tacos95

I've heard a couple people say these kinds of gigs aren't great. I'm thinking primarily of Deloitte type roles. Just curious what specifically is bad about them. Is it just the golden handcuffs or are there other major issues that make them bad jobs?

Yeah, I think for people with good grades from big name undergrads, the GRE adds much less. But for somebody like me who got a 3.5 at a no-name liberal arts school, it can be a big deal. I was able to get significant funding at SAIS, McCourt and CMU Heinz, and I think that largely redounds to my GRE performance. I think OP's GPA situation similarly makes the GRE a good idea.

Yes, obviously not everyone cares about it. That's clearly quite different from it not having any value.

If you think you can do well, it will only help you. Something to shore up that GPA and undulating attendance is definitely a good idea, and it's easy enough to take the practice test directly from ETS. I know a lot of people like to bash it, but it really is a fairly low cost way to show skills (others can debate the relevance of these skills, but they're skills nonetheless): - A few hours on a practice test to see if you already have what it takes to get a good score - Minimal study time if you feel good after the dry run - A couple hundred bucks or whatever it is for the actual test That's actually not that much of an outlay for the potentially huge payoff of showing yourself to be a serious candidate in those more competitive programs. Like it or not, the admissions process is all about appearance relative to the applicant pool. It is very much a private good in the technical sense: one person's admission means someone else was excluded. A good GRE result could increase your composite to just above someone else, getting you an admissions offer and hopefully funding. Heck, throw it on your resume if you get 90th percentile or higher and that's squeezing some extra value of whatever you have to put in. If you take the practice test and get middling or low scores, it might take significant work to bring them up, and since you don't have to provide them, opting out may be warranted.

Good news for SAIS yesterday! "I am writing to let you to know that we are planning for a partial physical reopening at all three SAIS campuses this fall. Our intention is for all classes to be available in-person as well as virtually for those who do not wish or are unable to come to campus."

Straight data science isn't my field, but I'll offer some thoughts. For starters, since most data science programs are pretty new and still accumulating rep (even to some extent at places like NYU and Columbia), they have lower bars to get an admission than other programs. In your case, it sounds like that's a good thing. Your obviously very good GRE scores show you have the mental capacity, at the very least, to pass a data science program. The fact that your raw intelligence (to the extent measurable by GRE scores) stacks so well against everyone else trying to get into grad school will probably be very meaningful to admissions committees. I don't know how much Harvard brand value you get from the extension school, but the initiative and competence that that and the math classes show are probably pretty valuable. I guess I'd emphasize your responsibility and competence from a) these classes and b) your work, which sounds pretty legit, rather than explaining in too great of detail why undergrad went as it did. In my opinion, 1-2 lines about personal issues and injuries should be the extent of explanation of poor performance in undergrad. In SOPs really hammer your drive and capabilities demonstrated after undergrad. Again, not my field, but having just finished the process of applying for competitive schools in government affairs and, thereby, having a general feel for the admissions process, I think you definitely have a shot. As far as funding, I don't know if industry-professional programs like that usually offer scholarships/fellowships, but there's likely an ok prospect for a good return anyway even absent school-provided funding.

5 may be a little on the high side. I right around 2, and managed to get into SAIS with significant funding. Granted, I was an Econ undergrad, but still, if work experience can be fairly technical (data analyst jobs are a clear step and seem to be growing out the wazoo), that may ameliorate quant deficiencies. This is a great step. I think an Econometrics course on the side (with an A) would really increase your profile. Also, pound the GRE study materials and practice tests! This is something you have control over. Fellowships, getting papers published and getting an impressive job in the interim are all partially outside your control. But you can bump up your GRE scores if you put in the hours. Your starting points aren't too bad. But get a bunch of flashcards, and memorize every word on the Magoosh list. And the math stuff, buy a good used test prep book on eBay for $10 bucks, and do every problem until you know how to do it without hints. When I was studying, I took a full practice test every Saturday for like two and a half months. Do that. I know it sounds like a drag (it is), but if you really want to get into an elite school, it could be worth it. If you tack on 4-5 more points for verbal and quant each, you'll have fairly competitive scores. And as others have been mentioning around here, school seem to be weighting the GRE more, for good or ill. Another possible way to get some quant rep, learn some Python or R, and make a website where you explain a question/issue/challenge and post some pretty charts. Topic may not even matter loads. Baseball could be fun. Maybe a Coursera certificate or two in one of those languages? May be BS, but I don't know if admissions can tell that. Not sure, but maybe others (@GradSchoolGrad) could speak to whether this could help. Just trying to think of things you can control.

