MYRNIST

The first question is unanswerable. I found a good website for the second though: http://bit.ly/ZwLr5P

Very little. They are prestigious enough where they can get a high yield percentage without offering aid, i.e. lots of people are willing to pay 100k+ for a SAIS education. Ditto for Georgetown.

For this post, I'm assuming we're talking about general merit scholarships, not diversity or service veteran ones. I think the most important thing is the strength of your profile relative to other admits. My general impression from talking to admissions people is that you need to be one of the very top applicants to get a merit scholarship. Although there are a lot of variables that go into determining what a "top" applicant is, it is fair to assume that undergrad GPA, GRE scores, foreign language proficiency, work experience, etc. all play a big role. Given that, you can maximize your chances of getting money by applying to schools where your profile is stronger (by the aforementioned metrics) than most other applicants. That might mean applying to lower ranked schools, since even if you get accepted at a top ranked school you have a lower chance of getting money. If you have a 3.8 GPA and 1400 GRE, you stand a much higher chance at getting aid at a school where the median is a 3.3 and 1250 than at one where your 3.8 and 1400 are average. For a personal example, my aid experiences followed this trend. I got rejected at Yale + Georgetown + WWS, given moderate aid (15-20k) at Tufts and SAIS, full ride at Pitt GSPIA, and full ride + stipend at GW-Elliott. The GW part throws it off a bit, since its just as good as Tufts or SAIS, but in general my finaid was correlated with the ranking of the school. You can look at my stats if you want, but I don't think they by themselves matter - it's all about your competitiveness relative to other applicants at a particular school.

My morale is on the floor? My country is on the verge of internal disaster? Glad to see you've given up on even pretending to have something productive to say.

Don't take me too seriously. My opinion means nothing - the only opinion that does matter is the adcoms, and they might think completely differently. If money isn't a problem, you have nothing to lose by applying. That said, I think you would be an awesome candidate with a little bit of IR work experience and a class or two to show academic improvement. Any interesting organizations in your area you could volunteer for? Colleges with affordable night classes?

I hate to do this because it makes it look like I'm beating up on the OP (who would be a great candidate after getting some WE and taking some classes to show academic improvement), but this is just too stupid to let pass. You are arguing that an IR adcom trying to assess OP's ability to thrive in an professional graduate program isn't going to factor in his previous experience in a professional graduate program? That they will ignore or look kindly upon a downward trend in academic performance from undergrad to grad school? Both of those make no sense and go against common admission practices. Talk to any ad rep and they will tell you all post high-school academic experience is fair game, and that showing a positive progression is extremely important. Reading comprehension fail. Look at my post again. I said no one is going to get admitted at an elite school with "BOTH a sub 3.0 GPA and no IR work experience." Your anecdote about your friend is irrelevant - he clearly has great international work experience that compensates for his low grades. Similarly, there are plenty of kids fresh out of college with amazing grades but little professional experience getting elite admits. I stressed the both part because you absolutely can make up for weakness in one area with strength in another. But no one is getting into an elite school with poor grades and zero IR-relevant work experience, which is OP's situation. This is just funny. I know AUB, and it is a good school for people looking to study in the Middle East. But you are talking about it like it's some insane global powerhouse, which it isn't. Even if it was, there is no school so prestigious that it overcomes bad grades, negative progression, and a total lack of applicable work experience. You could Borg meld all the Ivy Leagues into a shining paragon of academe, and it still wouldn't. Nevermind, I forgot my opinion is invalid because I wasn't "their" in 2006.

Probably best to call individual schools and ask. That said, I think you have nothing to worry about and have great WE for an aspiring ID person. Keep in mind work experience doesn't necessarily have to be actual IR to be IR-relevant. What do I mean? If you want to work in international development, doing essentially that kind of work but within US borders (which I assume your Americorps and Red Cross stuff was) is definitely pertinent to your application, and should be a bonus. It's development, just not international. As long as you can clearly and convincingly show in your SOP how a particular work experience will help build your IR-career, it's relevant. Also, a 3 month gap is nothing. If it was 3 years, maybe you would have a reason to worry.

