dft309

That's empirically untrue-I'm a foreign policy person myself in the federal government, a lot of alums from my year and later are doing the same across the federal government, including very recent alums and current students, and I've found in the last few months that our network is getting stronger in Congress than it used to be, which was a pleasant surprise-there are significantly more SAISers working there than in 2013. Most of the people I refer to were none of the things you refer to. Heck, I beat out veterans to get jobs in the Department of Defense several times. Speaking of special hiring programs, I did get a Presidential Management Fellowship offer, but I ended up turning it down, so they're not all they're cracked up to be. Edit: Also, speaking specifically of State Department, the hiring freeze has been over since the middle of last year: https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/12/politics/state-oig-report-hiring-freeze/index.html. Besides which, State Department is just one avenue among many to work on foreign policy and national security issues for the federal government.

I'm a SAISer (went to Bologna), went into government service, and worked at the World Bank for a short stint. First of all, you can and should apply to jobs in all of those areas of interest right now. I can tell you if you want to be a US Foreign Service Officer, apply for the next window, because the process is long. You'd be fine for the econ track and, depending on your background, the others. I've never gone through the process, but I imagine the same for the UN and the World Bank. What specific outcomes are you interested in? I highly doubt you would get nothing, especially with your background, but things may just take some time.

SAIS alum here, used to be a short-term consultant at the World Bank while an American-pretty unusual situation. First of all-do an MBA, or get business experience and an MBA if you don't have enough of the the first yet. An MBA will get you actual private sector opportunities and more credibility if you want to development work. An IR degree is really optimized to produce diplomats and other public sector foreign policy people, not consultants or other similar outcomes, which it can, but should not be a first choice. An IR degree would make sense if you wanted to, say, work on development policy for your government or something like that. Also-in which countries have you grown up and where is your citizenship? Saying if it/they are developed or developing countries is fine-doing development work as someone with strong ties to a developing country appears to be an advantage, for a number of reasons.

SAIS alum, 2013. Had a great experience, definitely thought it was worthwhile. On the job market, the degree carries a lot of weight in foreign policy/government circles, though it's hard to disaggregate these days from other elements of my background. Went to the Bologna program.

As for the rankings, of course I pulled them out of thin air. That's what I said I did and what I presumed the OP wanted: what people think. What do you think, I'm psychotic enough to try to quantify my subjective impressions? You know what, I can't respond to you without giving specifics that would, among other things, identify me. Fine, you win.

@Miskina: Hey, in your case, you sound like exactly the sort of person who should go to the Elliott School and who not be better served by another school. Definitely agree with you on the experience part-I've been successful thus far in large part because I've taken the opportunity while in DC to intern as much as possible. The internships and now jobs I've gotten have been mostly as a result of previous internships I've done, not SAIS directly anymore. Well, that, and I know two critical needs languages. Oddly enough, I got my first job because of a volunteer thing I did, and everything's just built from there. Showing solid education is good and will help you if you have good experience, but you need that experience. The people who don't do well coming out of SAIS are those who didn't have much experience coming in and didn't do much while there. That just doesn't work unless you're really gunning for an academic Ph.D program.

I'm ranking them based upon my perceptions of what their respective reputations are. I'm certainly not saying that people's schools have any bearing on their worth, value, or even necessarily their abilities. Every program is different and fits different people differently. Heck, that's why so many different schools exist. They are all selling different products. The most important thing, more than reputation, is figuring out where you want to go and if that program will help you get there.