I mentioned the savior complex at least once, and summer hours have been implemented at my office, so I'll bite. My answer is long, but after all this is a forum for hopeful academics, and it really was a question in the spirit of intellectual curiosity. 1. I think it's the sense an individual has that he or she brings skills to the table which are crucial to some institution's goal. Institution could be broadly taken: I think the complex is broadly observed -- the academy, industry and the policy arena. There are people who think their particular package of skills, perspectives, life experience, ideology, etc. make them extremely important (I'll follow the outline and get to whether this is good or bad in point 3). I'm headed for the policy/IR realm, and I think the savior complex may be most robustly represented here. People applying to top MPP/MPA/IR programs are by definition interested in social and political issues, and some of them seem to think that the folks they hope to help via policy can only be helped by super sharp people with degrees from an ivory tower, lest all the common people die. Of course different areas of policy exist to structure society to help people. Yet some people who are interested in social, education and health policy, just for example, think they will get into the policy world and write the white paper that changes the sector, or execute something similar that liberates people via some government/nonprofit program. They either don't consider or they think they can overcome the possibility that a) common people don't want help or are fine, or b) that some issues are far too complex for an abstract economic/sociological/psychological model to solve (or else we would've solved a whole lot more by now). TBH, Vox kind of epitomizes this for me. Societal progress happens slowly and incrementally, not only because of sclerotic and intransigent people and institutions, but also because some problems are just tough nuts to crack. I hear plenty of naively optimistic and admittedly smart young people who act like no one has been trying to fix social problems for decades, and believe that, if only they can get into a position of power and tweak the knobs of the policy machine to just the right calibration, all will be well. TL;DR version: Arrogance characterized by compassion, with lots of self-congratulation. 2. I guess it might easily be confused for sheer ambition. A helpful contrast may be a person with the savior complex as an MPA student focusing on urban housing vs. a finance undergrad who follows up with an MBA to go to Goldman or whatever (not that there's never overlap), the former having the potential to have a savior complex, and the latter just being ambitious. And I'm perfectly willing to admit there are some sincere and earnest people going to policy school who are humble and recognize their limits, yet also hope dutifully to chip away at society's (or a firm's, or an academic discipline's) challenges as one in a long line of smart people. I won't deny my cynicism may have blinded me erroneously to label some such people as the compassionately arrogant. 3. I'm inclined to say bad, simply because I think many of the world's problems could be boiled down to people thinking too much of themselves. But I did also say it is characterized by compassion, and I certainly wouldn't say compassion is bad. A bit softheaded, or naive, but not bad. And it isn't fitting to despair in the face of challenges, so I admire their optimism. 4. Heck, I think whole "disciplines" have been invented because of this. I also think some people probably take on too much debt because they suppose it'll be worth it when they lift a whole generation out of poverty.

I didn't see this earlier when I posted on basically the same topic over on the SAIS thread in Government Affairs. I would also be interested to hear from the broader range of people people who came into the job market in the last recession. And if they want to bank off any of my thoughts, here they are: - Opportunity cost of going to school for next two years, if predictions about lengthy recession are correct, is much lower; the economy won't be as hot, salaries will be lower, promotions more scarce. Of course, there's the case that it's a crucial time to be in the workforce, to gain experience, network, credibility etc. I suppose that's only marginally more true than it always is though. - There's argument is that our cohort will be graduating into a crap market. Therefore, foregone income and loans accrued during grad school will hurt all the more. Maybe I'm being pollyannaish, but most recessions are well under 2 years, and I doubt this is going to be as catastrophic as the Great Depression. So Summer 2022 could be just the right time to enter the economy. Sure, the prospect for internships during school may be lower than normal. That's a bit worrying, but not overwhelming to me. Fall 2020 application cycle could be construed as the perfect time: right now the economy is bad, and though everyone else knows it at this point, the admissions process is over, so we get the opportunity to tool up when we'd likely not be having a great experience in the labor market. And we didn't have to face as stiff of competition (no offense to everyone here, including me) as there will be during next year's admissions cycle. - Some have said stuff about geopolitical flux totally changing landscape for public affairs/IR. But I very much doubt a reconfiguration in trade, etc. would reduce demand for people who have studied international affairs/trade/public policy. Sure, the dynamics would be different, but all the more reason for there to be more technocrats weighing the costs and benefits of trade structures, right? If, for example, the US halts trade with China, do you think there will be less analysis and commentary on trade policy? Of course not. However, I get the risk aversion. I'm fortunate enough to have a wonderful wife who can cover living expenses while I'm in school, and I got good funding, so we won't have to take on any debt. I'm on board with all the posts about big loans being a bad idea. I wouldn't take out more than $40k in a booming economy. Our decadent and indulgent culture, along with romance of being degreed, causes many people to incur costs they shouldn't and cannot take on. Particularly among idealistic, overweening policy types with a savior complex, who too readily apply MMT to their personal lives.

