GradSchoolGrad

1. Where you take classes don't matter (unless you network your way into something), which does happen. 2. I know Harvard guys who got rejected from elite grad programs because they ended up is non-profit jockeys who struggled to get promoted. So they ended up at my policy school (McCourt oodles over Ivy Leagues even if their resume is questionable). At the end of the day, the resume only outlines, but your essays have to tell a story. If you can't tell a coherent story (and this is all about how you tell your story), you will struggle to get scholarships, let alone get into the best schools. 3. Right now there is a labor shortage. If you think more broadly -sales, start up, anything, you'll probably find something cool to excel at in the next 9 months or so. 4. AU SIS is a better option than both those programs, especially since you are getting funding. However, AU SIS won't sling shot you to the top. It isn't about elitism or reputation - but the law of average. Among an AU SIS grad program group of 10, probably 1 or 2 will impress me. Within an HKS/SAIS/MSFS grad program group of 10, probably 6 or 7 with. Those 6-7 will probably get the better jobs and get the opportunities that you can network with + help you out in the long run. 5. There is a difference between academics and career path. You can say you only want to learn certain things all you want. However, the job market likes to see well rounded people who had both range and depth. Its great you have depth interest, but the programs that pipeline into the best jobs are the mainline IR programs of the Big 7 (MSFS, HKS, Elliot, Fletcher, SIPA, SAIS, and SIS) - although I would count SIS last. I would even put Monterey Institute and Yale Jackson over SIS, but those two programs are too small, where as SIS is huge. This comes down to if you want to go after getting your foot in the door now, or play the long game to optimize your chances to sling shot with a better application result next year.

If I were you, I would figure out how to strengthen you resume and apply next cycle to a wider variety of schools (you are most likely too late for scholarship money this cycle). Grad schools are also wary of elite undergrad alums who haven't followed up with a career that can tell a coherent story of achievement. Also, Russian expertise in demand and those with Russian language skills are super desired. Some other programs to consider (especially to get scholarship) in no particular order? 1. Georgetown's Security Studies 2. Georgetown's Russian Studies Masters (if you know for sure you want to focus on Russia and Eastern Europe) 3. Tufts Fletcher 4. Yale Jackson

So there are two ways to look at this. In terms of pure entry into a job in IC or FSO, it really doesn't make that much of a difference between the schools if you have a strong pre-school background (and I'm assuming you are referring to GWU Elliot and Georgetown MSFS). If your goal is to get your foot in the door and hope your skills/performance carry you through, then AU SIS makes sense, especially since they given you money. However there is an impact in terms of long term career prospects (and only if you take advantage of it, which a shockingly large number of people don't). So that happens in one of two ways. One is the amount of favors you can call/access to friends in high places. Bottom line is that both Georgetown MSFS and GWU Elliot have more high rollers in IC and FSO than SIS does, but more importantly they do kind of act like a alumni mafia at times (like politely) that helps each other out. Yes, there are SIS people who reach high places, they come in ones and if you are lucky twos in teams. I have seen entire teams in IC, FSO, political risk, and etc. be proportionality Georgetown MSFS, SAIS, or GWU Elliot. The other is that if you end up wanting to pivot into something else, you'll have a strong network to help you out down the line. This is especially true for MSFS, as a lot of people are going into private sector and they are doing a lot more stuff with business. So basically - I recommend you think long and hard about the risks you want to take. Because on the flip side, you can go into MSFS or GWU Elliot and be too saddled with debt to actually take advantage of the opportunities those schools have afforded you.

Just doing some hasty research for you (so I could be wrong). It looks like There were 2 from Penn Fells in 2020 and none from 2021. Given how American SPS (a Tier 2 school in my opinion) gets like at least a dozen every year (not sure their student size though, though I think they are pretty big and highly domestic focused) and McCourt gets like 9 a year (about 250 total students size... but keep in mind that a lot of military or IR related), that should give you an idea for comparison.

