fall09

Point in case, I got 590 on my vocab. and 630 on my quant and got into LSE - MPP, Columbia-SIPA,MIA and Georgetown-MSFS. I did however not get into KSG and WWS and largely blame it on the GRE. If you have good college grades, solid work experience and can produce and excellent personal statement and/or policy memo, you stand as good a chance as anyone. Also, if you do have a weaker GRE make sure you've taken the micro/macro prerequisites most schools ask for before you apply and that you ace them.

I had a similar dilemma as you do choosing between SIPA and MSFS. In fact, when I was still in the application process, I considered SAIS. I know it is a great school and it gets a lot of good press. But the thing that turned me off SAIS, and this is an entirely personal impression, was that I only ever met SAIS students who went there straight out of grad school (they were all international students, perhaps its different with US students). I also place great emphasis on quant. training and I think both schools are equally good for this. The difference being that at SAIS a lot of the core courses are quant. oriented while at SIPA you have more flexibility which also means you can take more quant. if you would like to. In terms of geography I had the exact same dilemma as you. Granted, DC has great internship opportunities but I want to be in DC even if I don't see myself living in DC long-term? Given that Columbia is in NY I decided that it actually offers a better mix of private and public sector internship opportunities. Finally, the SIPA rumors about bureaucracy. This was a HUGE concern to me when I decided between the two schools and I spoke to a number of people (staff, current students, alumni) about it. First, I totally admit that the admissions office has serious issues when it comes to forthcomingness and openness and they need to get their act together in this regard. But the faculty is not reflected by its admissions staff. I for instance bombarded my programme coordinator with questions and she was extremely helpful. An alumni friend of mine who now works for the World Bank told me the following. The MIA programme is a big programme so you won't get the personal attention you get in other programmes. Not all professors will know your name after two years. But all faculty members are really open, helpful and will make time for you, so it is a matter of you choosing which ones you want that know your name by the end of the programme aka you work closely with. As for "applying" to courses; yes there are some courses for which you have to write a line or two, explaining why you want to take that class. From the three alumni I spoke to about this, they all told me that they did not know anyone who didn't get into a course they really wanted to get into. Also, my programme coordinator told me she does not know of an econ. class that you have to apply for. I personally chose SIPA because I felt that it gave me more flexibility in terms of course choices, as I want to do a lot of policy-related courses with an international angle and a solid quantitative foundation. Also, I am considering pursuing a PhD for which SIPA definitely is preferable over MSFS and perhaps SAIS?

I got my BSc from LSE and while this is not the same as an MA, there are some common points that may help you. First, LSE is very well recognised in the US and has served as a door opener on many occasions. Second, there is a considerable discrepancy between MA programmes (in the IR or public policy/affairs fields) in Europe and the US in that European MA's tend to be more theoretical than the US ones. So while I would highly recommend an MA at LSE if you are looking for a more theoretical degree similar to the IR MA at Yale, I wouldn't if you are looking for a more practical programme comparable to the MA at Georgetown's SFS. Third, if you are worried about the fact that it is a one-year programme, I wouldn't. The programmes are very rigorous and I frequently hear from people expressing their disappointed with the academic depth in comparable US programmes, but again, this is likely to be down to the difference in the nature and focus of the programmes.

I disagree on two grounds: first, I generally would argue that GPPI is the better programme and within the context of your dilemma I think it offers a better network and the better internship opportunities that thus may lead to better job options once you graduate. Of course this is somewhat subjective. Secondly, and more importantly, you say it was your top choice all along. I say go for the school your heart is set on, go with your gut. For all the logic and objectivity in the world, if you go against your gut instinct you are more likely to think back and going "what if".

Younglions - I worked for a microfinance organisation in Latin America and am now, still in Lat Am, doing a related impact evaluation study sponsored by two multilateral organisations. I agree with you entirely that a lot of research in microfinance is still needed. And I would go so far as to say that the current hype around microfinance and commercial investment poses a threat to the objective of microfinance due to the lack of academic knowledge but also inclusive regulation. But when you say "comprehensive" what do you mean exactly? The complexity not only of microfinance, its potential effects (or lack thereof) but poverty itself makes a comprehensive study quite a challenge to say the least. I'd be interested in knowing what areas of microfinance you are interested in in terms of research/academia. I am interested in how to measure social capital in microfinance, but also if and how financial empowerment can lead to a more active civil society and thus democratisation.