Of course not. If you got more funding at SAIS, go to SAIS. SFS is obviously really great, and the rankings aren't totally meaningless. But as your question correctly addresses, it is decidedly not twice as good.

I very much doubt a reconfiguration in trade would reduce demand for people who have studied international trade. Sure, the dynamics would be different, but all the more reason for there to be more technocrats weighing the costs and benefits of trade structures, right? If, for example, the US halts trade with China, do you think there will be less analysis and commentary on trade policy? Of course not. In the case of cycles of pandemic, it is unlikely that folks with graduate degrees would fare worse than those without. That doesn't mean a graduate degree is worth an unlimited amount, but a fluctuating economy doesn't eliminate the relative employability of the more highly educated. It's also exceedingly predictable that some are hailing near apocalyptic consequences of this virus. They make their livings on that. Many expect a treatment and/or vaccine within a year or two. And even absent a treatment, it seems quite likely that the world would develop ways to coexist with the virus rather than remaining home until 2022. So a recovery delayed until 2022 feels extreme. But I grant that nothing is certain. Couldn't agree more. I wouldn't take out more than $40k in a booming economy. Our decadent and indulgent culture, along with romance of being degreed, causes many people to incur costs they shouldn't and cannot take on. Particularly among idealistic, overweening policy types with a savior complex, who too readily apply MMT to their personal lives.

I see people in Gov Affairs forum quite frequently offering the likely recession as a reason to reconsider attending grad school/taking out loans/foregoing income. I have a couple thoughts on this, and since I don't want to clog the feed with a new thread and since I'm going to SAIS, I thought I'd throw them out here and see what comes back. So lots of us are Econ-oriented right? SAIS obviously has the Econ focus, and most MPP programs are economics-lite/applied, watered-down economics. So we should all be familiar with opportunity cost -- the concept that by making a given choice on something, other options are missed, which must be considered as costs of making a decision. So, in a recession, with fewer job opportunities and lower chances for raises, won't we who attend school be missing out on less? i.e. if I'm in school while the economy is booty, won't I only be missing a party a no one is enjoying anyway? Even if pay cuts don't happen during the presumed recession, raises and promotions are less likely in a recession for sure. So the opportunity cost of attending grad school is lower than normal, not higher. Of course that's why everyone on here is saying applications will be way up next year -- smart people will be in jobs without prospects for growth or without jobs at all -- yet the same folks who recognize that apps will be up fail to apply to their thinking why apps will be up, namely because the labor market isn't worth staying in, that is, the cost of dipping out of the labor market is lower than during a boom. Of course, there's the case that it's a crucial time to be in the workforce, to gain experience, network, credibility etc. I suppose that's only marginally more true than it always is though. The other argument is that our cohort will be graduating into a crap market. Therefore, foregone income and loans accrued during grad school will hurt all the more. Maybe I'm being pollyannaish, but most recessions are well under 2 years, and I doubt this is going to be as catastrophic as the Great Depression (my intuition is that most of this is a pause in the economy, not an actual contraction or loss of underlying value, but I could definitely be very wrong about that). So Summer 2022 could be just the right time to enter the economy. Sure, the prospect for internships during school will probably be lower than normal. That's a bit worrying, but not overwhelming to me. I'll still have a shiny new MA at the end. If I'm right, our application cycle could be construed as the perfect time: right now the economy is bad, and though everyone else knows it now, the admissions process is over, so we get the opportunity to tool up when we'd likely not be having a great experience in the labor market. And we didn't have to face as stiff of competition (no offense to everyone here, including me) as there will be during next year's admissions cycle. I get the risk aversion. I'm fortunate enough to have a wonderful wife who can cover living expenses while I'm in school, and I got pretty good funding, so we won't have to take on any debt. I'm kind of just spitballing, and maybe rationalizing my choice to start at SAIS, but I'd be interested what folks here think, particularly you regular commenters. For those of you wringing your hands about the decision, maybe my rationale, flawed or not, can give you some peace of mind, and just don't read responses.

