Octavia

I agree with the previous post completely. Just to add to it, you may still show some quantitative work in courses that do not explicitly say economics or math. Perhaps you engaged in quantitatively oriented research in one of your classes? It is also true that some schools will accept applicants contingent on them taking micro/macro etc....Georgetown SFS is one, for sure (as per their website). You still have some time to take these classes, if you want to. Lastly, are you applying right from undergrad or do you have work experience? If the latter, were you engaged in any quant analysis at work? Good luck.

Why doesn't it qualify? I've been working for the UN for 3 years now and I always thought of it as public service at the international level. In fact, each new hire has to sign something called "the declaration of rights and duties of an international civil servant". And it is true that salaries are competitive, especially that they are tax-free (depending on your nationality).

LOL. Perhaps I have a different point of reference (I've been working for the UN for some time now). The work exprience you described looked a bit...chaotic. I was under the impression that you had different internships here and there rather than a consistent career path. I might be wrong, of course, about what schools consider "solid work epxrience" so I won't argue about it. I recently attended a career fair with the UN Harvard Kennedy Club and the alumni, who currently are working for the UN, suggested that Harvard liked consistent work experience as opposed to an internship here, a 12-month job there. Of course, there is an exception to every rule. I would definitely not agree that the often misplaced European assertion that "2 years in a cabinet is worth more than 4 years in the private sector" is true. It is certainly not true in the US (especially not in terms of salaries ;-)) I happen to work for the UN Peacekeeping but wouldn't argue that my 4 years of experience count as 8 years of work for Goldman Sachs. Anyway, good luck. One question: "I wanna work in US political communication". What is US political communication? ;-) Just wondering....

I guess it all depends on your professional goals. I would say that your "profile" (or background) fits students in PhD programs in Political Science more than those in public policy programs. In a nutshell, MPP/MPA programs are considered professional in a sense that they train generalists and provide skills required for public policy analysis and management (very broadly defined). Of course, one can combine these degrees with an MBA, a law degree etc and study very particular aspects of public policy (eg. foreign policy or finance). I think there are two sides to your profile. Surely, one could argue that your political communication specialization gives you a niche as far as admissions are concerned. Your stats are great so I wouldn't worry about that (not sure what your GPA is). On the other hand, you really lack solid work experience to be considered truly competitive. My advice is to 1) think about what is it that you really want to do professionally 2) try to match a potential graduate program with the skillset required to achieve your professional goal 3) if you still are unsure, read student bios (princeton's website has a lot of those) and perhaps you will find some students with similar experiences and professional goals as yours.

I couldn't agree with matcha more. There is so much you can gain by not going to grad school right away and 1) working full time, 2) being on your own and 3) just taking your time off textbooks instead. I also think that MPP/MPA programs (joint degree options especially) are such a huge investment (of your time, money and efforts) that you really should take some time to make the decision. It makes sense to get some experience before to figure out that this is exactly what you want to do with your life. It also makes sense to move on with your personal life before commiting to school for so long (in case of the join degree option). Given the debt you might have after finishing the program (a joint degree especially), I think it is very unlikely that you will want to go back to school again (perhaps PH.D). Of course, there are some lucky individuals who get full funding and/or are sponsored by various institutions/parents etc. I still think that for the vast majority, graduate school is a serious investment. None of this, however, means you can't get into a great program with no experience. After all, you do have some impressive work experience (though not full time post graduation employment). I know that some people (especially those with Public Service fellowshis) go straight from undergrad. But even they usually complete their internships in the summer between they senior year and the first year of grad school. Good luck with the decision.

I think the GRE will only appear to be easier. In fact, it will actually resemble the LSAT and will be much more difficult than the current test. It will also be much more analytic and will require more complex computations from test takers. Even though I do agree that the elimination of analogies/antonym makes the content of the verbal part of the test much easier (especially for non-native speakers), I am sure the questions will actually be much longer, complicated and in that sense more difficult. They might actually resemble LSAT's reading comprehension and/or even logical reasoning sections to some extent. Even though calculators are of course "helpful", it also means that we will be asked to deal with much more complicated questions. In a nutshell, we will be asked to perform much more complicated computations and the questions will be more intricate. Notice that the LSAT has the same deceptive appeal (no knowledge required, per se - simply logical and analytical reasoning) and yet it is undeniably extremely difficult.

www.ratemyprofessor.com ?

