKS I have looked at, they do identify the numbers that are dual degree and they have highlighted dual degrees that are at least tangentially tied to policy. A pure non-policy dual degree resulting job (i.e. products at Nordstrom) isn't something HKS has spotlighted. Again, the difference is level of detail, and I view that to be a point of concern when a school pulls a move like how CIPA plays it. 4. The sector is interesting. From a career perspective, the pathways to outcomes are much more uncertain and more technical training/subject matter training is part of the game. Careers are also diversifying. As in MPP/MPAs are going into job areas that previously they did not occupy or did not exist. From a demand perspective, I see most schools growing their enrollments. However with Corona and pending crash of the Chinese international students numbers, that may likely change. For applicants, I would point out that scholarships really do matter to help you avoid debt. 5. I also agree that you can't rest on prestige, but there is a lot to be said about how a better resourced / professional development opportunity accessible oriented school can make a significant difference + provide flexibility. Sometimes that correlates to better career outcomes and sometimes it doesn't. In the case of CIPA, I would argue it doesn't. It also really depends on what the person's career focus to be. I always found it interesting how there were so many opportunities for healthcare policy or infrastructure policy (where the money is) but very few people I knew was ever interested in those roles because of the lack of "cool" factor. Regardless, by virtue of location and program history, the opportunities for CIPA would be less compared to say a UVA-Batten or NYU-Wagner. Of course it means nothing if a student can't take advantage of it. 6. As for being to get into a non HKS or WWS policy school, there is definitely a sliding scale of lowering standards for those who the school knows can pay full tuition. I also found it interesting that I met so many people in lots of policy programs (including my own) who only went there because they got rejected from a top 25 MBA school. However, I would say that even the top tier non-elite (for the sake of argument - SIPA, SAIS, and the like) are still decently competitive to get in for the average applicant.

@ExponentialDecay I think we agree on the same concepts, but I will make the argument that a level of detail does matter, and we might disagree on where the direction of things might go (then again, neither of us can 100% read the future - at least I can't) 1. I want to point out the difference between programs having increasing proportions of straight from undergrad vs. currently having a disproportionate share of straight from undergrads (I view 25% or higher as disproportionate). As public policy has become more popular as an undergrad major, grad schools across the board are trying to tap into the straight from undergrad market, that includes McCourt. Its one thing to come from a position of being predominantly work-experienced (I would say only approx 5% of my McCourt class was straight form undergrad) to starting off being heavily straight from undergrad. At HKS (granted this was a decade ago) my sister was one of low single digit numbers of straight from undergrad). The reality is that among the better MPP/MPA/IR programs, the average starting age is roughly 25 to 27 (as in it has been published in some marketing material in the past 3 years or so). I would be concerned if a school doesn't actively address their average age (I could not find it for CIPA). So the bottom line is that a program not riddled with straight from undergrads is the rule among the better MPP/MPA/IR programs who generally strive to be professional schools (now strive and achieve are two separate things). As and Ivy with a terrific Cornell brand name, it would greatly concern me that CIPA A: don't publish average age (at least I couldn't find any) and B: the majority of people they highlighted in their career prospectus are straight from undergrad (since usually the ones with the best career outcomes are those with work experience and you normally would want to highlight them in a career prospectus). 2. You are also right that most programs don't do a good job segmenting their career outcomes, but the better ones do. HOWEVER, what CIPA does which I have never seen before is to spotlight people (who aren't famous or in positions of high standing) who have jobs that are 100% not related to their MPA degree, but their other degree. I view that as a ploy to paint career success period and covering up for the lack of pure MPAs to market. 3. There is also a difference between a large scale re-org surgery vs. continuous improvement projects. Yes, you are right, to keep up with the times, a lot of schools/programs are conducting various levels of organizational design improvement. HOWEVER, it is one thing for a well-established school to add a new program, create a new research center, or create a joint degree. That is continuous improvement, like building an addition to your house or changing out your car's brakes. Sure there will be some level of disruption, but the mainframe of the program is still there. It is something completely different to do a complete reorganization of an institute to be sliced and diced and merged with other programming. That is like breaking a car apart and then reconstructing it with a new engine + transmission. It may be necessary in the long run, but being caught in the middle of it as a student is not pleasant. That is what CIPA is doing. 4. I will wager that due to the recession, more people will go to grad school straight from undergrad, hoping to ride out the recession. That was the case in the 2008 recession. 5. I also do agree with you that for many experienced professionals (especially those choosing an MPA over an MPP), an MBA may legitimately be a better investment with higher ROI and flexibility, even if you decide to focus strictly on policy / non profit.

So this thread was amusing to me. I have heard of CIPA as a program (I did higher ed policy) but never ever encountered any CIPA person in any pubic policy event or even seen them on a roster for anything. Never in: 1. National policy research presentations 2. Policy case competitions (including one in New York) 3. Policy simulation events 4. Career events have I ever met CIPA person. So out of curiosity, I dug into CIPA... and I found some huge warnings signs. 1. They seem to be a disproportionately high straight from undergrad program (I looked at their career print out and did a LinkedIn search on 3 people they highlighted randomly. 1 was military and 2 were straight from undergrad). There is nothing wrong a person going straight from undergrad to an policy program, but when a program is heavily undergrad focused, you are not going to get much of meaningful network out of that. 2. A reorganization (especially a big one) is not something you want to be involved in as a student because you get caught up in all the political side swiping and resource balancing. This is especially true as the program is part of "an institute" so it likely doesn't have much leverage to begin with. Imagine if your family got broken up and had to merge with another family how crazy that would be. Same deal in higher education terms. 3. Their career outcomes document is interesting in that they don't differentiate between joint program / dual degree students and single MPA program students. (U. Chicago and Harvard Kennedy School do). That is a basically a tricky way for a school to make their employment look artificially better, since people may have gotten a job based upon another program and not the MPA. 4. Not to sound shallow, but the speakers I see on their roster have interesting roles, but compared to Syracuse or Indiana are not nearly as exciting. To me CIPA is like Stanford MPP. Yes the Stanford name is spectacular, but the program really doesn't carry that much weight. It is also a warning sign when a school has to advertise that their grad program is part of the "ivy league". Some food for thought.