itsfridayfriday

also consider that some of the larger research universities may have outside of department research assistanships -- the stanford IPS program has full tuition assistanships for econ + other subjects. so this means that you don't have to be at the top of your class in order to get a free education. not sure if other large unis would offer this as well, however.

sorry friend, i'm afraid i don't know the relative selectivity of sipa vs. yale. i do know that SIPA's a lot bigger so your chances there should be good with some school-focused essays.

i would add UCSD as your third state school. very strong ir program. you may also be interested in looking at apsia and their member schools to help your decision making: http://www.apsia.org...?section=member. it may also help give context on us schools in this space, though it seems that you've done some good research already. regarding your top choices, i didn't apply to gtown so i can't give advice on that. but i did get into SIPA, and i can say that presenting very strong interest, demonstrated by strong research and school-specific essays will go a very long way with sipa. their admissions blog is a treasure trove of information on what they're looking for. i would just say follow those instructions and with your 4.0 gpa (or german equivalent) you should be in a strong position.

Go

this articulation makes a lot more sense (and is a lot more becoming) -- i see your perspective and agree with engaging science/engineering experts. i don't necessarily agree that a few classes can help that deficiency (rather, someone with an exclusively policy background could simply make the space for someone with a science one). that is to say, the field can be interdiscplinary without the degree being so as well. that said, i totally agree with your comment on broken energy policy -- but i still stand by the assertion that these degrees prepare you for success in the field (as it is a varied and diverse one) since making changes more is about the person and their dynamic thinking and less about their training.

we're in agreement. it's true that a lot of policy jobs do prefer/need a science background. but those jobs tend to want want degrees in the field, not a few courses supplemented as a part of a policy master's program. someone who has a bs + mpp is on the same playing field as bs + mpp plus a few courses from a strong engineering school. it's the bs that counts, not the few classes you may have taken as a grad student. either you're an engineer/scientist or not (as signified by a degree), and a few classes doesn't change the core of your training (and the bulk of what you have to offer an employer).

I really think that this is one of the most ridiculous statements I've heard in a while. as someone who has worked in the industry for the past five years, the energy/environmental field is just like any other -- you need smart, engaged people in all aspects of the field with all kinds of training. Here are a few very successful folks in the energy/environment field who do not have a science/engineering background, many of whom are graduates from the schools you put down: Government, Christina Romer: http://en.wikipedia....Christina_Romer Think tank/Government, David Sandalow: http://www.brookings...09sandalow.aspx Business, John Woodlard: http://www.brightsou...management_team Business, Andy Safran: http://reffwallstree...d=146&Itemid=77 Business, Vikram S. Mehta: http://www.shell.com...kram_mehta.html Diplomacy/Government, Bill Richardson: http://en.wikipedia....Bill_Richardson Small business, basically anybody at Garten Rothkopf: http://www.gartenrot...ut-us/team.html Government/business, Joseph Adda: http://en.wikipedia....oseph_Kofi_Adda An engineering background isn't going to help you advocate in Washington (or in the states), and a science background isn't going to better help you sell a company's product or better manage a client relationship. your own skillset and ability to persuade, build consensus, and knowledge will. To be honest it sounds like you haven't been in the energy/environment industry (or, frankly, the working world) very long to know what accounts for success in within it.

congrats on deciding -- i remember you had a lot of great options ahead of you.

the school itself is great, they just weren't very good at selling it. in the energy/environment panel the head of the department could only cite the relevant classes one can take as a SIPA energy student, and was very hazy on specifics of the capstone consulting project and internships/jobs students get with that concentration. i would have found it more helpful to get that information, as it isn't on the website, but c'est la vie. a few of the other professors, particularly in some of the regional studies panels i stopped by, were quite impressive and were able to articulately advocate for SIPA vs. SAIS or Fletcher. the basic argument was that both SAIS and fletcher are strong policy schools, and will enhance the skills that you already have, whereas sipa is housed within a broader world-class university, which enables you to take courses that can broaden your understanding of an issue. this professor's example was of a student who could take an indo-persian literature class with a south asia concentration and, in doing so, deepen and expand his/her scope of knowledge of the field. the one thing i didn't like was that when several of the professors talked about the strength of columbia they would talk about the selectivity of its undergraduate college, which i found to be a little shady -- although they did say that SIPA students were the best thing about teaching at the place. re: $$, it looks like FLAS money is abundant at SIPA and not as competitive as a research assistantship, although that could be wrong. FLAS would pay for 100% of tuition + 15k, so maybe look into that (re: funding).

not familiar with berkeley's program, but a few pro stanford thoughts were expressed in another thread: also for climate stuff, both seem to have amazing centers of thought. stanford has this: http://www.stanford.edu/group/knowledgebase/cgi-bin/tag/steyer-taylor-center-for-energy-policy-and-finance/ -- a little law oriented, but i think anyone can be involved. while berkeley has this: http://ei.haas.berkeley.edu/c2m/index.html -- not clear to me that policy students can participate in this, but maybe they'll change that in the future.

a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush -- you have no guarantee you'll get funding at GW / American -- maybe they'll spend less on aid next year bc of university budget cuts, maybe their pool next year will be that much more competitive, maybe you got lucky at SAIS, etc. etc. just take the $$ and don't look back.

at the admit day they said that it's pretty hard to cross register with the business school, so while you may be able to finagle it, i wouldn't count on it as part of your education. like everybody else, i say: go to SAIS.

if you're serious about development and don't want to go into any other career, i'd take the money and never look back.

didn't go to the open house, but have had a few discussions with graduates/students associated with the program. here's what people have had to say about the program. a) size is a huge plus, because it pretty much allows you to do anything you want academically, allows you to get to know people across schools (stanford has a huge interdisciplinary committment), and gives you the structure to really develop relationships with your professors. research assistantships are there for those who want to go out there and get them, and they cover full tuition, insurance, and give you 8k a quarter for living expenses. c) ips isn't a moneymaking institution so there's a real commitment from professors to students. d) study trip abroad allows you to meet with really high level people (dignitaries), and is paid for by the school e) stanford has amazing research centers. someone cited the design school as one of the "best things" about his experience there, because they offer classes for students across all disciplines: http://dschool.stanf...lasses.php#EDEA. f) the practicum is basically a masters thesis but for a client, who all tend to be pretty high flyers like the carnegie endowment or the world bank. the school actively pushes out media attention for this research. here's an example of some of the research: http://www.nytimes.c.../07pension.html. g) director of internships/jobs really gets to know you and uses her network to get you opportunities. "i thought i was good at making contacts but she takes it to a whole new level." h) housing is with other stanford grad programs (if you elect to live on campus) so you can really get to know students across schools to respond to your question about europe, i'm not affiliated with the program, but it seems like a place where you can pretty much do anything with your degree. not sure the has an asia focus, either -- are you sure you aren't mixing it up with the ucsd program which is called "ir/ps" (similar to ips) and definitely does have a strong asia focus?