disintegrate

this seems entirely fair to me.

Hi Coloradical,

I actually orignally preferred SAIS due to the name recognition and emphasis on int'l econ. (I was never considering SFS as seriously because I wanted more of an econ focus.) In the end, Elliott offered me a better financial deal and I decided that I needed to work while going to school. SAIS would have been more expensive, it does not allow part-time students, and all of the classes are during the day. At Elliott the classes are in the evening, allowing me to work and go to school part-time. This was a huge consideration for me, but I think it has been a pretty big positive for my classmates that are not necessarily in the same situation as me. Almost everyone in my program is able to get a relevant internship/job during the day, which is absolutely key for both building resumes and making connections.

I think that the alumni network is pretty strong, based on my limited experience. I have run into several people through work that went to Elliott, and I think that Elliott has a strong reputation in DC. There have also been some events through my program (more on that below) that alumni also attended. They had a lot of good advice/info. My program at least seems to have good internship placement success, with agencies/companies actively seeking out students in our program. Obviously internships do not always turn into jobs, but it seems alumni have had pretty good success in the past. I have not gone to many of the wider Elliott School networking/career events, but it does seem that they always have a lot going on.

I am in the international trade and investment policy (ITIP) program, and I am very satisfied with it. I like that it is smaller than the more general IA program, and I feel like we get more individual attention. I do not have a lot of experience with the other programs, though, so that may not be true. We have had several ITIP events to meet other students and alumni from the program. Also, all of the incoming students each year have all of the core classes together as a cohort. I feel like all of this has helped foster a good sense of community for the ITIP students (including those in the year ahead of us). The ITIP capstone project seems like a great opportunity as well. I have not started it yet, but basically we will split into teams and work on a project as consultants to an outside agency/organization/company in our area of interest. Again, I am not certain what the other programs are like.

As far as Elliott School classes go, I like that most have given a strong focus to real-world policies and issues. Of course that is what you would expect from a professional program.

Overall, I Elliott has been a great fit for me, and I have had a great balance of academic, professional, and extracurricular opportunities. Let me know if you have any other questions and I'd be happy to offer my thoughts.

Yeah, f'that - let's just go to Berkeley! It's a lot cheaper for someone out of state, that's for sure.

My interpretation is that when schools have 2nd year students re-apply for funding, or have 2nd-year only fellowships/scholarships (which most of them do), it's because they can better gauge your academic merits once you're at the school. Say you're one of those people who doesn't test well, and so didn't get a merit fellowship though you got in on the strength of your SOP/WE/LOR. Well, when you've cultivated a great relationship with your professors, are contributing every day in class and writing academic-journal level essays, they feel a lot more comfortable giving you a substantial fellowship for your second year.

First-year fellowships are for people who knock their applications out of the park; second-year fellowships are for those who excel once at the school.


Now, as for the debate about costs of attendance--I encourage everyone to really dig deeply into the numbers at each school. For example, I've been accepted to UC San Diego IR/PS (waiting on funding, damn them) and wait-listed at Johns Hopkins SAIS. You'd think, just looking at the school names, that UC San Diego would be much more affordable; it's a state school, it's not in DC, etc. However, once I crunched the numbers there's a slightly different story there. UC San Diego is a little more expensive for the first year, and for the second year it is cheaper but not by tens of thousands. I've actually laid out the costs in a google spreadsheet, which you are all more than welcome to look at. Since all the numbers up at schools right now are not for the next academic year, I was very pessimistic in my estimates of how much COA would go up (10% per year).

I think it's well worth the time to dig into the COA numbers; for me, I managed to shave a few thousand off of JHU-SAIS by inputting my current numbers (I live in the suburbs outside of DC so I have a good gauge of living costs). Even more, I figured out what the price difference is between the two schools, and how truly expensive even a state school can be without financial aid.

For me, the bottom line comes down to a few options: if I get significant funding from UCSD, pack up for the West Coast; if I don't, decline and wait to hear from JHU-SAIS while job-hunting in DC; if I get middling funding from UCSD, think hard about whether I really want to go to a non-DC, middling but not elite reputation school in order to save $30,000 on my loans.