Yeah, I'm not going to McCourt. I got a much better offer from SAIS, and I was already more interested in the curriculum and institutional longevity of SAIS anyway, so it worked out well. I've noticed you're very actively anti-McCourt on here but also an alum. Very interesting.

I know this is a super (most likely too) late response, but I sent GW a significantly higher MPP funding offer from a more highly ranked school, and they said they'd get back to me Never did. Whatever, maybe I was just a garbage applicant. Also heard someone trying to renegotiate with McCourt was told they weren't doing reconsideration because they found disparate impact in reconsideration allocations. Maybe they just didn't like this candidate because I feel like I've heard about loads of people bargaining with McCourt, but idk. Anyhow, I know this is a month and a half after you asked, and all decisions are most likely past. And these are both MPP things, not IR, but I think they're interesting data points to share.

Program Applied To: MPP, MA Schools Applied To: Johns Hopkins SAIS MA, Georgetown McCourt MPP, GWU Trachtenberg MPP, American MPP, Carnegie Mellon Heinz MPP, George Mason MA in Econ Schools Admitted To: SAIS (initially 50%, ultimately 77%), McCourt (33%), GW (0%), American (47%), CMU Heinz (55%), GMU w. Mercatus Fellowship (100% + stipend) Schools Rejected From: Schools Waitlisted: Undergraduate Institution: tiny liberal arts college, not top 150 Undergraduate GPA: 3.5 Undergraduate Major: Economics (English minor) GRE Quantitative/Verbal/AW Scores: 160/170/5 Years Out of Undergrad: 3 Years of Work Experience: 2.5 Describe Relevant Work Experience: Data analyst at "boutique" consulting firm (startup, not impressive name), plenty of technical work but also client-facing Strength of SOP (be honest, describe the process, etc): Pretty strong. I can communicate well, and I'm (perhaps obviously) super interested in policy. I leveraged my quantitative work experience into a relevant qualification, discussed international travel (for SAIS anyway), focused on reasons why each school was right for me, offered ethical/big picture reasons for wanting to study policy. Strength of LOR's (be honest, describe the process, etc): One from chair of undergrad department, one from founder/CEO of my consulting firm, one from executive methodology type at consulting job. Fairly certain all were positive, could speak to academic, technical, leadership and communication skills. Notes for others (probably future rounds of applicants): 1) Play to your strengths, even if they don't apply directly to your top choice. This definitely helped me: I was very familiar with Austrian and public choice economics, which are basically the foundation of GMU Econ and Mercatus. So I had a kickass application for the Mercatus MA Fellowship and received the offer. Though it was tempting to be paid on net, I wanted to go to SAIS. And then SAIS ended up giving me a much better award than their initial offer, at least partially due to the Mercatus offer. If some school has a center or feature with which you are extremely familiar, even if you have 0 intent of attending there, submit a baller application that employs your existing knowledge. Also, specifically within the MPP world, Heinz doesn't even have an app fee, so if you already have all your stuff together for your other applications, slap in that app to CMU (a highly ranked school) and see what comes out. Worst case you don't mention it to other schools, but Heinz may happen to like you, and you can use that as leverage with schools you actually do like. I got 55% funding from them, and though I had no intent of attending, that could've been really useful in haggling with McCourt. 2) Beefing up your GRE can be big. You can see from my profile that I didn't have anything super prestigious -- I'm almost positive most admissions officers haven't even heard of my undergrad institution -- and my employer was a 20 person company, not at all related to policy. And you can improve here. Math is practice. Just do it a million times. I got PrepScholar, which was super cheap, and improved significantly. If you're serious about getting into an elite school and with getting good funding, this is the most obvious way to spiff up your profile in a shortish time. I didn't love those 2 hours studying every weeknight for a couple months, but I feel like it really made a difference to have 5-6 more points, particularly on quant.