For starters, of course it's arbitrary-it's my perception of other people's perception of SAIS, which is shaped by where I've been and what I've done. As for offending people, I don't understand why you think I should care. I'm not really here to make everyone feel good about themselves. I'm here to give my input, based on my experience, to those who ask for it. If I offended you because you don't like my opinions, that's your problem. Your comment about think tanks discouraging people from going to policy schools is something I really find bizarre and something I haven't found anywhere. If anything, my experience has been that people with BAs have been told that they are expected to go to grad school (including policy schools) after about two years on the job. I'm thinking of places like the security and regional affairs parts of RAND and CSIS. As for why I interned at think tanks, they were pretty much the only option for me to get some experience that I wanted while I was still in school. It helped I got some funding from SAIS. I was offered a (paying) internship at a market entry firm, but turned that down because I didn't want to go into that field. I turned down a political risk firm because they got back to me after I had already committed to the think tank, and I didn't feel like burning bridges. I never seriously considered going back because I've always gotten offers I thought were better for me before I could apply to work there again. State was out because I had been told that the internships (actual internships, not SCEP/STEP positions) were full-time, while I wanted part-time. While I was there, I found some that weren't, but they were front-office type jobs that didn't do anything for me. Anything with a higher level clearance was out because I was overseas, including contractors. I don't do development or want to work in a multi-lateral organization, so the international financial institutions and the UN were out. I wanted to be in the US, so fieldwork was out. I wanted to do something substantive. That left think tanks, which I leveraged to get what I wanted. Later on, I interned on the Hill because it was part-time and I wanted to get a flavor of what it was like to work there. I interned at State because I got offers in good offices working on issues I wanted to work on. Of course you interned with SAIS students. As far as I know, there are no internships out there that will only have your working with grad student interns and permanent staff. There simply aren't enough grad students for that to happen. What ends up happening is that good internships tend to end up going to grad students and sharp undergrads/BAs, which has been my experience. In one think tank I worked at, the other intern in my program was a Maxwell MAIR grad, but interns in other programs were undergrads. At another, we had a SIPA grad, an MA grad from Australia, two GW students, and a GW undergrad. At State when I was overseas, the other intern was an LBJ school grad student. While I was at Main State, the only other intern in my Bureau that I knew about that was in a "line office" (rather than in the Bureau's executive office) was a BSFS student. On the Hill, people ranged from JD/MA grads to a high schooler, which is typical. (Almost) everyone on the Hill starts as an intern, aside from mid-career types (by the way soaps, one of those types who has really helped me out and done some pretty impressive stuff is a SIPA grad, so don't get the impression I think your school is worthless). Well, I'm basing non-IR people's lack of knowledge of SAIS and its DC location on the fact that I have to explain to people that SAIS is an IR grad school and despite the JHU affiliation, I don't commute up to Baltimore. And why on earth would know they what it is and where it is? It's a niche school, not located on its parent institution's main campus or even in its city. There's no good reason for someone not involved in the field to know anything about the school. And are you restricting you perception of SAIS and Georgetown in DC to people who do IR? Because I totally concede that Georgetown has a better reputation than SAIS in DC among the general public, as well it should. Georgetown is the best university in the DC metropolitan area, with undeniably the best undergraduate school, law school, and (probably) public policy school. It also has one of the top graduate IR schools in the country. In terms of people who do IR, who are the ones who matter at the end of the day because they'll be the people you'll be working with and hiring you? My experience is that they're about the same, with a slight edge given to SAIS. Regarding econ, you completely missed my point. I don't think that another two econ courses makes me some sort of econ specialist. Other people, who didn't go to SAIS, do. I understand neither that nor how my being forced to understand some econ graphs make my program significantly better than others, but it's what others believe, and I'm just going to go with it, especially since I don't do econ myself, really. As for getting jobs within State, you again missed my point. I'm not disputing that the quality of your work and the relationships you build are the most important factors in getting good assignments. ERs (EERs? I keep on forgetting the proper acronym; I kept on confusing them with OERs, the military officer equivalent) are no longer unimportant just because you went to certain schools. But they help develop a positive first impression and, coupled with legitimately good performance, do a lot building a good rep. While ERs still matter, signaling still does matter. What you did prior to State Department isn't truly unimportant, just not officially so. If it will make you feel any better, I do include SIPA in the category of "schools that will make a good impression". The offices I worked at in State Department and the office deputy director and higher equivalents I met did think, and did tell me, that going to SAIS helped me make a good impression because of the quality of the school and alumni. Now, did SAIS make me better than anyone else? Of course not. I was the intern, thus, my official and unofficial status was below everyone else. I think this difference in perception could be a matter of differences where we worked. I worked overseas in a Pol/Econ section and at a regional bureau. I worked with a lot of grads of public policy, IR, and regional studies programs. As for the rankings, you'll note that I said Tufts's reputation is just below SAIS and MSFS. That's my read on what other people think of the school. I think Tufts is just as good as SAIS and Georgetown and roughly equivalent. If I were ranking them by what I perceive their level to be, I'd rank all three of them identically. As I said about HKS and WWS relative to SAIS, I'm putting them at the same level. I don't think they should be compared together, just because I think they're different enough programs. In a number of areas, like development, they definitely overlap, but elsewhere they don't really have commonalities, like in my field. In my case, going to either of those schools would have reduced my options. I may have ended up doing the same things, but it would have been more difficult. My perception of SIPA is that it's perceived as being very good, but not quite on the same level. Basically, smart and capable people who went to a school that's not quite the best, but close. And keep in mind, I do security-focused stuff, so this perception holds true for that field. SIPA is simply not the best school for that sort of thing. It's very good, and really good people have come out of there, but it's not the best.

I'm afraid I have no idea-I have contact with that sort of thing.

I do disagree about the idea that the MSFS would be better for a Foreign Service career-both programs are very well respected at State and, if anything, SAIS is respected more. I noticed that while fewer SAISers per capita enter the Foreign Service (though the number is still quite large), they tend to be overrepresented at higher levels. I'd say SAIS is equally good for a career at State and the World Bank. That, and the Bank is jokingly regarded as SAIS's unemployment agency-I get e-mails about short term contracts at the World Bank, interestingly enough often times about energy and development, at least three times a week, often more. ILO has some good courses, IIRC. I'm afraid I'm going off of memory here, as the list of courses and syllabi has been wiped from the website and course registration system, probably because of some sorely needed updates. There are courses on trade law, the UN, law of war, trafficking in persons, and investment law. There's plenty I'm missing, but that's all I remember. The concentration also participates in a moot court competition and offer a clinical course on advoacy, IIRC. What sort of lobbying or legal work do you have in mind? And can you practice in the US?