A brief answer is: yes is can change significantly in 2-3 years. Especially if you are not a native speaker. My sister initially took the GREs after being in the US (and speaking English, for that matter) for only 2.5 years. She scored somewhere in the 85% for math and 86% for writing and only 60% for verbal. She decided to pospone graduate school for a little while. 2 years later, she scored in the 98 percentile for writing, 96% math and 93% verbal. I know she didn't study significantly more for the second time. She simply became more proficient in English over time. Trust me, language can change in as little as 2 years. For TOEFL, the change can be even more dramatic.

http://www.ets.org/g...al_institutions So what do you think? Do you think that the new format will "more closely align with the skills your candidates need to succeed"? I am wondering how the schools will evaluate candidates who, let's say, took the test in the old format measured on the 200-800 scale and then re-took it in the new format measured on the new, 130–170 score scale, in 1-point increments. Interesting that the new scale corresponds, roughly, to the LSAT scale...

I think PC folks do have a distinct advantage in grad school admission process. Part of it comes from the experience they gain while in the program. But there is also the fact that they must have been pretty impressive to be considered by Peace Corps in the first place. I am not sure how selective/impressive etc AmeriCorps/TFA programs are.

I absolutely agree. You can make up for the low GPA with high GRE scores. Your work experience is very relevant and you seem to have very strong LORs. At the same time, given the competition, you might still not get into top programs. Therefore, I would consider safety net school in the DC area.

Hi Econhawk, Here they are: http://www.sipa.columbia.edu/resources_services/career_services/employment_statistics.html For the most recent statistics for MIA, it looks like SIPA's grads are getting jobs WWS students had before they begun grad school: I mean it! Research assistant, consultant, analyst, really?! http://www.sipa.columbia.edu/resources_services/career_services/documents/MIA2009FinalStatistics.pdf

Well, I live & work in NYC. Opinions spread quickly. You are right that the MPA crowd tends to be much younger. For what you are describing you wish to accomplish, perhaps a mid-career MPP at Princeton or MPA at Harvard sound like a better idea. To be very honest, the opinion I hear over and over again about the difference between MPA and EMPA is that if you don't get into regular MPA, you go for an EMPA (people tend to be less impressive, with lower GREs, GPAs and, of course, there is no financial aid). I have no idea if that is in fact true. The two examples I described above were about two very experienced individuals with goals similar to yours who went for executive MPAs at Wagner and Columbia and felt it was a waste of time due to quality of classes and student body. In fact, the one that went to Columbia felt that the folks from regular MPA actually had more impressive exprience and resumes despite being, on average, younger. The comment about guidance and coaching was about Columbia's EMPA specifically. I took classes at Wagner after work, with no expectation of coaching or guidance. The majority of classes were in finance/budget etc because my employer pays for courses taken within the scope of our work. You are absolutely right, your exprience is what you make of it. Then go ahead and enroll at Wagner. I just hope you don't regret the money and effort put into it. It might turn out that your law degree is actually more valuable than the EMPA.

I agree with the majority here, GO TO SAIS! It is a highly regarded program, with great preparation in finance and you will be at the center of it all as well (World Bank etc). SIPA will leave you with $120k in debt and you will become an Admin Assistant at the UN or a consultant for a bank, unable to survive in NYC and pay off your debt.

First of all, I've heard really bad things about Wagner (regular MPA). One of my colleagues actually dropped out of the program. She had 5 years of work experience at the UN and felt she was in class with kids, who simply had no clue what they wanted to do and vague dreams about working for the UN. I've taken a few classes there myself and shall never do it again. Second, another friend had a similar situation to yours except it happened at Columbia. She was rejected by the regular MPA at SIPA and admitted to the EMPA there. Meaning, she was asked to pay full tutition for a program that isn't even nearly as good as the regular MPA. Regular MPA offers fundind, albeit modest and usually to second year student. EMPA give you big fat $0. To be brief, she said it was a huge waste of time and told me to never even consieder Executive Program. She said that the quality of student body and classes just wasn't what it should be. Compared to regular MPA students, she received no guidance or coaching and was left with enormous debt. Since you are asking about potential employers' view, I cannot answer in general but I can tell you that at my Division (of the UN Peace Operations), the management would never consider anybody with an executive MBA or MPA. In fact, the guidelines specifically mention that a successful candidate would need an MBA and/or MPA in Finance (a 2-year full time programs).