GradSchoolGrad

Although you specifically mentioned MPP programs and the like, I would say the leader in non-profit executive management is Yale SOM. In fact, SOM was not a traditional MBA school until the 1980s, and has an institutional and historical conflation as a cradle to executive leadership within the non-profit world. Now, the fairly recent Jackson School has an international focus, so it might be compatible to your career goals. But something to think about...

First of all, I wouldn't call them "Computation MPP Programs" because that implies you actually acquire deep academic competencies in the core curriculum about understanding policy operations and/or policy management activity. I think it is more accurate to refer to them as "Policy Oriented Data Analysis Programs". The reason why this matters is that historically MPPs and MPAs chase after the same jobs, at least as it pertains to management opportunities. Granted the curriculum might be different, the outcomes (compensating for differing student population focus) is broadly the same.
These "Policy Oriented Data Programs" are different because
A. Career outcomes wise, you don't go after the same jobs for the most part. One can make a slight argument you do compete with MPPs for pure analysis jobs, but it is a straight forward link to anything with a management/operations angle.  
B. You interestingly become eligible for ALL data jobs (regardless of grounding). Yes, there are people from these programs that go to Facebook and other private sector companies. This is because at the heart of it (to some level of variation), these are Data Analytics programs. The topics might be policy oriented, but the methods and processes are easily transferable to any non-policy oriented data problem. 
Please also understand unlike well established masters' programs like MBA/MPH and to a much lesser extent MPP that have mostly the same core curriculum, these programs have actually a fair level of difference. 
For example,  U. Chicago's MSCAPP's advanced classes are essentially Comp Sci levels of technical intensity. On the other end, you can graduate CMU MSPPM without getting into the CompSci depths (although there are opportunities to). 
Since you are already a computer software engineer, you should generally be technically in a great place. For you, its best you a. acquire policy environment/operations/management/culture understanding
b. gain a network 
There are two ways to do this:
a. MPP/MPA program
b. Mid-career level policy program (assuming you have at least 7 or more years of career experience)
It doesn't make sense for you to learn stuff you already know / or could easily figure out with one independent study class or so. 

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 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.

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 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. 

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.

So Princeton is a really awesome program in terms of brand prestige, access, academic rigor, and access afforded to you (everyone who goes to Princeton goes for free). THE PROBLEM IS is that their policy program is their ONLY professional school for the entire University. Everything, and especially Health Policy/Social Policy is becoming more an interdisciplinary game. It is good to collaborate with business, legal, medicine, and etc.. The Princeton name will really help you with that and Professors will have contacts to support you. However,  lot of times it means going outside of the University, so that means you need to do things on your own.
Syracuse suffers from a similar problem, but in a different way. Unlike Princeton, they have a lot of good (but not great) professional schools neighboring Maxwell (the policy school). HOWEVER... Syracuse is in the middle of nowhere Syracuse New York, so it isn't exactly that easy to do a live collaboration / research project with. The upside is that Syracuse is generally academically highly regarded among the policy community.

That being said, I personally view HKS, Duke, and Michigan to be the top options for you on the public policy side. If you were to go MPH side, Harvard Chan, Johns Hopkins, and Columbia should take the cake. 

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.

I figured I'd offer my input since I work in international development and have become familiar with many different "why this career" stories, including my own. In short, I think people are attracted to international work because it sounds more interesting, especially for young people starting their careers. This isn't something exclusive to policy--"international law" and "international business" are known as very popular sub-disciplines and many JD and MBA programs market the hell out of those because they know they attract students. The idea of working internationally offers a sense of adventure, exploration, and learning about new ways of life you would not be exposed to if you work domestically. These are things that are very important to young people, who tend to be curious and looking to expand their horizons. 
That being said, many of the people I know who work in international development care very much about domestic issues--often even more than what they are doing for their career. I have known countless people who have transitioned from international to domestic policy because of this. My colleagues are also some of the most civically engaged people I know and do a lot of work on domestic issues in addition to their day jobs. We all have room to change our minds and I believe that people's chosen programs of study are not a good indicator of the issues they care most about or how their career paths will shape up. 

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. 
 


 

Charles Dickens coined the term "telescopic philanthropy" to describe this phenomenon nearly two centuries ago.  This is prevalent even within the domestic sphere among the urban bien pensant 'any music but country music' crowd.  It speaks to the prejudices and moral narcissism of those of a certain class (or those with pretensions thereto).

For me, it's because my parents are immigrant refugees and I am rooted with those abroad in ways (spiritually, ethnically, etc.) that others may find hard to understand even though I was born and raised in the states. For others with a different background, I have no idea why, especially if they come from communities that need as much improvement as communities abroad. I am also curious about that as well. 