Speaking as a graduating SAISer and someone who's interned at State, on the Hill, and at think tanks (security focused), I can say that SAIS's reputation is either roughly equivalent to Georgetown's MSFS, which is Georgetown's peer program, or a bit better. Oddly enough, I was told the latter by a Georgetown grad at State (granted, it was at a holiday party and alcohol was involved). He thought the requirement for two courses beyond Trade and Monetary made a difference in terms of making SAISers consistently economically literate. It is true that "civilians' (non-IR people) are under the impression we go to school in Baltimore, but the people who count, IR people, know we're in Dupont. I honestly think the neocon thing is grossly overblown-it's not like there's some sort of ideological conformity being really forced onto you in that regard. No one's going to force you say that you think arbitrarily invading other countries is a good idea. In terms of econ, yes, the generally settled opinion is that free trade is a good thing, but that's orthodoxy across the discipline these days. To the OP: Would you be at a disadvantage? Not in any meaningful way. If I were you, I'd work backwards from where you'd like to go and figure out which of the two schools would be better at getting you there than the other, if at all. If you can't come up with any differences, then I'd look at things like which school has more courses you like than the other. There are differences between the programs, but they're really at the margins. To soaps: I disagree about the lack of utility within State. Name of school is still useful once you're in State. Sure, how you do is important, but the school you went to can help shape your narrative, especially at the beginning of your career. For example, if you perform well in your first few assignments and went to SAIS or Georgetown, you will quickly develop a reputation consistently doing well, while it may take some more time if you went to, say, American. And remember, you are still competing for jobs once you get inside-it doesn't stop when you get hired. You start lobbying for jobs at least a year before you have to leave your current assignment. Sure, in terms of getting in, officially, the school doesn't matter. But where it matters is helping you get good jobs or internships that can really help you get in, either through the PMF program or as an FSO. During the PMF interview phase, my understanding is that your school is masked to your interviewers and you cannot mention your school to them. At the same time, you're really evaluated on the quality of your work experience. If you go to a good school, chances are, you will have access to higher quality jobs. The reputation of the school also really helps in terms of getting informational interviews. People are going to be willing to talk to people who have a record of success. Going to a top school does make people more willing to talk to you. In terms of reputation, this is my perception: SAIS-Georgetown MSFS (Princeton WWS and Harvard KSG go here if you're including public policy schools) Tufts MALD (just below the top two and really considered a peer school) Columbia SIPA (still good, but meaningfully below Tufts) GW Elliott (reputation meaningfully worse than the others. The real utility of coming here is the ability to intern pretty much full-time, but the reputation of the school could make it difficult to get good internships without good experience. My experience with Elliott students has not been positive.) Denver Korbel Maxwell MIA American University

@plenum123 I disagree. I certainly didn't tell admissions committees that I was some sort of superhuman when I wrote my essays. What I focused on, and what the committees are interested in, is telling them that I had a strong idea of where I wanted to go and that a degree from that institution, combined with my previous education and experience, would get me there. You basically need to convince them that you have a plan, it is workable, and that it is in line with the goals of the institution. In the OP's case, highlight the internship at IO Bureau like nobody's business. State's internship program is selective and the brand travels (even internationally, where you wouldn't expect that to happen). It also shows that you "have what it takes" to work in the field, which is big, because the biggest thing is breaking in. Having an internship there is proof you that you can make it. Apply with the GRE you have, but work on getting a higher one in case you need it later on. @plenum123, don't get be so intimidated by the competition. The competition isn't that stiff, even at WWS. My advice to everyone is the same: if you have the money for the application fee, apply. At worst, you will be out the money and have to reapply next year, which you would be doing anyway. Applying multiple times actually helps; it makes you look committed. At best, you get into your dream school (funding permitting). Even if you don't get in, you could get feedback in form of a "young pup" letter telling you why you didn't get in. You don't have a lot to lose and a whole lot to gain.

If you want to work in development, you're going to have to do a lot of econ. What do you mean by International Studies? Do you mean you want to focus on traditional diplomacy?

I had high GRE scores, I think I did a good job on the current events analysis paper SAIS required when I applied (for the Fall 2010 cycle), and probably my languages-I had Arabic and Persian when I applied. I applied to Middle East Studies, then immediately switched concentrations to Global Theory and History upon acceptance and switched again to Strat after visiting SAIS at the open house. Should have asked this earlier-what specifically are you interested in?

@dqhdly No, that's a fair point-if you're not willing and don't think it'd be helpful to do the econ, don't go to SAIS. I didn't particularly like it, but I put up with it because it's still the best program for what I particularly want to do. The econ background does tend to come in handy, though I could have done with one fewer elective course. With regard to aid, no, I did not. In your case, your best chance for aid would have been applying to departments that tend to have large amounts of funding, like Korean Studies, Canadian Studies, and I believe Japanese Studies. Students in the first two get full tuition scholarships, IIRC, if not funding for living expenses.