UrbanMidwest

Hi raincoffeecats. It sounds like you have a really big decision ahead of you to make. Hopefully some of what I have to say can help.
Like you, I've been working for about 4-5 years as an behavior therapist. (Like an RBT, but not officially. The states I've worked in haven't required the credential because they hire off experience, but I am currently in the process of applying for it so I can work in different states. But literally no different in terms of responsibilities.) I have to be totally honest with you: I love it. When I began to think about grad school around this time last year, there was no doubt in my mind that I wanted to get my masters in ABA.
For me, it really is one of the most interesting jobs in the world. I've worked other jobs, and being a behavior therapist means walking into a totally new situation every time, even with the same clients. I get to help make positive change in their lives. And having the behavior analysis background, it requires a good deal of careful observation and problem solving to address problem behavior and turn it into something positive. Frankly, I love the challenge that this field poses.
With that said, if you aren't 100% sure you want to pursue ABA as a career, I don't recommend that you do it. It is a very challenging field to be in and requires a great deal of personal motivation and interest to sustain. Still, I wouldn't count yourself out just yet. From what you wrote, it sounds like you have some misconceptions about ABA (It's okay, everyone does.). ABA is a science, yes. It is a science just as much as medicine or psychotherapy or nursing. Yes, the application from animals to humans is discomforting. But think about classic psychology experiments on mice and monkeys (e.g. Harlow's study on "contact comfort" in infants using infant monkeys). It's not just ABA that is rooted in animal research; most scientific fields with clinical applications are. That's just the history of it. Secondly, I personally disagree with you in regards to ABA lacking empathy or connection. I think being able to teach someone how to take care of themselves or how to make friends or how to get to work using the bus is one of the most empathetic things I can do as a human being. And, even though I'm speaking from the therapist's perspective, I think it goes both ways. As an example, I used to work at a group home for adults with severe autism and intellectual disability a few years back. I had one client who, when I walked in at work, would take my hand and look to see what color I painted my nails. It seemed trivial to me, but it made them smile from cheek to cheek. And because I was in school, I would sometimes come back to that job after being away for months, and without fail, this client would look at my nails the moment they saw me. The thing with autism, is that people who have it see and experience the world differently. But, with that said, they still want to do all the things we want to do. They want to have friends, to follow their passions in life and do what is meaningful to them, fall in love, and have a generally happy life. While autism can actually bring some creativity to the table in terms of how this is accomplished, it can also hinder accomplishing these goals. And that's why I think ABA is important and valid. Personally, I think that if someone doesn't know how to brush their teeth because they have autism, we should not be saying that "forcing them" to learn how to do that (in a way where they can understand) is wrong. On the contrary, I think it would be extremely inhumane to forego teaching them to brush their teeth and allow them to get gum disease because we don't want to "force" them to learn how to take care of themselves.
How a therapist chooses to teach them though, varies from person to person. Being respectful (and knowing what "respectful" looks like for someone with autism) is not something that can always be taught and understood at first glance. It is something that takes a significant amount of time and dedication to learn, and frankly, mistakes. I have found myself (and also, from other professionals I know) that involving yourself or at least being aware of autism advocacy is a great way to do this. There are many resources out there, but a couple of places I would look are the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network (ASAN) and Operational Meaningful Life. There are many others, which I'm sure you will find in your travels.
Which brings me back to your situation. I don't know if you've delved at all into advocacy, but I think you should give it a chance. What motivates me and a lot of professionals to join the field is not always the pay. For most, it's being aware of the injustices that are carried out against people with autism and other disabilities, and being able to do something about it. Half of my job as a behavior therapist is to educate parents about ways they can help their kids, resources that are available to them, and helping them to understand how their children see the world. Crazy that, at 22, I'm given this huge responsibility. But it's something I spend a lot of time on, because I personally need to know that what I'm doing is helping. That's empathy and compassion; ABA is just a tool to help me put that empathy and compassion to good use.
Look. I can't tell you for sure whether being a behavior therapist or a counseling therapist is right for you. But being someone who, at this point in her life, is so certain of this career choice, maybe you can start to ask yourself the right kinds of questions to get to where you want to be. And I sure as hell don't know a thing about counseling psychology; that's for someone else to answer to. Regardless of what you choose, both of those fields would allow you the chance to change someone's life for the better, and it's something you should be proud of.  I wish you the best of luck moving forward with your decision.

