cunninlynguist

Nothing on my end, too. Maybe the applicants with GradCafe accounts aren't being reviewed this year?!

Yes, I had e-mailed to ask a couple weeks ago. We will absolutely find out on Friday! What are your thoughts on the Nicholas School? Did you get a decent funding package with your acceptance?

Best of luck to you! What's your background? I'm beyond ready for my FES decision. I've got a scholarship application that must be completed in full by the 15th and also signed by a financial aid officer of the institution I'll be attending, so time is not a luxury right now. Nonetheless, Friday will be here soon.

Weekends are lame. Mercifully, I'll know my fate this Friday. ... Still, the waiting never ceases to suck. I hope those of you still in limbo hear something soon.

I've got a crazy idea: don't go. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. And if you don't go, then those "alpha males" at HBS won't have to bear the sight of your Kennedy School self walking around. Thankfully you'll be them sparing such a disservice. If your career goal is MBB-level consulting or a job dripping in prestige, you should pursue the best MBA you can. If so, the entire "Government Affairs" subforum here isn't really appropriate for you.

For the environmental people out there... FES has apparently adopted a rolling admissions process this year, releasing some decisions the last 3 Fridays or so. All decisions will be released by March 8—one week from today. No idea if admissions offers were made today, as the Results board has yet to reflect any new entries. Similarly, the Nicholas School has sent out decisions through February and will presumably continue through mid-March, as has been their tradition. Has anyone heard from both schools? I was admitted to Nicholas in early February but was told that my application was still under review at FES and would not hear until March 8. I'm also unsure if FES has rejected applicants yet; perhaps all of the updates so far have been acceptances.

It was one e-mail. Most likely, nobody will remember it, and if they do, it won't be a big deal. You didn't look up their phone numbers and blow up their voicemails with creepy messages. You replied to an e-mail. Once. No harm done, really!

Firstly, you should remove the recommendation from your post. It's helpful for us to read it but you don't want anyone involved in the process to stumble upon it. Based on the content of the letter... you should explore your options. A fourth letter, particularly if you know it'll be as strong as you say, would be a marked improvement. This one isn't bad, but the length is quite unusual (looks like 150 words or so) and doesn't detail any specifics from their perspective or relay any anecdotes. While the tone is positive, the structure is that of a "did well in class" letter despite your research efforts.

What is your work experience in? Generally, admissions committees will give less credence to academic records the further you get from your time in school. Completing classes now and doing well is helpful, too. MPPgal is right in saying that most European programs are stricter with GPA requirements. Honestly, with a strong GRE score (to demonstrate your academic capabilities) and some environmental experience (in the short-term -- like a volunteering gig or internship), you could improve your chances for domestic programs. Any specific areas of environmental policy that interest you? That can also narrow it down.

The U.S. News rankings for this field -- and many fields, really -- aren't reliable. Neither of the environment schools at Duke or Yale are even included (e.g. it's Duke's public policy school listed in the Environmental Policy and Management subfield). SPEA at Indiana and SIPA at Columbia are fine, as are plenty of other programs, but the consensus top two are almost always F&ES at Yale and Nicholas at Duke.

The MSc in Environmental Change and Management at Oxford is probably the best program. Oxford has other environmental policy programs as well, namely the MSc in Nature, Society and Environmental Policy. That said, the former will offer more professional skills. And, if you would consider staying in the US, the best programs are at Duke and Yale.

Re: the MA in political science instead of applying directly to PhD programs. An MA would be useful if: 1) You didn't have a lot of research opportunities in undergrad. 2) Your research interests aren't fully developed as of yet and the MA would allow you to better explore your subfield(s). 3) It wouldn't cost much money due to initial low cost or an excellent funding package. 4) A fair amount of credits could be transferred to a doctoral program, so that your MA coursework wouldn't be redundant when you start the PhD. 5) You're absolutely sure you want to continue in academia. The MPA is a known quantity -- a professional degree that will set you up to enter the workforce with a strong network and marketable skills. (Though if your career path isn't crystallized yet, the benefits may not be as great). Given your GPA, you can go straight to doctoral admissions if you feel so compelled and articulate a clear direction in your personal statement. Sometimes applicants apply to MA programs to mitigate a mediocre undergrad record -- you have no such problem. For MA admissions, your GRE wouldn't be a deal-breaker, but for competitive PhD programs, a re-take would be wise.

3 years older than Nas when he dropped Illmatic and 5 years younger than Future.

More importantly, you need to decide which degree you'd like and why you need it. An MPA (or MPP) and MA in political science are entirely different. The MPA/MPP is a professional degree; the MA an academic one. As midnight streetlight mentioned, MPA programs will look for prior work experience demonstrated in your personal statement and resume. Your numbers look sufficient for most good programs. If you decide to re-take, however, hitting 160+ Q would be a priority. No shame in admitting your first effort wasn't under ideal conditions. I did it after poorly planning my first one and was pretty satisfied.