Now, as to whether that $30,000 of savings is worth it--well, that's when you dig out student loan calculators and statistics on your ideal job sector. Grad PLUS loans are currently a fixed 7.9% rate, which is what you would top off your costs with after funding and the max $20,000 in Stafford loans at 6.8%; you can go to the Direct Loan site and plug in your debt (COA - funding - $20,000 @ 7.9%, plus $20,000 @ 6.8) and your timeline (10 yrs? 25?) to figure out your monthly payments. Can you comfortably cover that, plus existing debt, in the job you realistically think you can attain?

Private-sector-aimed students can potentially cover higher loan payments than NPO/public sector students; however, if you're okay with having the government forgive part of your loans and think the program will be around in 10 years, NPO/public sector professionals can enroll in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program (make 120 payments while employed by a 501©3 or public agency, and have the government wipe the slate clean on the rest of the debt).

As I think you can tell from all the numbers I'm throwing around, I'm trying to make my decision as rationally as possible and take a good hard look at the kind of debt I'll be taking on. This is actually because I didn't really think as hard as I should have about it when I applied to grad school; I chose my schools by curriculum, reputation and my interactions with their respective staff and alumni. Now that I have to think about funding (or lack thereof) and am no longer in my daydream of "of course I'll get aid!" I need to take all of that emotion out, and evaluate whether it's really feasible for me to go to grad school right now or if I should look for a job, boost my credentials, put aside some funds and re-apply next admissions cycle.

I think this is a great question that a lot of people struggle with. The first iteration of the problem is, as you said, fit vs. name. Another iteration is "overall" layperson reputation vs. reputation in your field of study. That's what I think attract a lot of people to SIPA is the Columbia name, even if SIPA itself is not as selective (and possibly not as well-regarded by IR professionals) as some of its peer institutions.

I think name always does matter, not in and of itself but for what it represents. Life-long connections, good alumni, attraction of high-caliber students and professors. But ultimately if you can build a good network of resources for yourself, make lasting relationships with professors, and access resources in a great city (like DC), you can build the equivalent experience for yourself at a second or third-tier school and possibly even stand out more. I agree that where you went to undergrad is a consideration. For me, having gone to a very well-known school, I don't feel like I need another Ivy on my resume to stand out -- I feel like I need the best program in my actual field of study, and I would like it to ideally have both a good reputation and give me the relevant skills. (If you haven't guessed, for me this is the choice of Princeton/Yale Ivy vs. Georgetown, which I think is probably THE top name in international affairs but may not be as "worldwide famous" as the former). And in this case I got even more money from the Ivies, but I think I want to go to the school that is known best and most relevant for my field of study.

In conclusion, I think you need to go visit campus if you can (I know you're prob far) and see what your gut says. See if the caliber or common interests of students is better for you at one place more than another. See if Gtown or SAIS really can't offer you the same range of relevant courses as GW (I would find this a little surprising). See if you feel like you're not missing anything at GW you can get elsewhere, and would be able to buy yourself a nice car with the $20k you save. These are all great schools, I don't really feel you can go wrong.

I was set on a SAIS- Georgetown decision until today, as upon reviewing the GW Elliott curriculum I realized how ideal it is to the skills I want to gain from graduate school.

I'll be honest, the prestige that comes along with SAIS and Georgetown are major draws for me. It probably would not be much of a factor if I had attended an undergraduate institution with name recognition. I attended a Top 10 LAC, which, while prestigious among academic circles, is unrecognizable to the layperson. I have been intent on attending a top IR school for graduate studies to have one program with significant name recognition on my resume. I feel rather shallow admitting this, but it's true. While GW is an outstanding school, SAIS and Georgetown carry higher name recognition and a bit more prestige.

While GW would be considerably more affordable, I can handle the cost of SAIS and Georgetown, whose prices are roughly the same.

Am I being absurd to turn down a great fit with a smaller price tag just for a bit more prestige? Who else is facing a similar situation?

People underestimate the degree to which they can avoid debt if they are willing to put in the work to improve their admission profile.

I would argue that many critical admission/fin-aid metrics, including GPA, GRE, obtaining internships/jobs (not necessarily your performance in them), and foreign language boil down to who cares more. Not inherent intelligence, not your financial resources, not where you were born. Effort, pure and simple. Put in the work, and you get paid for it (literally).

If you spend 4 hours a night studying in college, you're going to have a great GPA. If you spend 500+ hours studying for the GRE, you're going to have a sick score. If you are willing to troll online for hours to find relevant internships/jobs and send out 20+ applications, you're going to get one. If you take time every single day to study a foreign language, you will become proficient in it. Polishing your SOP, researching your schools to detail exactly how you are a fit for them - so much of apps (and life?) comes down to desire. There are trade-offs involved: time you spend doing those things means time not spent with friends, lovers, a good book, a sunny meadow on a spring day. It might not make you happier, or well-rounded. But if you put in the work, I guarantee someone will give you admission + serious funding.