MSW is job ready without a license and would remain that way, so even if you somehow lost your license, you would still have your MSW and you could still work, not so with an MFT, the MFT degree is worthless in all reality without licensure. With a license, MSW (LCSW) can do anything an LMFT can do, and much more because the scope of practice is much larger. Just cause one CAN do anything doesn't mean they SHOULD though, and everyone should operate within their scope of competence.
Most people say that whether you were LMFT LCSW LPCC you will all be about the same by 5 years post licensure in terms of capability and competence, you could spend the rest of your career studying and earning marriage and family therapy CEUs or training or psychodynamic or whatever, you can even have an LMFT supervisor for a lot of your clinical hours, so you can become the kind of therapist you want to be no matter your degree. MSW is good anywhere in the US. If you get burned out on therapy, as an MSW you can do many other jobs, anything an MFT can do and more. I also hear MFTs really struggling with finding supervision post grad, and having to pay a lot for it, and this isn't something I hear about with MSWs very often. Many jobs you would get post degree would include supervision and honestly none of us should take a job that doesn't if you want a license.
Now, the catch is, you have to be smart about where you get your MSW make sure it has faculty and a concentration that suits your interests, and you have to be smart about where you do your 2nd year practicum and where you work post grad, and that includes where in the country you work. You are going to make just as much as any other therapist in your area once licensed, it's usually around $125-200 per session. The coastal states pay the most in terms of agency jobs. Lastly, the MFTs I worked with, prior to settling on the MSW, all said to get the MSW over the MFT. Now that's of course not what everyone will say but that's what I've heard.
The only thing is, yes it's not as psychologyish as your undergrad. I was a psych undergrad too, but it's still a part of direct practice social work. It's person IN environment, with social work, and clinical social work is really focused on person and family or group. You will still be using psychology stuff, but you will gain in a greater understanding of culture, how people's social identities impact their lives, and will also end up being strong in your ability to connect clients to resources and case management light if need be. In the end, if you ask me, a well experienced LCSW is probably most capable.
As for GPA it depends on the school, but generally speaking if you have around a 3.0 or greater GPA and about a years worth of social workish field experience you will get into some MSW school in your region, so long as you can write a good SOP and show you are ready. For more competitive schools it's probably closer to 3.5GPA and 1-2 years experience. Still though, they really aren't like clinical psych programs where GPA and your involvement in Psi Chi is important, and honestly research experience isn't as important either. Now that said some schools get a ton of applicants and the competition can be even higher. Like where I live in Los Angeles, it's CSU Long Beach, UCLA, and USC that have the most applied to programs. USC has a massive program, hundreds of students so they have plenty of room if you got the $$$ and good grades. CSULB gets thousands of applicants for a small 300 cohort group of students between their part time and FT program. UCLA I don't know how many applicants but probably close to CSULB, and it's an 80 person cohort, so the competition is intense. If you lived out here though, I could tell you 6 other MSW programs in the LA area you could probably get into if you did your part as an applicent and had a GPA around a 3.0-3.5 and a bit of field experience 1 year ish and could write up a good SOP, resume, and good letters of rec.
 
 

American education has a different focus, though, at the undergrad level (and the high school level, really). Despite the constant push from industry to professionalize early, academia has stuck to its guns in attempting to offer a liberal education, rather than a four year version of the technical degree. The graduate degrees are where you specialize; the bachelor should receive a well-rounded education in as many disciplines as possible. Thus the extra post-baccalaureate coursework, I suppose. While UK students have received four years of training in their field (and little training in anything else) by the end of their BA/S, American students have received 2-3. However, they are more well-rounded.

It's all a matter of what's important to you, though. My time studying in England was a wonderful experience, and I love the college system there -- it's much more personal and you really feel like you're part of a community. However, I think my interdisciplinary graduate work would have failed without the varied background I received in the U.S.