I can sympathize with not wanting to spend years learning applications you're not interested in. That was me in every single calculus course. That said, when you're trying to enter a mathematical field (assuming you mean legit data science, with blackjack and hookers matlab and models, not the light rearranging of datasets in stata or excel) and you don't have a mathematical background, that's a major handicap. People who do actual math - in the policy space, in the business space, wherever - tend to be suspicious (in my experience) of candidates coming out of so-called quantitative policy programs unless those candidates demonstrate a mathematical background in some other way (undergrad, work experience). Specifically, because policy programs don't give a strong theoretical component. Like, an econometrics course at a policy program that goes into any significant detail on matrices is a rare thing. If you're doing anything more advanced than plugging stuff into stata, being able to understand the theory behind what you're doing is important (and even then - I've seen people make gross errors with plugging stuff into stata that showed they fundamentally misunderstood the function they were trying to replicate). Fairly or unfairly, someone who comes from a policy program faces a question that someone from an applied math program wouldn't necessarily get.
tl;dr program selection isn't just about what classes you can take, who the profs are, what the placement is, how much aid you're getting and the rest of that wonderfully complex bouquet of factors - it's ultimately about how that program will brand you. And what kind of branding you can benefit from depends on where you want to go, but also on where you're starting from. Policy school is a natural choice for people who want to go into policy (it's in the name, after all!), but in terms of what that brand would do for a specific candidate's background, I feel like a lot of people, especially humanities majors hoping to make the jump to something more quantitative, would be better served by a specialized masters in something like finance, econ, applied math (you can take the prereqs non-degree) or even an MBA (they just have more credibility, even in policy).

Hey all, 
Just wanted to say hi and join the community. I was accepted into the MPP program. Hope to get to know you all soon. Oh, I'm from NY btw. 

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. 

The multiple 150K offers at Heller is complete bullsh*t.
As a Heller grad, I can tell you that nearly no one who graduates from Heller makes over 70 to 80K their first year out. Heller grads usually have a really hard time finding work, and the work that they do find is usually very low pay. The job titles may sound great, but they are mostly administrative assistant (aka "Program Manager") jobs that do not pay well.
I don't want to name names, but if you look past the job titles of the students who the school usually touts as being their all stars, they are usually paid sh*t. They also pad their resumes up with a bunch of BS memberships on boards of directors for BS orgs that usually can't list a single accomplishment except a resume add.

Forum for those interested in the McCourt School of Public Policy MPP for Fall 2022 start

I'm 22 and doing an MA in fall and was wondering as there is a good chance many students might be olde than me and I could have a hard time relating to them and since I'm closer in age to undergrads, I was curious, is it looked down upon to date/hang out with undergrads who aren't freshman? Is the lifestyle/maturity too different and will I seem like that old guy trying to hang on to his youth or is it normal?
 

Georgetown Security Studies is essential the top Security Studies program in the country, and GWU's is probably #1. Security Programs are super fickle. The reality is that they are essentially money makers for Universities. It is really hard to predict the chances of anyone getting in.
As for going to a traditional IR program (like SAIS MAIR and SIPA MIA) - yes it can be a pathway to security, but that school's bread and butter isn't security. I'm not sure how much you'll really enjoy it. Also it makes no sense to go to New York only to try to shoot for a jobs in DC (where most Security jobs are).
In terms of jobs. There is a huge demand for security jobs. I would look up the biographies of the McCain Fellows. They are the benchmark of the top notch grads. 

An interesting issue for you is that you already have spent time working on a political campaign. I'm not sure how that will be viewed. It might be seen as a handicap in some circles. Its more like I am raising an open question and don't now the answer to it. Career wise, it can be an issue depending on administration. 

Georgetown Security Studies is essential the top Security Studies program in the country, and GWU's is probably #1. Security Programs are super fickle. The reality is that they are essentially money makers for Universities. It is really hard to predict the chances of anyone getting in.
As for going to a traditional IR program (like SAIS MAIR and SIPA MIA) - yes it can be a pathway to security, but that school's bread and butter isn't security. I'm not sure how much you'll really enjoy it. Also it makes no sense to go to New York only to try to shoot for a jobs in DC (where most Security jobs are).
In terms of jobs. There is a huge demand for security jobs. I would look up the biographies of the McCain Fellows. They are the benchmark of the top notch grads. 

An interesting issue for you is that you already have spent time working on a political campaign. I'm not sure how that will be viewed. It might be seen as a handicap in some circles. Its more like I am raising an open question and don't now the answer to it. Career wise, it can be an issue depending on administration. 

I don't doubt that each spot seems to think you can accomplish your goals within those degrees just like you could probably accomplish your goals without a degree (granted it would be harder). I just don't want you eat the marketing and get the constipation later. Grad schools (unlike undergrad) are profit centers for Universities and have recently come under a lot of pressure to grow their class sizes to help boost their financial intake for the University.

More often than not, the after the admissions come in triangulation approach forces people to think about how they fit a school rather than how a school fits their life trajectory. I seen this movie too many times after people get excited with the scholarship money + brand + fun of orientation, they lose sight of their career trajectory and just eat up the rosy side of marketing. 

Ultimately, you do you and you seem pretty convinced you got the right way. Not trying doubt you, just seen this movie before - a lot. 

It's only a loss of fun if you let it be. I've been to college, been in the working world, and returned to college. I can say from experience you have to find your own fun no matter where you are. There are local clubs full of people who share your interests, you just have to find them. Looking at it from a defeatist way does ensure your life will be miserable, though.