I'll be attending one of my top schools on a full ride. It didn't just happen - I did all the things mentioned above, and more. Sometimes it sucked, GRE prep particularly so, as I ended up at about 750 hours prep time. But the thought that kept me going was that not being able to attend grad school, which I wouldn't be able to sans major funding, would suck infinitely more. So I put in the work, and now I get to go to school for free. Not because I'm smarter (guarantee that's not the case), not because I'm richer (my bank account laughs at this): because I cared more, and did the work other people weren't willing to do.

You can write this off as self-aggrandizement. Or get upset because you didn't get the financial aid you wanted and think I'm insinuating you're lazy. But fundamentally, grad school admissions and fin-aid are not mysteries. Everyone knows the things they look at to make decisions. It's your choice whether you invest the time and out-work competitors.

Congratulations!

Well, it looks like this might become a moot point for me, because Elliott just offered a ridiculous financial aid package Georgetown is highly unlikely to match. Balls in your court, Georgetown.

I feel like a lone soul in this forum, but I'll actually disagree. I think many people's perceptions of SIPA as a program are tinged by its poor financial aid (which I agree SIPA could do a much better job on). A big and expensive program can be impersonal, but that's not the impression I have of SIPA.

I went to Columbia for undergrad, walked into a SIPA class that I was interested in, asked the professor if I could take the class as an undergrad, and she let me in on the spot. As for the whole thing about applying for classes, those are maybe 10 or so specialist classes where the professor decides can't hold more than 15 or so people. Bear in mind that this is out of the 100+ classes offered every semester, and it's because the program's so big, that SIPA's able to offer such a wide array of classes on really specific areas of policy.

On the topic of the drawbacks of large programs, yes, it's hard to be recognized/remembered by the administration. That being said, aside from the core lectures, the vast majority of classes are capped at 25-35 people, so it's not hard to forge connections with professors. No, you won't have weekly pre-scheduled check-ins with deans, but the resources are there if you know what you need and seek those opportunities out.

As for the "cash-cow" perception that they admit "rich kids" for "economic considerations", I really think you're putting the carriage before the horse here---a high proportion of students with external sources of funding (whether scholarship or family) end up accepting their SIPA offers because of the school's admittedly poor financial aid, not because SIPA courts those students in particular.

Now, getting back on topic (Fletcher vs. SAIS vs. SIPA)---

I'd say the main differences between the programs are:
Pragmatic vs. academic: Setting up a bit of a false dichotomy there, but I'd say that out of the three, SAIS and SIPA are more similar since they're "MPPish" IR schools that are more professional programs designed to equip graduates with the skills necessary to succeed in the international arena, whereas Tufts tends to be more academic, as can be seen by its thesis requirement and lack of "professional skills" requirements like accounting or management.
Analytical rigor: SAIS definitely has the reputation for being the most quantitative out of the bunch, and, indeed, based on the fact that all SAIS graduates need to have intermediate macro/micro + international micro/macro (i.e. trade and finance respectively) SAIS is, on the whole, more quantitative. That said, you can definitely take the corresponding classes at Fletcher and SIPA if you wanted to, and since SAIS doesn't have other JHU departments at its disposal (more on this below), you can't beef up your quant much beyond that by taking graduate-level econ classes in the economics department or taking real analysis in the math department, like you can at the other two. (In short, the average curriculum at SAIS is more analytically rigorous than at Fletcher or SIPA, but if you were to look at the most quantitative curriculum you could possibly put together at each of the schools, I think SIPA and Fletcher would be ahead of SAIS, in that order.)
Course selection: All 3 programs have great course offerings, but bear in mind that they differ in terms of how many classes you can take outside of their respective schools. SAIS is in a different city from JHU, so that's a definite no. Fletcher lets you take classes both within Tufts, as well as at Harvard, but places an upper limit of a quarter of your classes (i.e. 4 in total). Columbia doesn't have any limits on what classes you can take in the university, but between its core, concentration, and specialization requirements, there might be an effective limit that's similar to that at Tufts.
Disciplinary strengths: Finally, one other thing to bear in mind is that they each have their strong policy fields. If international development is your calling, I would steer clear of SAIS if you didn't get into IDEV, despite their great connections with the World Bank. Tufts and Columbia both have strong development concentrations, though I get the distinct impression that Columbia's allows you to get a bit more quantitative, if that's your thing.

