Technocrat

Anybody who thinks "the numbers" can get you into (or eliminate you from) a program is flat out WRONG. My numbers: Program Applied To MPA, MPP Schools Applied To: American, Berkeley, Columbia, CMU and UW-Madison Schools Admitted To: American, UW, Columbia Schools Waitlisted At: none so far Schools Rejected From: none so far Still Waiting: CMU and Berkeley Undergraduate institution: Small (<3k undergrad + grad) Engineering School Undergraduate GPA: 3.0 Last 60 hours of Undergraduate GPA (if applicable): 3.1 Undergraduate Major: Chemical Engineering Undergraduate Research: 3 years as research assistant NASA electronic sensor array project, 1 year as project leader. Graduate GPA: 3.0 (1 graduate course as an undergrad) GRE Quantitative Score: 750 GRE Verbal Score: 570 GRE AW Score: 5.5 Years Out of Undergrad (if applicable): 4 Years of Work Experience: 4 (3 in engineering and business mgmt, 1 in public affairs) My GPA is the min GPA to even be considered to most programs. Based on the data provided by the institutions my GRE is around average for most accepted students, so is my amount of profession experience. 4 programs I applied to were ranked in the top 10 for the environmental specialty and all were top 25 MPP programs. I’ve been accepted to 3 and am waiting to hear back from the other 2. I’ll share the culmination of advice I received from professors and professions in the field. I chose schools that were a good fit. SIPA has a 1 year program that focuses on the science and UW looks for a strong analytical background. My background is well aligned with those programs. Most schools will tell you what they are looking for and if you have it, and can highlight it, they will respond to that. This transitions well to my next point. DO NOT write the same essay for each program. Find out all you can about the program and what they are looking for and highlight the relevant part(s) of your background. The more you learn about the program the more you will know if it is a good fit for you. If it is you will inevitably write more passionately and that will come across in you SOP. Two more pieces of advice: - Choose recommenders that you worked closely with NOT that you think have job titles that will be impressive - Have a wide range of people take a look at anything you produce that will be looked at the school but never too many people Hope this helps!

With regards to your suggestion that Columbia’s 1 year program is not as well regarded... I looked at all 3 programs offered by Columbia. I eventually chose the 1 year program. All three programs carry with them a great deal of prestige. Strictly speaking, the 1 year program is the better program for those focused on the science. It is also specifically geared towards those looking to go right back into the professional world. You have the same access to the same recourses as the other programs. You take the same number of credits with either the 1 or 2 year program and they are both very selective. My recommendation to any prospective student would be to look at the curriculum and the professors and judge for yourself what program will fit you best.

Program Applied To MPA, MPP Schools Applied To: American, Berkeley, Columbia, CMU and UW-Madison Schools Admitted To: American, UW, Columbia Schools Waitlisted At: none so far Schools Rejected From: none so far Still Waiting: CMU and Berkeley Undergraduate institution: Small (<3k undergrad + grad) Engineering School Undergraduate GPA: 3.0 Last 60 hours of Undergraduate GPA (if applicable): 3.1 Graduate GPA: 3.0 Undergraduate Major: Chemical Engineering Undergraduate Research: 3 years as research assistant NASA electronic sensor array project, 1 year as project leader. GRE Quantitative Score: 750 GRE Verbal Score: 570 GRE AW Score: 5.5 Years Out of Undergrad (if applicable): 4 Years of Work Experience: 4 Describe Relevant Work Experience: 3 years working as an engineer with business development responsibilities. 6 months as research assistant to Deputy Mayor of Tel Aviv, 6 months experience with Democratic Party of WI (during 2010 elections), just started working as a science and policy intern for Environmental Law & Policy Center Strength of SOP (be honest, describe the process, etc): Very strong, the process was iterative and was the last application I sent—it had the advantage of being based on and developed from my previous essays. It also received the benefits of suggestions from several PhD students and an alumnus of the programs I was applying to. Strength of LOR (be honest, describe the process, etc): 1 letter from undergraduate professor (well respected in field), 1 letter from a Sr. Democratic operative. Both of my recommenders I worked with on a daily basis and had close professional relationships with.