1) I challenge you to find any people, whether on this forum or otherwise, admitted to a top-tier school (Georgetown, SAIS, Elliott, SIPA) with BOTH a sub 3.0 GPA and no IR work experience. I'd bet an internet nickel you don't find a single one. And the admission statistics these schools publish back me up. 2) It is irresponsible and unhelpful to misrepresent OP's admission chances at the mentioned schools. Falsely act as though those are realistic targets --> OP wastes time and money applying, and most likely goes o-fer. Be a "Debbie Downer" (I would say realist) --> OP can either apply to less selective schools* where they would have a much better shot, or improve their profile (get more work experience, take some classes, etc.) and work their way into a top-tier admit a few years down the road. I think the second one is a lot more productive and helpful than blowing sunshine at people. *OP, look at Institute of World Politics and Maryland - both are in the DC area and are decent IR programs you would be much more competitive at.

Slim to none. Your grades are bad and you have no IR work history. You might be able to squeeze into a lower tier school off of GRE scores and a great statement of purpose + recommendations, but you just named 4 of the top 5 IR schools in the country.

Most good MPP schools (Georgetown, GW, HKS, WWS, SAIS) all have 1-2 year masters degrees for mid-career professionals. But, you already have a masters, so I'm not sure how much good it would do you, whereas a PHD would be a step up. And as far as the PHD goes, I'll reiterate: In the US, program duration less than 3 years, academically reputable. Pick 2 out of 3.

Try thinking of it this way: you can either a. get a more practical degree (MPA, MPP, MBA, etc.) that gives you a professional skill-set valued by many employers, but doesn't give you a predefined European specialty. Develop said European specialty through work experience; take your fancy new degree and get a job at the European section of the World Bank, State Department, Booz Allen Hamilton, etc. b. get an area studies degree that certifies you as knowledgeable about a region, but doesn't train you for practical professional skills: balance a budget, analyze a policy issue, manage an organization. Try to find and land a job at aforementioned institutions: at the World Bank with no economics training, at a national security think tank with no federal budgetary process training, etc. As is obvious, I think you will have a hard time with the second. Detailed knowledge of a region is not professionally valued in isolation - it is always contingent on trying to get something done, whether it be banking or education policy or espionage. If you don't bring some sort of practical skill to the table to complement your European knowledge, it will be rough sledding. Basically, there are no organizations (outside the ivory tower) that exist solely for intellectual pleasure of studying Europe. There are lots of organizations that sell things in Europe, work with European governments, provide military defense for Europe, and so on. Get whatever professional skill you find the most interesting/marketable, and carve out a European specialty through work experience. It will be a lot easier than doing the opposite.

I don't know the structure of Indian academia, but at the vast majority of American universities it is simply not possible to get a (reputable) PHD in 2-3 years. When you say RAND is much shorter, are you factoring in how long it will take to do your dissertation? Because that is the single largest time investment of a graduate program, and the most variable. It is very common to get through your core classes in a few years, and then spend just as much time over again (or longer) grappling with the dissertation. This can be even more prolonged if you are making a shift from the "real world" into the peculiar mix of heavy research+backroom politics that is the American Ivory Tower (which will presumably be new territory, and could take a period of adjustment). The fact that the CHYMPS schools you mentioned, and indeed virtually all International Relations PHD programs in the US, typically have a 5+ year commitment, should give you an idea that that is the norm. And RAND is a rare exception. So you may need to develop some flexibility in your plans: either by looking into non-US PHDs (which are often shorter), or setting aside more time for graduate study (if possible). Taken from the other thread you posted, but relevant: The reason RAND is a 3 year program is that it's not an academic-focused program. What do I mean? Typically, PHD programs in the US are geared towards producing alumni capable of conducting research and teaching at the university level, i.e. professional academics. RAND has a decidedly more professional / practitioner focus. It is designed to produce people who can do a variety of jobs requiring policy analysis: consultant, think tank researcher, etc. But it is not really geared towards academia, at least not as much as traditional PHD programs. So, I would characterize it as less "academically rigorous", for lack of a better term; you're not going to see many alumni in university teaching and research positions. This might be a problem, because... ...you mentioned getting a teaching job as one of the main goals of your PHD. I have no idea about how university hiring, tenure-track, etc. works in India, so I will refrain from commenting on whether a traditional "long" PHD is necessary to teach at an Indian university (it definitely is in America). Just bringing it to your attention.

