GradSchoolGrad

If you are going for a scholarship or nothing approach, you might want to apply with consideration of what schools have money. Yes some of them will be the prestigious ones you applied to (Chicago and Harvard). However some of the prestigious ones like Columbia SIPA and Michigan aren't exactly scholarship friendly. You might want to consider lower tiered programs that actually have money to burn (especially for diversity like yourself) Georgetown MPP has pools of scholarship to give (in my other posts I warn about the issues of the program, but if you are all about the dollars, that might make sense). There are others out there like Cornell MPA and Yale Jackson trying to grow their program. Both of those programs do have some issues/challenges, but they are flush with money to give students.

Keep in mind, it is about the money they are willing to set aside for MPP/MPA students that matter, not the overall wealth of the University. 

To fill in a gap from GSG's response: I would say YSE might be tough for two reasons. For one, their admits skew older/more experienced than other environmental programs. Second, and relatedly, those who go in with 1 or less year of work exp are almost universally extremely linear candidates who have had lots of internships/other experience in the field they're interested in. Your work experience doesn't seem to be related to energy/sustainability, so you would probably be at a disadvantage. But there's not much harm in applying if you have your heart set on YSE.
 
from your list, I think SIPA and Tufts sound like great fits for your interest, and you probably have a decent shot at getting in, though like @GradSchoolGradsaid you may be at a disadvantage when it comes to getting scholarships.

I do agree, that they are incredibly career focused and one of the best funded schools at Tufts (I don't have the stats in front of me, but that sounds about right). However, I view them as being in a weaker position to take advantage of that career focus. They are less able to make gains from their dollars due to structure issues. Here are the issues that I see:

1. Diminishing Core Career Strengths
Fletcher has historically been known for being strong pipeline for Non-Profits/NGOs/IGOs with maybe a second (though less significantly so) towards Government Service. Those two spaces are simply diminishing in attractiveness and opportunities due to changes in the last 10 years (everything from social, to geopolitical, and etc.). The career services has been making a strong effort to diversify their pipeline into private sector via their DC and New York trips, but the bottom line is that there is strength in being known for something. 
2. A Brand Problem
Fletcher has a great brand within the IR space, but the problem is that outside of the IR space, I would argue that struggle with brand recall, let alone brand sentiment. This is purely anecdotal, but I will say that even within the DC policy space, I have seen people look at a Fletcher resume and ask what school is that. Historically, Fletcher can focus on their ares of strength and be okay with having lower brand recognition. However, with many job routes leading outside of the traditional IR space + interdisciplinary be the way of the future, this limited brand scope is going to be a problem for Fletcher students.
3. A Capability Problem
Yes... Fletcher is connected to Harvard and there is a long established relationship there. However, at the end of the day, Fletcher is not Harvard. Just because your neighbor lets you borrow their pool here and there, doesn't mean that the pool is your's to fully enjoy. I say this because, Fletcher sans Harvard is in a rather weak position to be interdisciplinary. Although Tufts has tried to improve the situation, there is still a rather sharp divide between Fletcher and the Tufts undergraduate community and limited organized synergy. Tufts doesn't exactly have other major professional schools in proximity (that being the keyword) to the Somerville campus for Fletcher students to co-create/collaborate with. Logistically, getting to Harvard from Somerville (Remember you have to go there and back) is burdensome. Columbia, Georgetown, and event GW can point to their interdisciplinary offerings range as a source strength that can drive career opportunities - something that Fletcher lacks. Yes, you can be a certified negotiator at Fletcher... but you can do that at lots of places.
4. A Location Problem
As an IR school, it helps to be adjacent to the IR network and IR institutions. Fletcher is in a suburb of Boston (not even Boston proper). This matters because this limits the amount of networking that you can do, but live projects that are accessible. You can't exactly hop on over to do a project during the semester to boost your resume as you could if you lived in DC or NYC... or even a bigger city like LA (don't get me wrong, I love Boston). You are stuck waiting for a summer internship. Harvard and MIT don't struggle with this location problem as much because people are more willing to come to them + they have invested in massive and well-funded centers that make them a destination to begin with people in the IR / IR adjacent space. + have their own organization connected project to partake in.
5. A Competition Problem
Fletcher faces tougher competition from all angles.
US only:
a. Within the US - MPP/MPA schools are getting more into IR relations type matters
b. Other IR schools are expanding their programming
c. New market entrants are coming onboard - like Yale, to the IR related grad school game.
International:
British schools like Oxford and LSE are strengthening their program offerings in IR/area studies/policy in an effort to try to attract the international student population.
Bottom Line
Fletcher will likely persist to have amazing teaching quality and a strong student experience. But with its core strengths mattering less and its dynamics confronting tough situations, its IR space focused brand value can only carry so much water.

