GradSchoolGrad

Hopefully what they told you lined up (especially if you get it). What I was referring to is that the timeline can be more uncertain if they offer someone the scholarship, the person says no and then they have to go down the list of who is the next best person available.

I am an employer that works with our recruiting team to hire people from grad schools (including policy schools) and the stark truth is that even if I wanted to get my employer (or competing organizations) to hire from Yale Jackson, it would be very difficult to do so. This is because we focus on pipelines. We have established pipelines with graduate programs that consistently yield matriculants that a. sustain high performance, b. receive support and coaching from their alumni and c. have a history of staying in our company for at least a few years or so (basically not a flight risk). It simply doesn't make sense for us to divert recruiting resources to build a recruiting pipeline to a new school with no history of performance and no alumni base to provide support. Also, since Yale Jackson has such a small alumni base, its not like any alumni is in the position to build a coalition to lobby their employer to hire from Yale Jackson (I mean for some super small orgs maybe). So even if Yale Jackson had a good curriculum and overall University strong reputation it doesn't matter to major employers. From an employer perspective it is not worth the risk. Also, I will say that a. curriculum doesn't matter because every graduate student has the ability to customize their curriculum to some extent. b. overall University strong reputation doesn't matter either. People generally help their alumni from the same program and not their University at large (some minor exceptions). What really matters is the school. This is why no one cares about Stanford MPP or the Harvard Graduate Theater program (that went defunct due to per alumni performance). If you look at the Yale Jackson employment reporting, it is very clear they don't have consistent pipelines to employers as there is no consistency across the years (except for Fox Fellowship and Military Officers going to graduate school). I am also not bullish on Yale Jackson with career outcomes. They are beefing up their faculty by hiring their friends from academia, but they do not seem to be developing experential learning programs or hooking on a consistent roster of employers. The latter two is what makes a strong graduate school program for employment. Like I said. No non-academic employers care about what professor you had (this isn't law school or a PhD program). Instead, employers like myself care about risk profile.

You never know because the money has to go somewhere and even with the money people still say no to McCourt. So they redistribute on their timeline not yours.

That can vary greatly. McCourt is not a well oiled machine. Schedules readily shift.

I think one very important item that is missing from all this robust discussion is the employer's view. Sure the Yale name will go far when individual students fan out their resumes. However, employers (especially bigger and more prestigious ones) like to base their campus based hiring decisions off of a. positive historical experiences and b. relationship with career services. With Yale Jackson being so new, employers that consider HKS, SAIS, SFS, SIPA, Terry Sanford, and etc. due to outstanding history won't consider Yale Jackson because there is no history. This is not a critique about Yale Jackson's programming. It is simply a reality of going to a grad school that doesn't have top tier employment history. FYI: Yale Jackson's employment results are here: https://jackson.yale.edu/careers/jobs-after-jackson/employment/ Its solid... really good... Obviously the smaller class size hinders breadth - that I can't ding Yale Jackson too much, but it is a fact of life. Depth is there, but not HKS and Princeton level.

So essentially McCourt Scholars is a two stage process (there are some modifications over time, but broadly, this would be how it is done). Stage 1: You get the call for an interview. This is usually consists of two professors interviewing you who are generally aligned towards your professed policy interest area. This is because they generally want McCourt Scholars that have diversity in policy interest areas (and identity diversity in general). Usually those people who get to this stage impressed upon their interviewer with their policy interests/background per the application packet. Stage 2: Based upon the interviews, there is generally a scholarship board that discusses who are the 5 or so people that get the scholarship. From the rumor mill. There have been lots of complaints in recent years that a shockingly high number (pushing even to vast majority in some years) of McCourt Scholars are not involved with the student community, and so more questions and more consideration for potential community involvement have been structured. Winning the Game: There are essentially 2 things that give you a leg up on getting a McCourt Scholarship a. Coming from a top brand undergraduate and/or master's institution. If you went to Harvard/Yale/Princeton/Oxford/Cambridge your chances of getting a McCourt Scholarship is roughly 50%. b. Appeal to the sentiments of the interviewer and build a connection. If you look at the background of those interviewing you, you'll figure out what they generally care about how and how to speak to substance that appeals to them. Everyone I know that got an interview that didn't get a McCourt Scholarship generally had more obscure policy interests/background that simply didn't appeal to the interviewers as much.

Eeek, usually the trick with low GPA is high GRE scores (with great work experience on too). No GRE is what might ultimately hurt you.