By "ranked lower," are you referring to the U.S. News and World Report Public Affairs rankings? if so, please don't put too much (if any) stock into them. Both GPPI and SPEA offer solid programs. 25K is a substantial difference, however—which one costs more? SPEA has a more structured and visible environmental policy focus, but GPPI likely presents similar opportunities and professors specializing in the field. GPPI would be a superior location due to all of the enviro organizations in D.C. when you're looking to land an internship. Based on the class profiles, I'd also say your peers at GPPI are a bit more academically qualified. Have examined what courses you'd be able to take at each school? At SPEA, would you pursue the MPA or the dual MPA/MSES?

Is this AutoAdmit? The last few posts are filled with anecdotal evidence and an apparent obsession with prestige.

As Herman Cain would say, "you're mixing apples and oranges." If the applicant pools for MBA and MPP/MPA programs were exactly the same, then you could make this judgment. Since that is not the case, there's no reliable method to determine how "tough" admissions to a program are for any given person.

The rules, effective from 2007 (the financial crisis) through the foreseeable future: 1) Do not attend law school if you do not plan to become a lawyer or enter a profession heavily, heavily oriented toward law. 2) Do not attend law school to gain "a well-rounded education and open up a number of career paths." That line of thinking was overstated to begin with, and now doesn't apply. 3) Frankly, don't go if it's not a T14 school. 4) If rule 3 is bypassed, don't go to a regional law school (such as some of the middle-tier state schools) without substantial financial support. 5) If you attend a regional school, plan to practice law in the region for the bulk of your career. You very likely will not be making "lawyer money." Those are the basics. Public policy degrees are useful, especially if you know why you want one and you come out of it with some marketable skills (read: quantitative) and connections. For me, in environmental policy, the best programs allow you to take courses at the law schools as well, so you could conceivably still get some relevant law training without the pain of a JD. Market-wise, the median salary for MPA graduates is probably lower across the board. However, the cost of an MPA is theoretically lower (2 years versus 3).

What's killing me at the moment is work for the summer. It's impossible to apply for these positions and internships until I know what I'll be doing in the fall and some of the deadlines are going to cut it very close relative to when admissions decisions will be released. This also includes outside scholarships, too -- can't apply for those with a bunch of nebulous plans and no information about where I attend. Basically, the next month or so will be brutal. ... Time to freeze myself, Cartman-style!

I agree with Takeruk. In addition, the nature of professional degree programs is not comparable to research-based programs. Students seeking professional degrees are very self-selected -- there must be a confluence of work experience, knowledge of field, career preparation, and all of the usual academic credentials. (This isn't to say that researchers aren't self-selecting... just demonstrating what characteristics professional students usually have). Also, professional degrees are structured entirely differently. For instance, the vast majority take 2 or 3 years to complete, and cohort sizes are pretty large. The ratio of school/departmental commitment to each student isn't the same as research-based programs; it doesn't have to be. Students don't apply to work with a specific advisor for 5-7 years. There's no way a department could handle 150 incoming doctoral students every year and fund them all. However, professional students are enrolled for career purposes and do not require the same level of interaction with faculty (after all, PhD students are essentially paid researchers of universities). Selectivity is a bit deceptive w/r/t grad programs, overall. For most programs with rigorous application processes (e.g. GRE scores, multiple letters of recommendation, substantive personal statements, etc.), the candidate pools are generally strong. Numbers aren't artificially inflated like undergraduate acceptance rates. Lastly, it's hard to assess how selective a program is if you only judge it within its university. If a professional program at Cornell accepts 50%, but the average for that field at other universities is 80%, now you see why the program is considered as elite, and can imagine the quality of applicants.

What's your maximum price range? Do you know your size? If you have somewhat definite answers to those 2 questions, you should be able to find something reasonable online (and we'll help!).

I submitted one, but only because the admissions representatives specifically said it can only help and not hurt. If you're in doubt, just shoot them an e-mail. And sometimes "diversity" can be a broad term. If you decide to do it (and, frankly, it's another chance to display your writing skills), frame it differently. Talk about unique experiences you have or unique viewpoints. Diversity doesn't necessarily connote physical characteristics or heritage. Talk about how you'd bring different perspectives to the program. Not belonging to a minority group shouldn't automatically preclude someone from writing a bit about their background.

Agree with moody -- I've never come across anything that links a lack of a digital footprint to lower admissibility. I'm the same, but plan on using LinkedIn once I'm in a program. In terms of "needing" a FB or Twitter account to get accepted, don't worry about it.

That is... bizarre. The rule of thumb regarding all standardized tests is to never list your scores on a resume, so why would ETS consider this a reasonable idea?

You've got the right idea already! I know full well how restrictive the word counts are, so don't dwell on what you don't have (after all, no applicant is perfect). Stick to the purpose of the statement: to convey how you would take advantage of what the program offers. Don't hesitate to speak in a confident tone. Given your lack of IR-related classes and work experience, you can research the programs thoroughly and construct a hypothetical course of study for yourself. Then, you simply integrate that into your statements -- and the admissions committee will realize that you've done your homework and formulated a focused plan.