@Grospatapouf
While the Small Wars Council has gone quite, if you register and post an introduction there, you may get some suggestions on ways to match your MIL experiences to your academic aspirations.
As you navigate the path of your educational career, you may come across active duty / former /  retired American SOF types. In my experience some can be very particular in how they interpret statements like "I... served within a special force unit." (A former commanding general of USSOCOM was recently dragged into an exchange on Twitter over who is or isn't a Ranger.)
Please spare yourself an avoidable headache by being very clear about your service when you introduce yourself. If you sense confusion or even skepticism, exercise patience and give details so nothing is lost in translation.

Hey everyone, I'm a first-year MPP student at Harris - more than glad to answer questions about my application experience/impressions of the program so far!
Classes begin on the 27th... but the student body's already been attending the three-week Math and Coding Camp (meant to prepare students for the quant-heavy curriculum) since August 30th. I've been taking in-person classes five days a week this entire month and participating in many other events so I already feel fairly immersed in the program. As of now, I have nothing but positive things to say about Harris. Of course I'll have far more detailed responses to share over the course of the next few weeks after the quarter officially starts next week.
So feel free to shoot me any questions! I'll do my best to respond in a timely manner. I know it's a stressful process. I've been there - would love helping others who were in my spot last year. (Edit: For the sake of discretion, if you have more personal questions please message me so we can connect directly. In the meanwhile, wishing you all the best of luck!)

I gave up thinking people were good. 

I went to a grad program, giving up fine career, seeking to switch careers make a difference in the world. I quickly realized that my peers and people in the social impact business by in large didn't really care about the social impact they were actually making. 

Speaking to the MPP/MPA angle, a lot of the course work you will be focused on will be data analysis. You touch theory, but you don't exactly focus on it. If you feel like data analysis is what you want to get out of your 2nd Masters and be able to use it for more data focused roles, then doing such a 2nd Masters make sense. If you don't care for data analysis and want to focus on more qualitative analysis (which your 1st masters should have prepared you plenty well for) then there is no real point to the 2nd masters. 

As for PhD - i'll let you the PhD people speak to that.

So a few things to note first.
1. AU's MPP program's strength is domestic policy. Yes they have international connections with SIS, but anyone who knows the degrees will ask you point blank why you didn't pursue a SIS degree. So it doesn't really make sense for you.
2. UMD's MPP is also more domestic policy focused, with the exception of national security specialization. Also doesn't make sense for you.
3. The race is really between GWU and Georgetown. Even though GWU has a more formalized concentration in International Development, it only really matters if you choose to follow a professor and his or her connections closely. If none of the professors' background and projects really interest you, then there isn't any major applicable value add to it. I think the key thing you want to consider is if you want your IDEV career to be more focused on quant analytics or not. If you want your career to be quant focused, or have a heavy quant angle, Georgetown makes sense. If you are okay to have less quant and GWU's curriculum flexibility appeals to you, then GWU might be a better fit.

Again, not speaking specific to USC Price, but what some schools are doing is allowing hybrid (basically optional online learning) so you don't have to move until later (if at all). 

If you manage to do both, you would be the first person I heard of do it. I'm not one to say things aren't possible, since I myself did all sorts of random academic things, but just haven't heard of it. 

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 actually kind of recommend you figure out a way to laterally transfer without grad school - maybe talking something in science or healthcare related. Its actually rather possible as long as you mark out a trajectory. You'll be able to be more influential that way too and start at a higher level. 
If you really want to work at think tank + research center, I will warn you that it is not a fun place. Not the best professional development and its a long road of agony to get promoted. Also, as a researcher, you'll always be a 2nd class citizen without a PhD
If you go to grad school, your prior career experience advantage drastically dissipates because you'll be bucketed as campus recruiting or immediately post grad school (there might be an exception somewhere though). 
If you really want a Master's get a Mid-Career level program and juice out your electives with quant stuff + independent study. 

Ya but there are plenty of non-military folks who have really done well in their careers serving the military community at various institutions.
If there is a non-PhD who done well on the research side at a major think tank/research center climbing the professional ladder (and not a transplant after some major government post), I can't think about it off the top of my head.