1. You could check for an update. But don’t do it more than once. 2. Just wait. Admissions isn’t exactly a well oiled machine and go at their own pace. They lost my transcript like 3 times.

My graduate policy school was 70% female. Those that my relatives went to (even when one's program had a strong reputation for security studies) also leaned female. Most graduate policy programs in the US that I am aware of also high majority female. I never really thought twice about it until I had to network for a new job, and then I realized everyone in my policy school network was a woman and not a single man. Any thoughts why? Any thoughts on what impacts this might have?

Thinking back to my graduate school and academic research experience, I am always amused with how US domestic policy is hesitant to frame its issues relative to similar circumstances outside of the US. This isn't just limited to Education issues, but pretty much every domestic issue I have been engaged in - housing, healthcare, and etc. I'm not saying there is no analysis of US domestic issues in a an international context (and we are seeing more of it lately with COVID policy). However, when I do see an international contextualization, it is done almost always by non-Americans. Americans working in domestic policy, seem to be adverse to it. Have others found this to be the same? If so, why do you think this is so? If not, please tell me what you experience has been.

You are in really good shape. The only thing that might get you is if you are diverse enough for the program you are applying (in comparison to the applicant pool). Remember this is diverse enough relative to the applicant pool. You might want to clarify you policy interest a bit.

I too am born to immigrant refugees, but born and raised in America, but I feel more kinship to local issues because America has been kind to me and my family. Is your connection with your international focus over domestic due to how you have not been thrilled with your American experience?

1. First of all, I am not trying to push back against you. I'm trying to highlight consistent trends from my lived experience of interacting with policy students/alums to illustrate my perspective about World Bank and etc. + shared by other people I have encountered that been to policy school. I use it as a baseline for you to consider your life decisions with. 2. I would actually love it if people (of any color) actually follow through with their desire to be a savior. What I have seen in policy instead is that people's passion to be a "savior" of any any particular thing shifts to what is convenient for them rather than actual desire to make impact. Some ways I have seen this manifest are: - Someone entering policy school interested in K-12 education get swept up by the perceived prestige of working at the World Bank or UN, so they go through the pain of changing their grad school trajectory to follow a shiny object rather than understanding what it really is. - Someone entering policy school with an interest in homelessness and rapidly changes their trajectory to government consulting after realizing the cost of grad school. - Someone entering policy school interested in solving housing issues, but refuses to learn the intricacies of zoning, construction finance, or urban planning technology. Obviously, I believe people should do whatever they want to do in life. However, as a frequent career/grad school coach, I am often frustrated by how the average incoming grad student doesn't really have a good sense of what they really want to do and thereby spitballs everything under the sun or disingenuously says something they heard that sounds good or seems prestigious. This makes it harder for people to help you and makes it more difficult for you to align which school best serves your career objectives. For example. If you care most about international development, you need to go to a specialized program in U. Chicago or Georgetown School of Foreign Service. If you care about state and local - then Terry Sanford makes sense. If you care about Urban planning stuff - Harvard MUP makes sense. When someone has a massive shotgun blast of ideas that aren't distilled among 2-3 main prioritized pathways, then they need to go back to the drawing board. 3. What you do in undergrad doesn't have to connect with what you do in grad. An engineer who has a strong grad internship experience with a development think tank for 2 months has more credibility than an undergrad who may have done an honors thesis about development. 4. The content of your professional work experiencer matters less than the skills you acquired during that professional experience. This is why I never assume that someone who was focused in domestic wants to continue domestic and vice versa. I focus on what their intended purpose for going to grad school is.

When I think back to my own policy school experience and that of policy school graduates (in the US), the thing that really bothers me is that by in large there is much more excitement (among the students) for internationally rooted issues than visible issues across the street. By this, I mean there is much more prestige, excitement, and interest in topics like refugees and international development. Granted there are some notable bases of students who care about neighborhood oriented domestic issues like homelessness, food safety, or infrastructure, the level of interest is simply not as high. Just look at the policy school message boards and you'll find that it is overwhelmingly populated with those interested in international development/refugees. What doesn't make sense for me is that the jobs that lead to these interests don't exactly pay well, can involve enduring hardship to difficult to reach places, and don't exactly receive much media attention - yet there is still a persistent stream of interest. In contrast, the jobs connected with those domestic issues have much better compensation and impact trajectories, but that is comparatively not as much interest. Its almost as if, people deprioritize the community they live in. Any thoughts? What am I missing here?