You really aren't alone though. I can remember being reticent and uncomfortable initially. My concerns didn't ebb until I experienced the program and interacted more with my cohort.
Overall, I enjoyed graduate school. I adored 1 program and thought another program was okay.  My enjoyment really came down to the people (how much did they motivate and inspire me), classes touching on questions that interested me, and opportunities for professional and personal development. My first program was a bit subpar with a lot of that, but provided enough that I knew what I wanted to do next. The second one blew away my expectations.
On the negative, I agree with a lot of @UrbanMidwest's experiences. Some of my classes felt like the professors lived in their "research lab" bubble or their 'normal people' counseling bubble. I worked with serious mental illness and severe developmental disabilities. So when I heard professors paint a rosy picture without touching on the types of cases I saw daily, it was frustrating. It felt like if I didn't agree with a specific approach, my comments were either dismissed or unwelcomed. I learned to write the notes, and be more cautious with when I added to a discussion... or at least when to be dissident. Good news! I had an amazing cohort, so several of us would share our interpretations and experiences after classes if it wasn't welcome during class-time. 
 
 

Yes and no.
 
Pros:
All but two of my professors have real world experience in my field. The best one has been a law professor.
All of my professors have been somewhat likeable.
Most of my classmates have been nice, not to mention unintentionally funny when speaking about the horrid practices they've faced when working.
I've gained something from all of my classes that I can use once in the field.
Knowing you'll graduate from a respective program let alone university.
The great college athletics and university vibe.
Cons:
There's cognitive dissonance at times, as if my professors live in a bubble. I can expand on this but not here. PM if you want to learn more.
In all but one class so far the professor has said something highly questionable on sensitive/controversial topics. One time it took me 30 seconds to come with information that successfully countered a statement my professor said (just brute facts I came up with); another time when I brought up counterpoints for a controversial topic the same professor basically went all "Well it's all still up in the air! Oh, look at the time! Class dismissed!"
Classroom discussions. If you rock the boat you'll be "that person."
A couple of professors just don't respond to emails.
Some of my classmates aren't welcoming -- at all. For example there are those that will avoid you because they perceive you as inferior in terms of work experience. This avoidance spreads to group discussions and peer assessments.
Emails from the president and chancellor emphasizing inclusiveness and the strength of diversity. I hope they're getting paid by the letter.
The debt.
 
 

Yes and no.
 
Pros:
All but two of my professors have real world experience in my field. The best one has been a law professor.
All of my professors have been somewhat likeable.
Most of my classmates have been nice, not to mention unintentionally funny when speaking about the horrid practices they've faced when working.
I've gained something from all of my classes that I can use once in the field.
Knowing you'll graduate from a respective program let alone university.
The great college athletics and university vibe.
Cons:
There's cognitive dissonance at times, as if my professors live in a bubble. I can expand on this but not here. PM if you want to learn more.
In all but one class so far the professor has said something highly questionable on sensitive/controversial topics. One time it took me 30 seconds to come with information that successfully countered a statement my professor said (just brute facts I came up with); another time when I brought up counterpoints for a controversial topic the same professor basically went all "Well it's all still up in the air! Oh, look at the time! Class dismissed!"
Classroom discussions. If you rock the boat you'll be "that person."
A couple of professors just don't respond to emails.
Some of my classmates aren't welcoming -- at all. For example there are those that will avoid you because they perceive you as inferior in terms of work experience. This avoidance spreads to group discussions and peer assessments.
Emails from the president and chancellor emphasizing inclusiveness and the strength of diversity. I hope they're getting paid by the letter.
The debt.
 
 

I chose hunter.
Still don't think that fordham (or nyu/columbia) degree holds more weight. 
Hunter definately has a very large emphasize on social justice over clinical practice but one really gains experience from their fieldwork and you can access agencies equally.

I think it's better to help them understand the value that your degree might possibly bring to the world and your goals than fall on  passive-aggressive actions demeaning their day job (oh noes you work corporate how soul crushing!).

That sucks! It's so obnoxious when an employer backstabs you and depending on the relationship with your employer, it can be really emotionally hurtful, too  When I was an undergraduate, I worked full-time at a sandwich shop. The pay was crappy, but the full-time hours made it work. I bent over backwards for this employer and came in whenever anyone called off, did all kinds of extra work that no one else would bother to do, and basically had no life. The owner got a new girlfriend who owned a few apartments and one of her new tenants needed a job. Guess whose hours got cut in half so this new woman who zero experience in the food industry could work full-time? I was so upset about it. About 2 or 3 months later, a friend told me about a server position that was opening where she worked and I was offered almost full-time hours there. The sandwich shop was so pissed that I was leaving, but I was like "you shouldn't have given away my hours if you liked my work ethic so much!"
My advice to you is to try to find something seasonal if you can so that you can keep your savings. Amusement parks, water parks, summer camps, wedding venues... even places like movie theaters often need extra help in the summer. Temp agencies may also be able to help you, too, and sometimes you can find short-term jobs cleaning dorms or doing landscaping posted on Craigslist.