Hi, I thought I would give my 2 cents as I was admitted to and did a lot of research into the CMU, U of Chicago, and USC programs you listed.
- MSCAPP: I was really impressed with their events and they seem to probably be the best program for getting computational/engineering opportunities IMO, with solid elective access in the computer science department, a cohort that includes people who go into software engineering and comp-sci phds, and the ability to test out of a lot of the intro classes if you come in with existing computer science skills. But it's an expensive program.
- CMU MSPPM-DA: I think the coursework looked really interesting, but I got the impression that there was more a push to teach data analysis rather than computer science (which seemed to be the focus at MSCAPP). This makes sense, the CMU program is a joint offering between Policy and Information Systems, whereas MSCAPP is between Policy and pure Computer Science. I liked that they also allowed you to test out of intro courses. Pretty generous on aid.
- USC MPPDS: The curriculum looked too rushed/limited to me, and overlaps too much with free MOOCs.
Other things:
- Some of these data science/public policy programs really focus on teaching programming, which is unfortunate if you already have competencies in any Object Oriented language. At the end of the day I ended up electing to go to a well regarded straight MPP program with no direct programming/software engineering coursework written into the program but extensive elective access in comp-sci rather than going with one of the structured data science/public policy degrees.
- There are some cool "applied stats with a focus on social science research" degrees out there that you might also look into, depending on what specific skills you are seeking to build.

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. 

The Yale homicide was not a hate crime. It was a love triangle. The victim and the murderer were both East Asian. The victim was engaged to a White woman and the murderer (who previously knew the woman) was jealous. 

I would mostly agree with the above with the exception of a few nuances:
- Even if you were to work in NYC, I still wouldn't go to NYU. Doesn't match up to Walsh or SAIS.
- Unless you have a really strong connection to San Diego, I wouldn't even think about going to UCSD. Doesn't have the brand name. You're trying to brand yourself as a professional. UCSD is not it.
- If you want to be a diplomat, I would go to Walsh, maybe SAIS.
- So it comes to down to Elliot, Walsh, and SAIS -- but actually really Walsh vs. SAIS since Elliot is a wanna-be Walsh.
- Although SAIS is more STEM-focused, I don't really see the benefit if you are looking to become a diplomat. You get a good foundation of economics at both Walsh and SAIS, but SAIS is a bit too theoretical with its STEM emphasis. Unless you are looking to do quantitative research, I wouldn't go to SAIS.
Part of the reason is, you have lots of room to customize your own program at Georgetown. I had to choose between Harvard, Princeton, SAIS, and Georgetown and ultimately chose Georgetown for the location, brand, alumni network, and especially the fact that I could basically craft my own international finance degree.
But that's just me. I did an internship at the World Bank before going to an economic consulting firm in D.C. I now work in private equity in London, so, for me, Georgetown helped me get to both economic consulting and private equity in the finance world.
I'll probably go back to the public sector sometime in the future, except this time I have an understanding of the private sector. 
Hope that helps.
Fun fact: Went to Oxford for undergrad. I know a thing or two about branding:)

I'm not sure that this would work if the intention is as you describe. Community involvement does not straightforwardly track congeniality, and I'm not sure that there is an effective way of judging students' character prior to admitting them. A similar phenomenon occurs in job hiring: you just cannot tell who is going to be kind and nice to work with until they're hired since everyone puts on their best face for applications and interviews.
I don't know how admission committees work in other locales, but in Canada the academics on the committee have a lot of latitude. Some consult CVs and documents about extracurriculars, others aren't interested. So I don't know that requiring more documents of this kind would matter for institutions where academics are disinterested in them.

You can be hateful all you want, but it might help if you were my curious rather than judgmental. This video might help illustrate it for you: 
Because if you were curious and asked my why I give my thoughts in a blunt manner, I would say something like.
- I graduated from graduate school 3 times (full scholarship each time)... twice focused on higher ed in different ways
- Had the six figure salary out of grad school twice
- Had the press clippings/social media postings for my accomplishments set
but I wish much of it never happened. I wish someone could tell me the cold hard perspectives about how I could have not wasted my time and just done grad school right the first time rather than the third time. I know I am not alone. So many of my friends from grad school wish someone would have stepped up and gave their perspectives bluntly. 
Like many - I chased the pressure to just get get grad school done (with brand being a plus) without really figuring out why I really went to grad school. People just shook my hand and applauded me because they were too nice to really give me meaningful candid advice. I want to be the change that I want to see. In fact, one of the best off people I know is someone who never showed up to grad school after getting admitted because someone was there for her to tell the hard truth. 
Feel free to challenge my perspectives (I am of course very respectful and curious about your background and intents for this forum) and I apologize if I come off as blunt at times (I'll blame it on my current negotiations heavy job). But being being judgmental rather than curious means you are missing out on so much. I want to thank the many people on this forum who have messaged me with their appreciation (regardless of if you agreed with me or not). It is a honor to have helped you with you life's journey.
 

I think any course for which you are earning credit will be seen as "serious." I've seen some people on this forum get caught up in the idea of having to take courses from Harvard or other Ivys and I frankly don't think that's necessary. For reference, I took multivariate calculus online through the University of North Dakota and was accepted into MPA/ID. I think as long as you are taking the course through an accredited institution (even a community college), the course description seems exhaustive, and you are earning credits (not a Coursera or EdX class), you'll be viewed positively.
The exact courses will have to depend on where you think you have weaknesses. The instructions on the admissions site for the quant resume considers "mathematics, statistics, economics, logic, science, information technology, and engineering" all relevant, so maybe look into topics in those areas that seem interesting and useful to you. IMO data analysis seems particularly relevant and will be a great resume booster for not only the HKS app but also on the job market, so that's where I would go. 