Georgetown is quite stingy as well.

As far as general perception of Security Studies programs go, Korbel is a solid second-tier choice. Problem is you are paying elite money for it, and the location isn't great. TAMU Bush is 3rd or 4th tier. Some other security programs, figure out if any fit your goals and personal situation: Georgetown (Security Studies) GW Elliott (Security Policy Studies) Johns Hopkins SAIS (Strategic Studies) Pittsburgh GSPIA (Security + Intelligence Studies) Monterey (non proliferation program is excellent) Missouri State (don't laugh, they have a Department of Defense and Strategic Studies located in Fairfax, VA.) Maryland (Security + Intelligence Program) Syracuse Maxwell, Cal State San Bernadino, University of New Mexico (the 3 federally sponsored National Security Studies [NSS] programs) Word of caution, some of these programs are designed more as finishing schools for people already in the national security pipeline (i.e. military/DoD/IC person who just needs a masters degree to become eligible for a raise under the federal wage system), as opposed to people going to school to try to get a start in the community.

For anyone looking for more information on how the security clearance process works, and how you can best prepare for it: this is a professionally written guide put out by ClearanceJobs (a large job search service for cleared professionals). It covers most anything you, as an applicant, need to know. On their website they have a wealth of additional information. Hope this helps.

I would echo what Charlotte said about filling out your EQuip ahead of time. Not only will it make you better prepared, it also will hopefully let you identify and eliminate any perceived conflict of interest ahead of time (rather than letting the investigators find it.) Part of a family trust fund held in Pakistan? Stand to inherit money/land from there? etc. When I filled out my SF-91 (basically the same thing), I found several minor things like that I never even thought of before. I also would say that the traveling abroad as an undergrad is what you should be least concerned about. The nature of universities means there is an extensive paper trail documenting when, why, with who, etc. you did things with. Not that they won't look into it (obviously they will), but it's clearly above-ground and legit. What freaks investigators out (this is direct from a family friend in the FBI who works in background checks) is long unexplained trips, few/sketchy references, and circumstances where the host country gained some monetary or emotional leverage over you (fell in love with a foreign national and moved there, long-time foreign employee, etc.)

I think Charlotte's idea is excellent. A lateral transition using OPs skills in the IR arena is very cool and very possible. To the people protesting against JAubrey and I: I think you are confusing getting into a security studies graduate program, and actually having a shot at a career in the field. I have no doubt the OP is passionate, intelligent, etc. and could probably get into a second or third tier SS program based on those attributes, despite the lack of experience. The issue is getting a job after that degree. And it simply isn't going to happen for someone with zero work experience in the field, coming from a not very good program. Even for aforementioned SSP and peer-school grads, it probably won't happen without relevant work experience. Which is where the age thing comes in; while late 20s isn't old in the grand scheme of things, is old to be working full-time unpaid internships or shuffling papers at a think tank's front desk, which are quasi-mandatory steps most people take to break into defense studies. I mean, if OP is truly dedicated I guess she could try... but I don't know that would financially swing either with grad school loans or with the bills (car? spouse? kids?) many people accumulate in their 30s. No matter how supportive people want to be, it is a disservice to OP to pretend that a MA (low-ranking to boot) can somehow overcome the otherwise total lack of academic or professional experience, and walk into a DoD or IC job. That is completely ludicrous, and suggesting otherwise indicates an unfamiliarity with the situation. Honestly, if OP is honestly and truly 100% committed to working in defense/intelligence analysis, joining the military would be the best option.