Given the current state of the world and our discourse, I actually think there's a lot of value in philosophy for the public AND that philosophers do a terrible job of explaining this to people in general. @Phallosopher, while your answer isn't wrong, I don't think it gets at the heart of people's inquiry. Rather than deferring to timing and tangibility, why not give people actual examples of ways in which philosophy is at work in their everyday lives, decision-making processes, etc. Northern Arizona University has developed a program called Philosophy in the Public Interest that gets at what I'm talking about. 

My first question is, why have you reached a point where you need to get an advanced degree or switch fields?
My second question is, do you want to be a therapist?
My third question is, if you did not choose an MSW what field would you switch to?
 
In my opinion, an MSW is a mixed bag. In general, it is an underappreciated role that comes with low pay, high stress, and poor working conditions.
My first job out of my MSW program was an outpatient therapist at a community mental health center. I was expected to work 40 hours a week MINIMUM, had a tremendous amount of paperwork that was impossible to do, and had to meet productivity goals and when I wasn't, there was a lot of pressure from management. When factoring in the amount of hours I worked, I was barely making more than minimum wage. I burnt out quickly. I moved on to a job at a state prison. The pay is much better and I only have to work 40 hours a week MAXIMUM unless there is a crisis, but as you can imagine the working conditions are poor.
There are micro-level areas that pay better such as prisons, medical social work (hospitals, dialysis clinics, etc.), and hospice, but in general it's still high stress and poor working conditions. You also need to check with your state board to make sure these positions qualify at clinical hours towards LCSW (it varies by state).
Do things get better with an LCSW? They can, but not necessarily. In my area the LCSW only comes with a 10-15% raise and you still continue to do the same job(s) you were doing before with just slightly better pay unless you move into a management role. It also takes 2-3+ years to get enough hours for LCSW.
As for "the median salary is $65,000", I'm assuming this comes from websites like salary.com. In my area, no one I know with LCSW gets paid this much unless they are in an upper management role or are in private practice. Social work is very broad and LCSWs work in a lot of different places/roles so be weary of that figure and assuming it's an LCSW actually in the role of therapist. I'm sure MSWs and LCSWs make this in other areas of the country, but the cost of living is probably higher in those areas. So don't just look at the median salary for your area, but consider cost of living, as well.
Having said all of that, if you want to be a therapist then an MSW to LCSW can be a great route to that and, in my opinion, the most versatile degree offered for it. I do encourage you to look at other options, though, just to be aware of what other programs offer and find the best fit for you. There's licensed psychologists (PhD in psychology), Licensed Professional Counselors (master's in counseling), and Marriage and Family Therapists (master's in marriage and family therapy). There may be others, but these are the ones I see in my area.
If you decide to go the route of an MSW, I would highly suggest you take out minimum amount of student loans possible. I also suggest choosing a dual degree program (MSW/JD, MSW/MPH, MSW/MPA, MSW/MBA, etc.) that suits your interests and career goals. For instance, the MPA could be helpful in macro level roles. The MBA could also be helpful in macro level roles, but also for opening a private practice. They could both allow you to transition to different fields/roles easily if you find social work is not for you or not providing the type of lifestyle you want.
Anyways, I didn't mean to write so much, but hopefully this is somewhat helpful. Good luck!
ETA: I would also look at agencies in your area that you are likely to work for right after graduation. Some areas are moving towards contract work (paid only for face-to-face client contact per hour) as opposed to salary positions. A couple of agencies have done this in my area and the social workers are really struggling because if the client no shows then they don't get paid and this includes when social workers drive to the client's house and the client isn't home/won't answer the door. They also don't get paid for phone calls or paperwork. Just something to think about.

Edstudies, you really can't go wrong either way.  The subtext of your posts is that you want to be at Stanford.  So I say go with your gut.
 
The HE/K-12 integration does not strike me as a big deal.  The reality is that some number of classes at Ed schools (e.g., Org Behavior, Rsch Methods) are cross-listed such that students in many different programs have access to them.  The OB class I took as part of my HEA master's was open to folks in HE, K-12 and public/nonprofit admin.  It really didn't matter, and I enjoyed having to operate outside of my HE comfort zone.
 