Okay this is super interesting. I think it really comes down to what policy area you are more interested in and how you want to approach it. On the surface, Chicago Harris makes more sense simply because it has much more robust pathway to apply for a PhD (keep in mind, no matter what MPP school you go to, you basically can't go below an A- GPA, or else you are going to 2nd tier PhD program). I don't know what you are going to get your PhD in, but as long as it is Policy, Economics, or Political Science, you will have a better range of professors to give you recommendations and referrals. Chicago will also be much better for urban policy simply because it has a lot more robust programming and academic focus on the details of urban policy. That being said, Washington DC is doing a lot of innovative policy efforts. McCourt some alumni connections and some policy innovation extracurricular involvement in it, but I would hardly say it is robust or really academically involved. However, if you are okay with just diving in with uncertain real support - McCourt makes sense. Additionally, if you want to approach Urban Development from a Federal powers angle, DC makes sense for networking, but just realize you'll be very much alone. Urban policy isn't exactly popular at McCourt (parts of social policy - but not exactly urban policy), so you might not have a good professor to mentor you. So international development is interesting. You can piggy back on Professor Wiebe (he is the primary IDev professor at McCourt) and ride his train, but then you are stuck with his train (some people like it and some people don't). If you want to go it alone, there is the entire slew of Federal infrastructure out there to help you. However, if you want to go on the academic side of IDev, Chicago will be stronger period. I haven't heard of a McCourt alum going to a Tier 1 Think Tank in a while - that would be Brookings or CATO (even when they had a referral of its best professors). About 1 or 2 have opportunities to join 1.5 tier like Urban or CNAS. Tier 2 places like Mathmatica do get 2 or so McCourt students year, but they aren't exactly the ones that leap frog into PhD. With U. Chicago however, you can be better off leapfrogging into the entire world of think tanks and research institutions. However, if you are okay with a Tier 2 or 1.5 DC Think Tank - McCourt can make sense for you. One thing I want to highlight is that 60%+ of the people that I know had a major career interest shift in grad school and bottom line is that Chicago Harris has much better career support than McCourt. McCourt really underfunds their career services (it doesn't help that so many students are from China and really struggle to find jobs). They work their butts off, but there are only so many people. At U. Chicago Harris, they have a career coaching system that is pretty robust.

I mean for you, it will all come down to networking. UW Evans MPA is probably the best school academically out of all of them, but the challenge is that it is ultimately a West Coast school and other than things they are good at like Environmental Science, your biggest advantage is will be out west. Brown Watson is also like Penn Fels and Stanford MPP, great university name, but not a good program (though they are trying, they are coming from way behind). Ultimately, I recommend you think long and hard about what policy area you are most interested in + your networking strategy for DC and what school can help you get there best. One good way to think about it is which school has the best rates of getting people into PMF (Presidential Management Fellows - the fast track to the Federal Government from grad school). If it doesn't look good, you might want to wait a year or two with a stronger resume to get into better schools.

Georgetown Walsh SFS is a pipeline to the most prestigious IR jobs. It is true, people often get McCourt confused with Walsh MSFS in in spaces that don't know the difference. However, in places that do know (like the UN and World Bank), they know the difference and you can't get away with tricking people for too long. That being said, McCourt does have a pipeline into World Bank (as a consultant hoping for a contract conversion). I will however tell you that everyone I know who got that had a Professor sponsor them, so that means being in lock step in supporting a Professor's research. I have yet to know a contract conversion among my network - but it may be out there. That being said, I have not heard a positive professional development or work culture on the research side of World Bank (business and management is a different story, but policy/IR people don't exactly go there). I do not know a single person from McCourt that went to the UN from a US location (I know a few who work for the UN outside of the US, but they were all very politically connected prior to starting).

You might want to avoid Penn Fels like the plague (unless you are doing something very Philly specific). Sure, it has the Penn brand, but it is essentially Penn's money grabbing adventure via grad school profit taking (since graduate students are profit centers). The substance is far lacking in so many ways, even in comparison to 2nd tier policy schools.

You might want to look at the array of professors for each program and go for the program with the professors with the backgrounds most relevant to your professional interests. Also talk to some students to see how accessible they are to you and if they help with employment.

Go to Yale Jackson period. McCourt struggles to provide career support for international students since they are overwhelmed with international students who struggle to put together a functional resume.

Both schools have major cons. For NYU MSPP, every student I known has told me it is a rather lonely experience because there isn’t a real university community and everyone lives their NYC life. McCourt might have a okay to good student community, but the jobs are really geared to US students who want to stay in DC. World Bank and UN are very difficult to break into and networking can mean more than skills. If you are trying to stay in the US, your best way is to focus on the data side and get a job that way. However neither program is a STEM degree, so it makes immigration harder. You might want to consider if either degree really helps you achieve your career goals. Also, UN and World Bank aren’t exactly the best places to work. It’s low pay and not the best working conditions.

