Mppirgradschool

Completely agree! By rule of thumb, take any school admittance with an offer below ~$40k a year of funding as a rejection. Everyone makes the same upon graduation.
I work with people that have attended a variety of these programs and our consensus is unanimous, follow the funding, network and you’ll be in a great spot at UT.

I see Fletcher being extremely problematic going forward into the future. They can brag about the relationship with Harvard all day the long, but the problem is that they organically don't really leverage Tufts University that much as a source of programming + career strength. So they basically don't have a vast organic programming infrastructure, aren't really genuinely aligned in a multi-disciplinary world, don't really have a strength in leveraging big data, and historic strengths have been in NGO, non-profit, and foreign service - all three of which have been hurt by the latest realities. Oh and they essentially in a suburb. Also, the average professional American has no idea what Fletcher is.
Don't get me wrong, I met some stellar people from Fletcher, but they will be the first to admit, that the school has struggles going forward.

Fletcher is the most traditionally academic of the IR schools. Popular amongst prospective students that want to eventually study a PHD. Not sure how Fletcher is going to be able to adapt to the cross-functional, data-driven international policy world of the XXI century. Tufts isn't known for having strong accompanying graduate schools to cross-register at, which makes me think that Fletcher's brand may hurt in the coming years.
It'll be interesting to see the how elite tier of IR schools fares in the future. I do think that having strong accompanying graduate schools is essential, as one can tailor courses to their goals.

Fletcher is the most traditionally academic of the IR schools. Popular amongst prospective students that want to eventually study a PHD. Not sure how Fletcher is going to be able to adapt to the cross-functional, data-driven international policy world of the XXI century. Tufts isn't known for having strong accompanying graduate schools to cross-register at, which makes me think that Fletcher's brand may hurt in the coming years.
It'll be interesting to see the how elite tier of IR schools fares in the future. I do think that having strong accompanying graduate schools is essential, as one can tailor courses to their goals.

I wouldn't get a dual degree as the costs are exorbitant and outside of getting an MD, JD or MBA -- pretty much worthless when coupled with a policy degree. You can easily cross-register at the School of Journalism -- or other Columbia graduate schools --- as needed.
I think all policy schools are going to make standardized testing optional for at least next year. Ivy League Schools have already adopted this approach for undergraduate admissions. I would still take it and present scores if you hit the 75%+ percentile combined.
You'll find more people interested in journalism in the MIA, and the tech + media will probably be evenly distributed. Evan Hill, a 2019 MPA, won the Pulitzer Prize this year for his work with the Visual Investigations Team at the NYT -- so both programs should set you up for it.
Yeah, the HKS MPA requires 4 graduate level courses as a prereq. Check the MPP employment snapshot to see if these outcomes interest you, as the program is more domestic and about 1/3 of grads stay in Boston: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/OCA/files/20 DPSA OCA Employment Snapshot_web.pdf
Out of those 3 schools, think Georgetown may be the best fit for you. Berkeley is far from the epicenters of IR (DC and NY) and JHU SAIS is primarily geared towards setting graduates up at the WB/IMF. SAIS and SIPA are different in that the outcomes at SAIS are more narrow, and the outcomes of SIPA tend to be broader -- much of them falling in the journalism/media/tech spaces that interest you.
 

I am familiar with the MC/MPA and know that they really look at the Q portion of the GRE. More than one would think for a mid-career program. How they'll view GPA in this case is hard to determine -- do well in the GRE.

You are fine. I’ve been on admissions committees and by and large, given the other degrees you have, they are placed in appropriate context. The committee knows evaluating you juxtaposed against someone just graduating or even 2-3 years out of undergrad is not a similar or analogous comparison. You career and the previous degrees you hold will be primary factors.
 
And there are specific mid career programs in which the criteria I just mentioned are pretty much the standard versus the exception. By way of specific example, at the Yale School of Forestry (I consider this public policy with a specific area interest) they have such a program, and one of friends in his mid 40s has an almost identical background to you and he had no problem gaining admission.