With no academic or professional background in anything international affairs related, and being a relatively advanced age, trying to start the sort of IR career you mentioned is very unlikely to be successful. I don't think you would be competitive for most decent IR grad schools. Even if you did get into one, you might be in an even worse employment situation upon graduation. Organizations generally don't hire people in their 30s with a masters degree for entry level positions, which is the level you would need to go in on (given the aforementioned lack of academic or professional experience). There also is far more supply of people wanting to work in international relations than there are jobs (as it is a relatively attractive profession). Even for people who majored in such things in college, I would say it is the norm to have to work some unpaid internships and some pretty low level jobs for a few years, get a masters from a good school, and only then start to work on things that are actually the sort of cool stuff people envision as being IR (the stuff I assume you thought about sitting in the WW2 bunkers). So the overall timeline to get a career actually established is about 6-8 years. I don't think that's desirable or doable for your situation. If we're talking intelligence and strategy, then there are even higher barriers to entry, since the majority of the jobs in the field are with the federal government. Security clearance requirements, cumbersome hiring process, and government budget cuts = take everything I just said and multiply it. Lastly, this is a bad idea ESPECIALLY since you are talking about going to grad school to try to make this career switch. Paying off big student loans will fuck with your life in so many ways, and could make working jobs below a certain salary threshold financially impossible (which rules out the sort of jobs you have to initially take to get established in IR). Apologies for splashing cold water in your face, but I think it's needed.

Then OP is hamstringing themselves. 99.9% people in the world have zero personal investment in your happiness or feelings. A good percentage of that number will not spend the effort to make information emotionally palatable as possible for you. If you decide to only listen to people who are kind and sensitive to total strangers, you are massively limiting your exposure to new, often important information. The same quality that makes people expert in a field and hence well-worth listening to (devotion to truth + knowledge over feelings and "truthiness") often means they are not the gentlest souls around. Obviously there are exceptions and I certainly am not advocating for being an asshole, but in my experience most of the truly expert people I've met are not very "nice" on an inter-personal level. The Fields Medal winner, the Cabinet member, etc. are typically thinking about their work, not your feelings.

Agree x 1000. I think many GradCafers confuse being supportive, and being sycophantic. People telling you you are a special little snowflake and YAY you'll get into all your schools and WOOO aren't we supportive does absolutely nothing to improve your chances of getting into grad school, which I maybe mistakenly assumed is the main goal of most posters. There is no box to check on grad apps to indicate MPAGrad87 quoted you and said Nice job! : ) People identifying what you are doing wrong, and telling you about it DOES improve your chance at grad school success, as long as you are not so sensitive that you can't accept any negative feedback. If your SOP sucks and someone identifies this, you can fix it and improve your chances. If you are not competitive for the schools you're applying for, and someone identifies this, they maybe just saved you from an oh-fer. Whether the advice is kind or blunt, it is still helping you in ways the sunshine+puppy kisses of "supportive" posters do not. I would 10 times out of 10 rather have someone rudely but accurately tell me what I am doing wrong (so I can fix it), than someone kindly but inaccurately cheerlead for me (so I can stumble into failure.)