Work for a year or 2. Period. Sure you might get into places with Fulbright. But 2 years solid works experience makes you super competitive

Okay, those are two very different beasts. I would argue that going into the State Department (I'm assuming you mean FSO) is actually less competitive than being Professional Hill Staffer (I'm assuming you are speaking to the actual Professional Hill Staffer career track - e.g.,. Ways and Mean's Committee Professional Staff). This simply because of numbers. So lets break this down in terms of getting in and then school network support. State Dept FSO: In terms of State Dept - FSO, your school doesn't necessarily matter that much for getting in. Its about having the background (this includes diversity and language and etc.) that they are looking. If you are going to a top school, you will check the box. Actually, they are trying to diversify beyond IR folks, so MBA and science grad degrees, although rarer, are being looked very highly upon. That being said, where you go to school can influence what you get involved in which in turn influences your pitch to why you want to be in the FSO. For example, GW Elliot is an amazing place of China and Technology studies. Georgetown MSFS arguably has a leg up on International Business, Trade, and Security. So the easy answer is to go for the niche that you really care about. Just kaeep in mind, you'll be more in demand if you have a functional area that there is a shortage for (granted to a certain extent FSO are more generalists). As for school network support, Georgetown MSFS is basically the biggest mafia in FSO - bar none. There also other big, but maybe not as big Mafias - Elliot being one them. Professional Capital Hill Staffer Every professional capital hill staffer that I have ever met has really deep levels of experience. This isn't something you can just jump onto. Sometimes you hear about people doing this after grad school, but that is few and far between. Just to give you an example. When one of my friends was a newly minted hill staffer, he also had a 2 graduate degrees and 8 years professional experience. Another one I knew had 1 graduate degree and 5 years working in Federal Government, 3 Years working for a Senator on her staff. I know a person en route to compete to be a Professional Hill Staffer from MSFS, but she really wheeled and dealed her way in plus had a good 6 years of professional experience. That being said, if you want to work in Capital Hill as a Senate/Congressional staffer or any sort - it really helps to go to Georgetown or Elliot or SAIS (although there are ways around it). Georgetown MSFS vs. GW Elliot I would say the big difference (academically) between the two schools is that Elliot is a really good place to go if you got a niche whereby there is an Elliot professor who will really support you. Elliot is overall pretty good, but they are bar none some of the best for certain specialities. I always meet people doing China, Space, and Global health from Elliot that are highly regarded. I'm sure there are other niches I am just less familiar with. I will also say that Georgetown is a better school if you are looking for something more interdisciplinary (e.g. combining with Law/Business) with the notable exception of public health.

Huge difference. Unless you have a deep resume (at least 7 years) and you don't need to pick up new technical skills to make a career change, you should do an MPP. The reality is that MPP programs are essentially dedicated for career pivoting. In Mid-Career MPAs, you take some interesting classes, maybe give you some quant essentials with some practical exercises at most, but you can really honestly add strong grasp of technical skills on your resume (unless you do a lot of additional individual study). So if you do a Mid-Career MPA, its pretty much on you to pivot based on your resume.

So if you want to work for Federal Government security wise (broadly speaking), I would argue the more direct/robust pathways are Georgetown MSFS and GW Elliot MAIA. You will find strong cohorts of Georgetown/GW mafia there. If you want to do things that are quant focused - SAIS MAIR and HKS MPP may be better option (granted a lot of people do non-quant things coming from both of those schools). HKS MPP is an interesting school because it both huge in terms of size but also super spread out in terms of career outcomes. Sure you might come out of it with the brand and everything, but you'll find that the security interested IR folks a small (yet mighty) posse. I am not counting those interested in defense logistics/org management and design. SIPA MIA - yes you can wiggle your way into security issues and broadly anything in international relations. However, it really caters itself best to the non-profit/IGO/NGO scene Tufts Fletcher is an interesting one. Arguably, it probably has the best student experience (like a liberal artsy small community feel of an IR grad program). Historically, people go there to do non-profit/IGO/NGO work with a consistent cohort that goes to the foreign service. Lately, they have been trying to innovate into the private sector a bit with the "career tours". However, I have never seen Tufts Fletcher as a target school an any core recruiting roster I have ever seen and a lot of it has to do with how outside of foreign service, their graduates spread out. That being said, individual Tufts alums tend to be pretty sharp... If you are interested in IR/international security - you should shoot for the McCain Fellowship. Checking out their careers will give you an idea what it takes to succeed. https://www.whs.mil/McCain-Cohort2-Finalists/