In my humble opinion, some people make too much of the practice vs. policy vs. research distinction at the master's level -- especially in one year programs.  The reality is that you're going to get exposed to all three irrespective of how a program markets itself, and any differences are of degree not kind.  Strong performance at either Harvard or Stanford is going to stand you in very good stead for eventual doctoral admission regardless of their 'focus.'
 
Best of luck.

Why solely the Ivy League?

Mini little vent. I went to see Beauty and the Beast today. For the most part, it was really good. But then there's a mention of the plague, and I was like huh? There was nothing else medieval about the scenery. From the music, fashion, scenery, etc. it looked like there was a lot of baroque influence and I'd say it was 18th century France. So the plague just seemed totally out of left field, and I spent a fair amount of time after sitting there confused, thinking "Wait. What time period iis this?" And I'm just going on a little rant here because that anachronism really irritated me and no one else I know really cares about stuff like that. Silly little vent, but there it is.

I'm irritated that my place of employment has had my email address for a month and didn't tell me I had access to it until today... Which means I had emails in there from way back when from students who were in my class. Uuugggghhh dafuq mates?!

Just focusing on you post what are these "unearned advantages"? What exactly were you taught in these women's studies classes?

Couldn't turn down the amazing Harvard financial aid when I was accepted for undergrad. I would never apply here for a master's, because the majority are either completely unfunded or severely underfunded. And it's too damn expensive to live in this city. I chose not to apply to Harvard for PhD programs because the theoretical orientation of the program did not fit with my career goals. 
Many people think going to an Ivy League master's program will be as much of a "boost" in networking as going there for undergrad or a (funded) PhD program, but it really doesn't matter. You were duped if you're shelling out that much money thinking the benefits of networking or name recognition were going to make up for that, even a little bit. I know a handful of people at different Ivies that are SO in debt in master's programs, but they don't mind because they think the name will bring them all these big benefits. As a graduating senior, I can tell you that *no* program at Harvard, or any other Ivy, has as much of an alumni/networking influence as does the College (undergrad). It's massive, ridiculous, and I can't even put it into words. If you went to Harvard for undergrad then went to a lesser known school for grad school, that BA from Harvard will STILL carry you far. It's really a bizarre phenomenon. 
Just my .02. 

Other things to consider:
A doctoral program is not an achievement in and of itself.  It's training for a completely different career - research and academia (and people wash out because of the pressure, the stress, and the criticism).  In that sense, your dissertation is not the culmination of your career, it launches your career, sets you on a path, etc.  You can't really look at your research as something you want to do simply because it's personally relevant to you -- it has to fill a gap in the the scientific literature for you to get anywhere with 1) publication and 2) funding.  Your productivity and ability to secure funding will in large part determine your attractiveness as a researcher, though you can boost that with expertise in clinical experience or even quantitative research methods.  It's very important that you can convince other social scientists (potential colleagues, journal reviewers, funders, etc.) that your research is novel and innovative. Following from that, use your time in your MSW to immerse yourself in the scientific literature so that you know what has been established by other researchers in that area (and I would guess that there is a lot of research there) and what gaps exist.  At that point you'll have a better idea where your interests fit, the methods you'll need to learn, etc.  It's really too early to define your dissertation. I would encourage you to be open-minded about your interests, your methods, and your research agenda.  If you take a definitive approach to your research too early on, you may find yourself disappointed when it comes time to apply to a doctoral program.  You may find it difficult to identify a faculty fit (someone whose interests in content, population, or methods align with yours and who will mentor you) -- particularly if you are unwilling to re-locate for your PhD.  You may find that faculty tell that your stated research question 1) adds nothing significant or novel to the literature or 2) will be difficult to secure funding for, based on your stated interest in qualitative methods (sad, but true).  Be open-minded, and you will have a better experience.

You start your MSW in January?  Then you are still a long way off from a PhD. Unlike in other fields,  a MSW is a terminal degree and so is REQUIRED before you apply to doctoral programs. And most PhDs in Social Work or Social Welfare require you to have AT LEAST TWO YEARS of work experience AFTER you finish your masters.  So you already have over four years before you can even apply.  By then you may not even be interested in a PhD.
Social Work is one of the few fields where you can do A LOT with your masters.  You can still do research.  You can still teach as an adjunct.  You may also want to consider a DSW instead of a PhD. For many DSW programs they don't require the GRE but use the MAT (Miller Analogies Test) instead.  
Check out the other programs.  But in the meantime you have AT LEAST FOUR very busy years before you can even apply.  So,  I suggest focusing on the moment, on your current work. You'll get to the PhD eventually.  But right now focus on the NOW. Because you never know what might change in the future. 