Previous Schools：University of Michigan Previous Degrees and GPAs: Double major in Political Science and Russian Studies. 3.8 GPA. GRE Scores: V 800 / Q 770 / AW 4.5 Previous Work Experience: 2 years (by fall 2012, when school starts). 1 year unrelated corporate stuff, 1 year teaching English in China, multiple analytical internships throughout both years. I assume we're not counting undergraduate stuff, because I did a boatload of IR-relevant things then as well. Math/Econ Background: Stats, Micro, Macro, some data modeling courses Foreign Language Background: Russian (professionally fluent), Mandarin Chinese (intermediate) Intended Field of Study in Grad School: Security Studies Schools Applied to & Results: Princeton WWS MPA (rejected), Yale Jackson MA (rejected), Georgetown MA Security Studies (rejected), Tufts Fletcher MALD (accepted + $), SAIS MA Strategic Studies (accepted + $), Pittsburgh GSPIA MA Security + Intelligence Studies (accepted + $), GW Elliot MA Security Policy Studies (accepted + $) Ultimate Decision & Why: GW Elliott. Why? I got a full ride + stipend to go there. It has a dedicated Security Policy Studies degree, which is more in line with my interests and goals than a generalist IR degree. It's in DC. Literally the only option that could have competed with GW would have been a fully-funded Georgetown admit, which didn't happen (not even close, haha). Very easy decision. Advice for Future Applicants: Get started early (like a year ahead of time). The more time you allow yourself to research your schools, get recommenders, polish your SOP, and double-check that all admission materials have been received, the better your chances are. On that note, double-check EVERYTHING - GRE scores received by university, transcripts received, pre-reqs met, recommenders submitted their stuff, fin-aid deadlines, etc. Then triple-check it. There are horror stories of people on this forum whose stuff got lost, and application thrown out. As much as you care about your application, the people handling it (low-level university functionaries, often recent grads) do not. I highly recommend making a spreadsheet to keep track of all this stuff. Bust your butt studying for the GRE. There really is no reason not to. It's a highly masterable test - all it measures is your ability to prepare for the questions they ask. Based on an admittedly small sample size of 1, it makes you more competitive for fin-aid. I got significant funding at every school I was admitted to (including several full rides), and I think the GRE was a major part of this. Get work experience before you apply. Get work experience before you apply. Get work experience before you apply. Ge... okay I'll stop now, but based on what admission representatives have said, and the admission results of people on this forum, WE is a vital part of your package. Don't neglect it. It doesn't have to be 100% relevant (if you were already doing what you wanted to, why would you want to leave the field to go to grad school), but it should improve your skill set in some way. Could be foreign language, could be budgeting + management, whatever. Spend at least 100 hours on your SOP. Preferably more. Write them, polish them, have others edit them, personalize them to each school. Show your commitment to the field by highlighting relevant experiences, instead of telling them about it. I personally found it very useful to make every sentence in my SOP belong to one of three baskets. 1) What you have already accomplished and why. My work at Alphacorp directly engaged my interest in international development. Experiences like managing a project to create accessible drinking wells in drought-ridden areas of Mali confirmed my belief that public service, not fame or riches, must be the axis of my career. 2) What you want to do in the future and why. Although my work in the field was invaluable education in the realities of international development, it also left me wanting more. Creating high-level policy would allow me to address more of the issues facing Mali than working in the field. I want to transition from a practitioner to a planner in order to create widespread change. 3) How University X will SPECIFICALLY build upon past experiences (point #1), and prepare you to achieve your future goals (point #2) University X's curriculum closely matches my professional plan. Development-focused classes such as X and Y will give me a more focused and relevant education than a generalist degree. I particularly relish the chance to work with Professor John Doe, whose experience leading the Africa section of USAID is exactly the sort of career I hope to achieve. No stories about when you were 8 and how thuper thuper passionate you have been about the field since then. No hokey inspirational quotes ("excellence is a habit, not a virtue..."). No "Webster's Dictionary says 'public service' has this meaning but really I think it's this." Where you've been, where you want to go, how University X will get you from point A to point B. That's it.

I will be at George Washington, so similar housing dilemma. I am looking at getting a 1 bedroom apt. for me and my girlfriend in the Northern Virginia suburbs (Roslyn, Arlington, etc.) Rent seems to be more affordable, and as long as it is next to a metro the commute is actually shorter than living in some of the popular northern DC neighborhoods (Woodley, Cleveland, etc.), since Foggy Bottom is right across the river from VA. Any suggestions on cool neighborhoods and areas to look? I am mostly concerned about not ending up in a suburban 2.5 kids + picket fence area, or in a undergrad party zone. Young professionals would be great...

Thanks for the interesting take. It also serves to confirm that while in reality SS might be a well-supported, relevant program with good professional prospects, SAIS does a horrible job of marketing it. The website, brochures, chats, etc. all gave a strong impression of it being, at best, a sideline institution to the finance+econ stuff. In that sense your statement about SS' lack of presence in SAIS Voices is not at all surprising. I am curious, why do you think this shunning is a good idea? Because touting up its US + national security ties would scare off international students?

I'm not JAubrey, but it means Third Tier Toilet. Harsh, but true.

The reason there's no advice is because there isn't that much to say. You applied to a bunch of non-IR focused schools. Yet you want to not just do IR, but a quite specific branch of IR. Unsurprisingly, your options are not very good. Goldman and UCLA are not IR-focused. LBJ is a solid school for US applicants, but has about zero name recognition in China. If you can do CMU DC track, that might be the best since it's a legit IR program with the DC networking factor, but they are not particularly known for transnational security issues or Asian Studies. If you feel like re-applying next year for programs more in line with your interests... Georgetown, Elliott, Tufts, etc. all have good classes and faculty for transnational security issues, into which trafficking and immigration would fall. They also have enough China specific classes that you could probably carve out a curriculum focusing on your preferred topic (trafficking/immigration + China). SAIS has an amazing Asian Studies program, check them out as well.