Christ you are insufferable. Someone has happily committed to a school they are clearly excited about and you seemingly take pleasure in undermining that. Seriously, grow up. You went to ONE graduate school and for some unknown reason you act like you know the details of EVERY graduate school. 
@ls259 for what it is worth, I have three colleagues that went to Heller and must be making at least $150K the year out of school. Best of luck this coming fall. Enjoy yourself and make sure to take advantage of all the interesting opportunities you are going to have. And lastly, ignore insufferable fools like the above poster both in school and throughout your professional life!

You need to avoid Heller like the plague. Just read other posts about Heller for the details. I can speak to it at length as well. 

Heller grad here. (Sorry, I always check Grad School Cafe late in the application season.) You've probably already made your decision. I was accepted at better schools but went to Heller. I don't regret the decision because I am debt adverse. However, you may, so I just want to put out there what I think.
Heller upsides: Gives lots of scholarship money. Yes, it may be a cash cow for Brandeis, but what they charge students often pales in comparison to what similar grad schools charge. My impression was that an applicant's potential contribution in the classroom meant more than anything when deciding awards. I knew a lot of people there with sizeable awards, which were appreciated. Small school with excellent access to professors and instructors. More conversation about social equity than at other schools, even before the so-called "Great Racial Awakening", mostly because of the Ford Hall protests. Beautiful, well-designed building. Brandeis has had its problems but is a good institution overall.
Downsides: Pretentious. Disingenuous. Supposedly cares about black lives, but this a former social work school that rebranded because dealing with racism and poverty locally wasn't prestigious enough. Instruction can be lacking - not always, but sometimes. The last great Heller professor was Robert Reich, who left in the mid 2000s, I believe. No legendary policy professors at present except maybe Altman, but he's health care. Of the ones everyone talks about, Anita Hill rarely teaches - once every three years or so at this point. I feel like they keep her around to pull her out of the closet whenever Brandeis has a race issue. She rubber stamps a commission report and then goes back into hiding. (Before anyone jumps on me, I'm a POC.) Her course content is great but she's not a great instructor. Bob Kuttner is a jacka$$. Not as diverse as advertised. Very, very few students of African American decent. The few black students are usually foreign born or first gen. Many of the white wealthy students are two-faced - woke in the classroom and will degrade you in passing elsewhere. Grad student housing is always an issue in Waltham and other Boston area communities. You could be living in a rat hole with a credit score of 800+. Not particularly quantitative, which is increasingly necessary for public policy jobs. This last point is Heller's major downfall IMO.
I agree that Heller's so-called rankings aren't as impressive as in the past but the school has a relatively new dean and he is implementing changes that aren't reflected in the rankings yet.
Dear God, don't get me started about the "Social Impact MBA", which I hear was decided by the several students who replied to a Survey Monkey sent by admissions. I mean, does Heller want its MBA students to be unemployed, especially in a few years when the "social impact" trend is over? The director of admissions is wonderful but many of the associates are inexperienced young people, and it often shows.

Tell me if what I am about to say is completely wrong though (which it might).
1. Do you think that one of the reasons why History PhDs don't do as well in the job market as sister fields (Political Science and Sociology) is because history doesn't really touch on data analytics and data based story telling? Anecdotally, In my collaboration with PhD, I was amused by the lack of familarity with excel, stata/SPSS, and tableau --> foundation tools for those other fields which have lots of cross-marketability with non-Academic job.
Ultimately, what I'm alluding to is that due to how the way history has been studied/researched hasn't really evolved with the times, nor has the right skilling to get history academics to be professionally competitive. For those in academia, there might be a trickle down effect whereby undergrads don't want to take classes in something / major in something whereby the field hasn't modernized enough sufficiently. 
2. I have noticed that my super successful non-academic career History PhD friends (and they earned their PhD within the last year or so) spent their dissertation time aligning with organizations with deep pockets (e.g., government organizations that have a vested interest in history to shape their current operations), but they told me this made them weirdos in the history department who were "passion driven". Is there something to be said that history has too long been history for history's sake and not enough history for practical application? 
If I'm off base let me know. I looked into a History PhD a while ago with an interest to go professional sector (like consulting for the CIA in my Jack Ryan dreams), but these were the concerns I had with the field that made me stray away (I went to Policy instead). I wonder if they are still relevant. 

This is really thoughtful and greatly appreciated, thanks.