At the end of the day, you got into some of the top programs in the country, so first of all, congratulate yourself. Whatever you end up choosing, these are all great programs; you can't really go wrong here. If you're not really sure where you want to end up, I would just take the 12K at Fletcher and run with it. (Another way of looking at is, "Is the marginal allure that SAIS and/or SIPA have over Fletcher worth 12K?").

Now to face my own dilemma instead of procrastinating by trying to help others with theirs...

I get what you meant, cannotdecide! And I agree that it's interesting to see folks accepted at one place, rejected/wl at another, other folks the opposite, etc. Just goes to show all of these schools are competitive and all of us should be quite proud of what looks like a great admissions season on gradcafe

Rejected at Fletcher, but in at SAIS

Got in at SAIS. One of my dream schools!!!!

MYRNIST, you are like the Simon Cowell of Gradcafe.

I've been looking at back posts on the relative quantitative rigorousness of programs, and I've noticed that virtually every program is described by some as "quant heavy", etc. For me, the ability to push myself quantitative and learn advanced skills of statistics, econometrics, microeconomics, and program evaluation is one of my most important criteria for evaluating programs. And I feel a little let down by this forum, which is generally quite informative and helpful.

For instance, GSPP is often highly regarded as quant heavy. However, their math camp spends half of the time on pre-calculus topics. To me, that sends off a little alarm.

I hope to post some of the results of my own research, which will compare syllabi, topics, and textbooks across core quant classes, but my initial impression is that at even Harris, GSPP, and Ford, it's going to take some work to get beyond advanced undergraduate classes in econ and math/stats.

With that in mind, what do you know about:

1) Advanced track quant options within the program(Ford offers an "In-Depth" Micro II, Harris has something a long these lines, etc)
2) Taking classes from econ departments/attending econ math camp. How does testing work? Has anyone done this? Many students praise the ability to take courses from econ departments, but I know most professors aren't going to be happy with letting policy students into PhD level courses, which are highly theoretical and full of proofs. Most students of which survive them only by working close together with groups of other PhD students - something that I would have difficulty doing as an MPP student.

For current students, did any of you come from a math/econ background and feel underwhelmed by the policy school's quant offerings? How did you get around this?

I'm looking for econometrics and micro courses that use multivariate calculus (lagrangians, etc), matrix algebra, and maybe some proofs. Can anyone help me out with specific examples, courses, books, syllabi, etc? An econometrics book that references Greene, and a micro book on the level of Nicholson are some of the clues that I'm looking for.

Sorry for the rambling post guys, I'm feeling overwhelmed looking for old syllabi and course descriptions. Thanks for your comments.

I also got into that program. Quite a relief since I was getting anxious after my rejection from american.

Admitted to Elliot. WOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

wednesday is going to be a big day

Just a personal opinion , i would go for GWU! Its included in the top 10 IR schools.

in at Elliott, security policy

rejected by elliot! I'm excited though that I got in to AU SIS. I'll be in dc! I love how rejected applies to asking a girl out/making a move/and applying to programs! Ew!

Admitted to Elliot. WOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

In at Duke too! $25k fellowship plus a $4k assistantship. Eat shit GW!

Your stats look great. I would bet that- by your own admission- your SOP may have been the deciding factor. I infer by your comment about it being twice as long as the others that you had to add a lot into the SOP that wasn't in your previous SOPs and that due to being burned out by so many apps you may have not revised and edited it as carefully. Multiple typos, not answering the prompt, rambling, etc could have contributed to a weaker SOP than your other ones.

That is good news though, right? Meaning that the rest of your profile is great and you probably submitted stronger SOPs to your other schools. We all have applications that are stronger for some schools than others, and I bet that yours to your other schools are stronger. Bummer that the American result came first, but I bet good news is on its way

washdc, thanks for the offer.

1. Have you started the recruiting process? If so, what are your opinions of the quality of companies that come on campus?

2. You care to elaborate on the negatives of the school? It is hard to get a realistic view of any school. The website shows what the school wants us to think about AU.

3. How is the camaraderie between students? I understand that at some of the top schools, the programs can be pretty cut-throat between students, more law-school-esque.

thanks!