Okay, I misread the part about LLM and him getting As (I thought it was another C). That being said, my understanding is that LLMs are 1 year degrees and that it is often desired for legal areas that have additional layers of complication (tax and patent for example). However, coming from the higher ed policy space, I also understand LLMs to be money makers for Universities and not exactly the most competitive to get into (below the top 7 law schools) nor academically rigorous (correct me if I'm wrong here). Unlike law school which is about stacking people (class rank). LLMs are more about covering materials. 

I'm not trying belittle LLMs, I'm just trying to better appreciate if an LLM really makes up for a combined undergrad and grad school academic strike earlier in youth. Despite not many people acquiring it, I view it very differently than PhDs, whereby most of them have comprehensive examinations to weed people out and is 4 to 7 years long.

I wouldn't get a dual degree as the costs are exorbitant and outside of getting an MD, JD or MBA -- pretty much worthless when coupled with a policy degree. You can easily cross-register at the School of Journalism -- or other Columbia graduate schools --- as needed.
I think all policy schools are going to make standardized testing optional for at least next year. Ivy League Schools have already adopted this approach for undergraduate admissions. I would still take it and present scores if you hit the 75%+ percentile combined.
You'll find more people interested in journalism in the MIA, and the tech + media will probably be evenly distributed. Evan Hill, a 2019 MPA, won the Pulitzer Prize this year for his work with the Visual Investigations Team at the NYT -- so both programs should set you up for it.
Yeah, the HKS MPA requires 4 graduate level courses as a prereq. Check the MPP employment snapshot to see if these outcomes interest you, as the program is more domestic and about 1/3 of grads stay in Boston: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/OCA/files/20 DPSA OCA Employment Snapshot_web.pdf
Out of those 3 schools, think Georgetown may be the best fit for you. Berkeley is far from the epicenters of IR (DC and NY) and JHU SAIS is primarily geared towards setting graduates up at the WB/IMF. SAIS and SIPA are different in that the outcomes at SAIS are more narrow, and the outcomes of SIPA tend to be broader -- much of them falling in the journalism/media/tech spaces that interest you.
 

MPA schools generally have a more holistic view of applicants. Obviously you need a good GRE score to prove you metal, but they normally pay scholarships for potential or high status / interesting background + years of work experience. So bottom line, to get a scholarship, you would need to pass GRE threshold (whatever it might be for the year in question), but they wouldn't pay only off of the GRE. 

I agree, Sanford, Ford and Goldman are all great programs -- but less portable than HKS/SIPA. Before IDEV, I worked in social/education policy -- outside of the beltway/tristate area-- and my bosses had either graduate degrees from the local state university or from top Ivy League schools like Harvard and Columbia -- in policy or education. 
Goldman is probably the strongest of those 3, and has a great social policy rep, but its student body is largely in-state -- which may limit you to CA to an extent.
Also, definitely get some experience, it'll enhance your job prospects and make you competitive for scholarships.

I agree, Sanford, Ford and Goldman are all great programs -- but less portable than HKS/SIPA. Before IDEV, I worked in social/education policy -- outside of the beltway/tristate area-- and my bosses had either graduate degrees from the local state university or from top Ivy League schools like Harvard and Columbia -- in policy or education. 
Goldman is probably the strongest of those 3, and has a great social policy rep, but its student body is largely in-state -- which may limit you to CA to an extent.
Also, definitely get some experience, it'll enhance your job prospects and make you competitive for scholarships.

I think the biggest problem you have is that you have no idea want to do with your life right now. All the things you are interested in per se are decently different career paths.
That being said, no matter where you go to grad school (even if you are one of the historically few HKS kids (granted more during COVID) who are coming straight from undergrad), your career outcomes will be worse off than someone who went to the same (if not even lesser) policy school as you but has work experience (obviously it depends on quality of work experience as well).
That being said, I do think Terry Sanford is a solid policy school program for domestic policy (they have good strengths in IR and IDEV too, but their unique strength is domestic policy). I would say it is equal to Ford and Goldman (unless you have a regional preference). Kennedy and SIPA might be a minor leg up, but at the end of the day, especially in the areas you are looking into, you end up in the same career opportunities. You compete based upon work experience + networking + problem exposure.
I think one alternative option for you if you really want to get an MPP within a year after graduation is to go to Oxford for your MPP after graduation. The downside is that it isn't as quant oriented, but it is a terrific experience + only 1 year + it is great to see a global view on domestic policy matters.