What do you want to do coming out of grad school. If you are more interested in State & Local politics, Ford wins hands down. If you are more into national and tech, Heinz has the edge. Another thing you should think about is that Ford is a much older school with a deeper alumni base (granted there will be a disproportionate amount of it in the mid-west. Also, if you want to have a more quant focused/quant requiring job, Ford should win. If you care about a more interdisciplinary school experience, Ford should win (U. Michigan has pretty much all the top grad schools and its easy to play with all of them. CMU can get better with grad school interoperability from what I hear. If you are afraid of quant and want to run away from it period - go to Heinz. That being said, I will say that being quant heavy has helped me out tremendously career wise.

Yes there is a significant difference. Usually, if you want to pivot to a new career field full time makes sense. Mid-career is to help people advance in their current career field with a check the box degree where you don’t really learn any technical skills.

I am a bit confused about your school choices. Are you trying to go for policy schools and focus on education or Go to education schools and focus on policy. It actually makes a big difference. If you want to work for a Think Tank and Government (assuming you mean as an regulatory or research perspective), policy school with a an education focus make sense. You can hypothetically do it with an education school with a policy school, but it is MUCH MUCH MUCH harder. That being said, most people who go to education school matriculate back into teaching and/or try to go leadership track. There is always a small group that goes to private sector or do research. Also, the ability to get in varies greatly between the two. Policy schools generally have a quant foundations requirement one way or another (ability to graduate) I think the bigger concern is trying to pivot from advocacy to research/government. It is a drastic change of going from a people based business to a heads down on paper and analysis job where your impact is hard to feel and oftentimes super super slow. Its not a path I can ever say I seen among the ed space (most common being teacher to research/government). Also, please keep in mind, there is definitely a former teacher mafia in ed policy that often serve as gatekeepers. You might think that advocacy might be taken well (and maybe it would be), but I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't take well.

Look, I love Georgetown's SSP, and it is the best Security Studies program out there. However, we need to get real in that Georgetown SSP is no where near the level of competitiveness as Harvard Or Princeton's public policy or similar programs. Yes, having a relevant application and strong relationships with admissions helps. However, for the more elite programs (especially the ones that are quant oriented), no matter how good your story is, if there is doubts on your ability to graduate due to lack of foundations for graduation requirements, a candidate is simply not getting in. Georgetown SSP doesn't have a significant quant requirements. I know because I know people who failed quant based programs at other Georgetown migrate there in order to end up with a graduate degree. Look, I'm not trying the rain on your parade, because SSP churns out National Security studs, but we need to get real on how the mechanics of grad school admissions.

Let me preface, if you are trying to go to private sector, assuming you have an education background, it makes so much more sense to get an MBA. 3 that transition to private sector ed well are HBS, Yale School of Management, and Georgetown McDonough (admittedly I might be missing on some West Coast schools here).

Do not waste your time there period (unless you are doing something very regionally focused). When even the people they advertise as success stories on their career page underleveled in their job after grad school graduation, that is a huge warning sign. Also, I never saw and still don’t see Heller people in the competitive professional or academic policy spaces.

Yes, a 3.0 results in scholarship rolling over. HOWEVER - a 3.0 GPA is not easy to maintain. There is always a subset of the population who roll below that. All it takes is doing poorly in 2 quant classes (or failing out of one). Yes that does happen. Just to put it in context.

HGSE can take you to whatever floats your boat. Yes a lot of graduates do return as educators while some go the management/principal/superintendent route, and there is always a subset that goes to private sector. That being said, you might want to be more focused on what you got to graduate school for. You only get one (or maybe a small number if you seek multiple graduate degrees) chance to go to graduate school. It is really to be leveraged for three things. 1. Improving your brand/pedigree and 2. Learn the relevant things that can help you competently perform/speak in your future role of interest and 3. Network to help you get an in with the career path you want. That being said, your 4 options: 1. School District 2. State DOE 3. Think Tank 4. Private Sector Are decently different career trajectories that require different grad school navigation strategies. Yes, hypotethetically, you can get your grad degree, and elevate your in-district career and then hop onto some things. However, it is rather inefficient to do it that way. I recommend that you more precisely figure out how you want to use your graduate school degree to the the pivot that you actually want to do.