I really recommend what you take some time and figure out what policy you want to work for and actually make sure it makes sense for you before you play the schools name game. For me it is borderline depressing that so many people enter policy school wanting to work in the IMF and World Bank and Think Tanks and 95% cannot coherently explain what is that they do that is so exciting based upon real knowledge of those organizations. It is like kids saying they want to be big name Hollywood actresses or actors without knowing what it takes to get there and what the job is like. Among those that do get in in the non-leadership/non-operations side of IMF, World Bank, and Think Tanks without a PhD, nearly every one that I know haven't really enjoyed it because those organizations don't exactly have career satisfaction as part of their innate design and focus areas. At best it is a temporary stepping stone where you realize you aren't exactly making that much impact. *I am not criticizing these organizations. I'm just highlighting the labor dynamics internally with an Masters only. Also, please realize that you are a dime a dozen in terms of people of people interested in refugees and World Bank type stuff. Policy school is one of those interesting spaces where prestige in policy area matters more to students than things like actual impact or even career viability. Be smart, and don't follow the herd.

I think you might have a shot with NYU MSPP… but a much worse shot with HKS and SPIA. They historically like those with a bit more work experience. If you really like education, McCourt is okay, but nothing great. They only have one really rock star education professor (Dr. Nora Gordon), but I can’t think of a single Ed person who got an interesting job. Almost all of them go to policy analysis roles at research or advocacy centers. Please appreciate that education people are a dime a dozen and if you really want a career boost from it/make the most out of it, you really need to go to an awesome program for it. I recommend you take advantage of the hot job market for more experience (like 2 more) and then get an HKS, Ford, or Terry Sanford (they cover different areas of education really well) and go to town. A shadow way I seen people get into education policy is do it via MPH or MBA.

You might want to see where people end up in terms of jobs from each school. Environmental policy tends to be DC vs. very regional. So if you are cool with being in Colorado go there. Not trying sound snooty or mean, but these are the 3rd tier of environmental policy schools (unless you are taking a forest element for some of them), so its not like brand wise one is much better than the other and give you much career lift. I would go with where you want to live long term.

It varies greatly. I knew people who lived 3 to an apartment on the Virginia side and made it work with 1K a month of rent. I also knew people who spent 5k month on rent. It is all about as frugal as you want it to be.

Those are two very different dual degrees with two very different career benefits. Bottom line, do you want to go do residency to become a medical doctor? If you don't, the JD/MD makes zero sense unless you want to do some research and be a medical devices person and deal with patent law somewhere down the road.

Why don't you talk to you friends about it and get their feedback, rather than from some strangers?

I think you would have a very hard time to get into HKS MPP since academic credentials are thin in the quant front. As for 1 year programs... if you are trying to get a job in the US, I don't see how there is that much of a career boost with any of those programs. If you are looking for another career trajectory I am not aware of, there may be pathways that make sense of those 1 year degrees. I do recommend you avoid Brown Watson - academically and professionally thing. It is trading on brand to make money.

The MIDP program is interesting because they are hyper focused on fit and the traditional rules of standards don't readily apply to them. I have seen both straight from undergrad and people in their late 30s. Its honestly whatever Professor Wiebe thinks builds a class he wants.

The "hands on stuff" is actually way more lucrative and less competitive. This is because people have an aversion to the nitty gritty of zoning and city planning since it is not "sexy stuff". Additionally, you can readily pivot to construction development (to a certain extent), if you get bored of public sector/public-private venture stuff. The "bigger picture" stuff is more exciting to talk about at dinner parties and delivers social cache, so everyone jumps into that and the pay generally is not that great. Also, you would have to compete with the JDs and everyone else who are "passionate" about the topic - which is a lot.

Bottom line is that if what you want to do involves getting your hands dirty with the complexities of zoning and architecture requirements, you should get an MUP and the like. If you want to focus on impact evaluation and or bigger picture policy matters, then an MPP makes sense. You can obviously attack the social issues regarding urban planning with both, but each degree lends towards different jobs.

Here is the deal, maintaining a 3.0 is harder than it seems (especially if you have a major weakness - the big one is quant). If you get B-s and C's in quant (which has happened), its not that hard to find yourself with a 2.9 GPA and lose your scholarship for the next year. It happened to a few people I knew. One person even transferred out of the graduate program to another Georgetown Graduate Degree. Just be very confident in your academics and don't take the scholarship for granted.