The context of my suggestion was the availability and quality of dual programs at Yale. But, I’m partial as both an alum and faculty member.

SIPA MIA has decreased its class from 200 last year to 130 this year, per their website. The MIA was 350 people in 2010, and has been getting smaller ever since. Coincidentally, this change took place when SIPA became its own independent program, free from the Columbia GSAS umbrella, which helped improve its image and enhance its autonomy.
Their data from 2017 indicates that they get virtually the same number of applications for both their MIA and their MPA -- which tells me that their MIA is more selective, although hard to discern whether marginally or by an order of magnitude. The MIA is SIPA's flagship program, so it makes sense that they would keep it more exclusive.
See that you are also thinking about applying to HKS MPP. As an international student, I'd highly advise you to apply to the MPA or MPA/ID instead, as these programs cater much more to international students -- with a much greater representation of them, >50% -- and have a much more worldly focus. The core MPP course material is very US domestic-focused, and the students that attend are interested in local government/domestic issues. They are definitely less worldly than the MPA, MPA-ID or SIPA MIA students.
 

Your profile says you are in Germany, so I am assuming you are international. Would be interesting to disaggregate GRE score averages between international and domestic students. Those numbers seem fine/near average at SAIS/SIPA for an international student, but below average at HKS as they seem to disaggregate less for MPP admissions. 
This was a whacky year, and there is a chance that schools lowered their bar for admissions, especially when pulling international students from a waitlist, as schools are trying to achieve a diverse class and visa issues/external funding may have barred some international students from attending.
If policy/IR schools have followed the MBA decrease in application trend, the next couple of years will be incredibly competitive, as people try to ride this incoming economic crisis out.
 

Your profile says you are in Germany, so I am assuming you are international. Would be interesting to disaggregate GRE score averages between international and domestic students. Those numbers seem fine/near average at SAIS/SIPA for an international student, but below average at HKS as they seem to disaggregate less for MPP admissions. 
This was a whacky year, and there is a chance that schools lowered their bar for admissions, especially when pulling international students from a waitlist, as schools are trying to achieve a diverse class and visa issues/external funding may have barred some international students from attending.
If policy/IR schools have followed the MBA decrease in application trend, the next couple of years will be incredibly competitive, as people try to ride this incoming economic crisis out.
 

https://sais.jhu.edu/academics/degree-programs/master-degrees/master-arts-ma/class-profile-ma
SAIS MA's 75th % for enrolled students is 163 V and 164 Q. The numbers the webinar showed were for admitted students, which are always slightly higher than the values for enrolled.
One thing you have to understand about a school like SAIS -- i.e. an elite, large IR program -- and programs similar to it -- i.e. SIPA -- is how their student body is composed, and what that means for funding. To make a breakdown that is easy to understand, let's suppose that there are 3 tiers of SAIS students -- which is probably accurate.
a) Tier 1 is comprised of the top students at SAIS/SIPA. These are students that have multiple, well-funded offers from several elite schools. They have strong WE, great GPA/GRE and chose the program they are at because the funding was generous. They will contribute greatly to the class and can draw from their experiences to elevate discussion. The only exception to this are Rangel, Pickering and Payne fellows that will get additional funding to their scholarship (i.e. full funding) and many come with little to no prior WE. I think these programs should have a full time WE prerequisite in order to apply because the best FSOs are those with perspective and humility that comes from experience, but alas, that's a different conversation.
b) Tier 2 is composed of solid students that have one blemish on their application, either weak WE, GPA or GRE, but excelled in the other portions of their application. They will get minimal funding, if any, and generally contribute to the class. They will also be ready to hit the ground running and have a bit of a "chip on their shoulder", attributes that I think are very positive, and encourage healthy competition.
c) Tier 3 are students that barely made the cut and were accepted because schools have to pay bills, and view these students as ATM machines. They pay full sticker price and the class would not hurt, some can argue it would be enhanced, if they weren't accepted.
My advice to you, if you want to get into SAIS and potentially get some $, is to get full time WE for 2 more years and knock the GRE out of the park. Having to pay $160,000 to join one of these programs is nuts.