First of all, I hope you are really committed to Ed Policy. As a former Ed Policy person myself, I will tell you should be prepared for: a. Highly competitive environment (lots of Ed Policy people from policy and more graduate programs) in school and in the job market b. Job market whereby you will be relatively underpaid compared to almost all other policy areas c. By in large - not the best career culture among places that hire for Ed Policy (I mean a few exceptions exist) but pure Ed Policy orgs tend to be rather insular and not career growth oriented. Obviously some people do it and end up loving it when they find their niche, but I have yet to found a person who didn't at least have to go through some sort of a struggle that takes multiple years of navigating around. Now to your schools: Each of those schools is decently different from each other for ed. a. Georgetown McCourt - this school is very quant and Federal government focused. If you like Data Analytics and big national data sets tied to K-12 performance, this is a good landing pad to get you there. If you like State/Local stuff, Ed Innovation, Ed Tech, and Education Equity (beyond the stuff that has been toyed around for the 20 years), this is not a good spot for you. b. Duke Sanford - this is the best school if you want to work in State & Local or Non-Profits tied to education period. c. HGSE - this is a bit jack of all trades for Ed. Where it uniquely really excels is connecting policy top pedagogy and ed policy to management/organizational practices. When I needed to support on superintendent trends + best practices, pretty much all/most arrows pointed to HGSE. HGSE also has the huge connects with a large number practitioners across the country. A con of HGSE is that if you ever want to leave Education or Ed Policy, the degree doesn't help you as much, since the program + alumni are generally ed focused.

To answer your question: 1. What I am describing is more specific to all major employers I have encountered (obviously with some variations for execution and considerations for diversity). I can also apply to high paying/high prestige medium and small employers who have a strong preference for alumni pipelines (one of the reasons why Tufts Fletcher hits above its weight class for employment despite its comparatively limited span of pipeline reach). 2. HKS is an interesting beast different than any other policy school. That being said, HKS does not suffer from a pipeline issue. If anything, it suffers from a wealth of pipeline issue in that there are so many pipelines, students have to strategize which to shoot for that there are major issues with FOMO. Now it isn't like all the pipelines will just come to you with job offers in hand. HKS students still have to network. This is where I find HKS students excel by in large - as highly professionally minded go get get them networkers who can speak the professional language. Also, what you call as the usual career services/fairs is done at a level at HKS that exceeds that of many other policy schools (definitely way more than mine). You can argue that schools like Chicago Harris might have better individualized attention with more focused career coaching. However, HKS career services as a whole is decently robust between the accessible alumni and simply the organizations posting to hire directly via HKS. Now I will say that HKS can be described to have certain issues. Ones I have heard about is overly large cohort, not the best professors/instructors for quant, it being too professionally focused, and some professors are not accessible. That being said, every HKS student/graduate I know has been able to overcome that to smartly manage their career prospects by leveraging alumni, pipelines, and access empowered by HKS + their own smart networking to get where they wanted to be. I also want to highlight, that taking a class one semester is not the same thing as being a full-time university student. Classes are a baseline for academic familiarization and exploration. What makes or breaks the graduate experience are the people met + self-discovery + extracurricular involvement opportunities. 3. I think you do have a minor point of people selecting their schools based upon their personal career trajectories. WIthout a doubt, some people go to specialized programs like Middlebury Monterey Institute or Tufts Fletcher over more "prestigious schools" due to unique program niches, working relationship with professors, or even school culture. However, a lot of policy schools (not all) that have better non-major employer career opportunities also tend to be the ones great major employer opportunities. HKS is a great example. Thinking holistically (regardless of policy focus), there are people from HKS who do go into start up, non-profit innovation, go to boutiques, or strike it out on their own. I attribute this to how the overall cultural emphasis on networking and professionalism (compared to other policy schools) benefits seeking big employers as well as smaller employers. Also, like I said, there are lots of small employers that have personal bias for certain schools based upon alumni experiences and etc. I want to clarify, I do not think HKS is the end all and be all or right for everyone (especially given the cost of attendance). However, it serves as a great comparison point.