This statement is ridiculous. The emergence of education schools did not lead to a decline in educational quality. What caused the decline is a policy shift from an emphasis in access/achievement (in the 1960s and 1970s) to an emphasis in accountability and other controversial measures (since the 1980s) that continue to ignore three factors: poverty, institutional racism and structural inequality. As long as these so-called educators--ironically, many have little-to-no classroom experience--ignore these factors and continue their war against middle-class communities, little progress will occur in K-12 education.

I am an aspiring higher education professional, but even I can see the flaw in Simpson's statement.

A psychologist asked me this very question about why did I want a PhD, and what I blurted out was met with a comment about how shallow I am. After thinking about it, I guess I can answer the question now, but most people cannot, so don't over-think it.  I'm not getting a PhD for job prospects which seems to irritate some people on GC. I do think it's good to ponder these big questions, it shows you are really thinking things through.

And there's nothing wrong with speculating! I don't mean to be a total downer! 
 
 
 
That's a difficult question to answer...it depends on what you mean by "terribly hard." If you're comparing HGSE to - say -  Harvard undergrad, then no, HGSE is not "terribly hard" to get into. But then again, most graduate programs (in any field) across the country are less selective than the undergraduate admissions process. That being said, graduate admissions is a completely different beast. Most people who apply to HGSE are passionate about education. Most people who apply to Harvard undergrad have no idea what they want to do with their lives.
 
Each Master's program at HGSE has a different admissions committee, so it also depends on which program you're applying for. You can peruse the Grad Cafe survey results to do some "smart speculating."
 
If I had to do my own "smart speculating," I would say it is not "easy" to get into any program at HGSE. In fact, I would guess that HGSE is probably overall the most selective graduate school of education in the U.S (I know, quite a bold statement). So the real question is "are ed schools hard to get into?" And the general answer to that question is "no," but I do think HGSE (and some other institutions commonly discussed here in this forum) is an exception because of its name and history.
 
Furthermore, I think it's pretty common for grad programs to be hush-hush about their admissions statistics. Mostly because - again - they're not very useful.

LOL at this scenario. People are ridiculous. Wait for the financial aid to come back and if HKS offers full tuition THEN this becomes a worthwhile conversation topic. Otherwise go to Princeton and do not look back.

You're saving way more than $36k at Syracuse. For starters, I can rent a whole house in Syracuse for about $700/mo. or share it with someone for $350. Cambridge is a lot more expensive overall. So look at the total estimated cost of attendance for the programs. I'm calculating that Syracuse MPA total cost is $65k including living expenses (Maxwell website estimates $14,400/yr for living expenses). By this same standard, HKS total cost is $70k/yr x 2 years = $140k! More than double.

However, a top candidate of either program would be competitive for government consulting jobs that pay $100k/yr or more, so if you want to go that route then the $140k sticker shock may be easier to handle. Like when the Playstation 2 came out and cost $350...with only one controller included! Then I got a summer job at McDonalds and realized I could make that much in 2 weeks.

From what I understand about the consultant job market in dc, live modestly in school and afterwards for a few years, and a good "senior consultant" position could pay off the loans fairly quickly. Just don't be tempted to rent a 1 bedroom in Dupont for $2,000/mo. That would be dumb. I can live in the hood and walk to Dupont for $700.

Granted, rankings don't mean everything, but it's not an accident that Maxwell MPA has been ranked #1 for so long. Harvard Kennedy is undoubtedly a great program, but to answer your question is no, Harvard's name is not worth even close to double that of Syracuse. Even if you don't take the US News rankings as gospel the two programs are still roughly equivalent.

I'm a bit biased (decided on Maxwell last week), but everything I've seen and heard indiciates that Syracuse is a powerhouse of a program. It's strong in almost every category and has an unbelievable alumni network. It's also a great collaborative environment that seems like it's just about the right size. Plus, you have your degree in hand in a year. The only downside is that you can't get an internship in the summer between years.

The Ivy thing might impress your in-laws, but in the development circles you are talking about the Maxwell name is worth as much as any. I doubt you would regret Syracuse.