I think you are conflating undergrad admissions with grad school admissions. In undergrad admissions, the common app makes everything easier. There is no common app for grad school. That being said, I recommend you think about letter of recommendation conservation. This is what I'm talking a bout:
Context:
For most people (especially those with limited work experience + only undergrad), you probably have 2 to 3. people that can write you a solid letter of recommendation. Lets just say they like you and they will probably be happy to write you 2 each and then after that they get super annoyed at you. So that means, at a best case scenario, you have 6 letters of recommendation to float around with. Most schools I know require 2 to 3 letters.

Problem:
If you apply to Harvard MPP, WWS, and SAIS and don't get it, well you just lost most if not all your letter of recommendation providers. 
I went to grad school with 8 years of work experience, and applied to 4 schools and 2 Fellowships and a big reason for that number was how many letters of recommendation I knew I had in my pocket.
Recommendation:
Don't blow your letter of recommendations + time + effort on schools you have next to no chance just because you want to gamble the dice. Conserve your letter of recommendations for your reach schools + target schools and not impossible schools.

Btw... if you have any doubt of what I am putting down, just go on LinkedIn and look at the resumes of people in the schools of interest. 

Without a question SAIS. That CIPA program is first of all an MPA degree, and will be less valuable for banking, consulting, or marketing. 2nd, if you want to have a shot at working in US or Europe, SAIS has the connections and opportunities that might work out for you if you get lucky... CIPA is a brand new program that isn't even a school. Also, SAIS has an established International students population. while CIPA Is largely American --> so you'll be pretty lonely in CIPA. I also think each class is only about 20 or so. 

If financing is equal, it's an easy choice, SAIS. SAIS and SIPA are the programs that send most graduates to IOs. SAIS is closer to the policy-drafting process -- although PHDs reign here -- whereas SIPA graduates are more "hands-on" and implementing the policies abroad -- this being a general distinction imo. Fletcher is also a solid program, albeit more humanitarian focused. Georgetown MSFS, typically lumped into the elite tier of MA in IR programs, has a heavy federal government/diplomacy focus -- and its brand is hurting from the federal government's hiring freeze/over-reliance on Rangel/Pickering fellowships to fill State Department ranks. CIPA is relatively unknown in the field.
I understand why the Ivy League brand may be pushing you towards CIPA -- as these things do matter abroad, but unless better funded, it's SAIS all day. Shame you don't have SIPA as an option, as it would have checked the boxes you are looking for.
 
 
 

I think policy schools are beginning to resemble law schools, in that GPA and GRE are quickly becoming the most important factors.
It's a shame, as classes benefit from the diverse perspectives individuals bring from the workplace and from leading in ambiguous situations/environments. You only really start getting that with ~3 years of experience.

wow... that was next to unheard of prior to this application cycle... (as in straight from undergrad going to HKS). 

Yup. Harvard has over marketed itself, and thus programs like HKS are now going to be in an acute financial situation for at least the next 2-3 years. The programs that are more nimble and have existing resources will now claim those pieces in which HKS was dominant. Make no mistake about it, HKS is sort of already heavily leveraged, and it’s not like we are talking about a grad operation with well a balanced and deep endowment, e.g. for instance like Yale Law School , many do not realize YLS has a distinct  endowment that supports under 700 students in a school year, the amount of this endowment, over a billion , yes, over a billion supporting just 650 students or so....sheeeesh!

Yup. I had two two folks that work for me that were going to do an executive training,  one at Stanford and the other at Yale, both were intensive 7-8 day course, at roughly 10k plus. Despite the pleas of the schools to still enroll my staff (albeit at a slight discount) I’m passing....