Previous Schools (Name, type, or tier): London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) Previous Degrees and GPA's: BA, International Relations (upper 2:1) GRE Scores (Verbal/Quantitative/Analytical Writing): 510/580/4.5 Previous Work Experience (Years, Type): 1 year political communications, 2 years Foreign Office (in UK & Argentina), 1 year microfinance-related work in Peru. Math/Econ Background: Micro,Macro summer courses at LSE Foreign Language Background: Fluent in English (not mother tongue), German, Spanish, Swedish. Proficient in French. Intended Field of Study in Grad School: Economic and democratic development at micro-level (fairly rigorous quant. training). Long Term Professional Goals: Working for a policy think tank/consultancy on sound (foreign) investment in emerging markets, democratisation and civil society. Schools Applied to & Results: LSE - MPP (Accepted) Georgetown - MSFS (Accepted) WWS (Rejected) HKS - MPP (Rejected) SIPA - MIA (Accepted Ultimate Decision & Why: SIPA - MIA. I declined LSE early on because I had been an undergraduate there and was looking for a different academic experience (it was my safety net). The hard bit was deciding between MSFS and SIPA. SIPA suffered a lot of bad press (big programme, less selective, impersonal) lately which made me insecure about the programme. MSFS is a great programme but somewhat narrow in its focus and courses they offer, and structured around internships to a degree that had me worry that academic rigour would suffer. I decided against MSFS because it is first and foremost a foreign service/IR degree and I am looking for more quantitative training in my core courses as well as quite a heavy policy curriculum (I am thinking of switching to the SIPA MPA). Finally, MSFS is a very practical degree (visible both through their faculty and programme structure) but pretty much a dead-end for people considering doing a PhD sometime in the future. Also, when I started bombarding SIPA staff (programme coordinators, admissions office) with questions, they were forthcoming and helpful, nothing like the things I heard about it.

If anyting, I'd separate Public Policy and IR program threads. I've noted that in many dicussions about the pros and cons of schools, the fact that some are policy oriented and other are IR schools is ignored and thus some critique or praise is not necessarily justified (in that context). Having said that, I also agree with earlier comments that one can self-select discussions.

Are you dead-set on getting your MA right out of school? I just want to mentio to you, if State Dep. or UN are your job goals, you should really get at least two years of work experience before doing an MA. I really can't stress this enough. Not only will you get into better programmes, you will have a better network to help you reach your professional goals. Plus, theses agencies are not known to recruit graduates with no work experience.

Actually for the MIA, SIPA accepted between 25-30% this year, not 40%. I got this info from the Admissions Office. But I agree that they are not very selective. I may well attend SIPA (still deciding) but I met some people at the open day that were unimpressive at best. Very disappointing.

"Something's up with the student body"? You mean either they are just born with inferior intellects or individual students are bullied into performing poorly due to some form of peer pressure? Please don't venture into education or welfare policy. Please pretty please?

If with "private field" you are referring to the private sector, than I would say no. However, it all depends on your previous education and work experience. I was at the open day last week and have studied the (MSFS) programme extensively. There is definitely a larger percentage of national and international students that go into the Foreign Service than at most other IR/policy schools. But there is also a fair amount of people who go into other public sector jobs and some 20% (I think) opt for the private sector.

I have to agree with Linden. I think some of the critique, especially that it is "too general" is laughable. Part of the beauty of the WWS MPA is that you can acquire a broad range of skills or focus on your chosen field of interest, any case in which you'll have excellent employment opportunities due to its network and brand name. As for the WWS student idealism; I was there last week to visit some friends who are in the programme (I myself applied and did not get accepted). Yes you can call them naive idealists, but if you seriously want to make an impact as a public servant (and let's face it, this is what they're looking for in an application) don't you have to be a little naive and a tad insane? Oh wait, I'm stirring up a realism/liberal debate...

Was this a private sector position? Could you specify on the sector (banking, consulting, multinational org.)?

I agree with you that they won't ignore you but there are lots more SIPA graduates than MSFS or SAIS graduates. Someone said to me I should do MSFS because there were "too many SIPA graduates out there". Is that justified? Class size is exactly my concern as well. When you say that you chose SIPA over other schools, would you mind sharing with us which ones they are?

I am no expert but am guessing that the 25-35% increase in this years MPP applications is pretty much down to i-bankers looking for a change of career. At least this has been my experience while working for a microfinance NGO, where the sudden change of heart of so many bankers went hand in hand with the ensuing economic crisis. This may be different by next year, but you are likely to compete with a lot of people with similar backgrounds and I would suggest to get some experience that shows that you are serious about public service before applying.