MYRNIST

Dinged. Not heartbroken, it was my last choice among all the programs I applied to.

Dear God, thank you. I don't know how the perception got created that good SOPs involve some "touching" story from your childhood, using the word "passion" about 50 times a paragraph, and acting like a MPA/MPP degree is an emotional fulfillment quest rather than pragmatic professional training. I'm not arguing against fleshing it out with personal touches, but fundamentally you're saying I have skills/experience X, want career Y, and think [institution] has Z classes/professors/programs to make it happen. Not to mention the importance of "show, don't tell" - you want to tell the adcoms in flowery language how passionate and invested you are about your field, or point to specific real-world accomplishments that speak for themselves about your commitment?

I'd like to preface this by saying it sounds like you already have an awesome career, so don't take what I say as a slam - just that I think there is a major disconnect between your candidate profile and the schools you're applying for. Most of the schools you named (Princeton WWS, George Washington, SAIS, Fletcher) are among the very best in the world: truly global, elite programs. They would be major longshots. I strongly recommend including some good but not quite as selective institutions in your application plans - American SIS? Chicago CIR? Denver Korbel? etc. - since there are some holes in your profile. - Without any quant background whatsoever you are almost guaranteed out at SAIS, as fully half of your curriculum is high-level economics. It also will severely harm your chances at a lot of other schools, as elite MPA/MPP programs do require a fair bit of quant. I recommend taking some classes (online? community college? whatever) in Microeconomics, Macroeconomics, and Statistics. They will greatly help your competitiveness. - Quite low undergrad GPA is not helping - you're for sure going to be in the bottom quartile of applicants for all your planned schools. I understand your accident and sympathize, but unfortunately transcripts and GPAs don't come with an asterisk attached: they are what they are. You could explain it in your SOP, but I wouldn't recommend using that limited space to talk up your negatives. There often is an option in grad applications to attach an additional document, which would be a fine place to explain the circumstances contributing to your low GPA. This is yet another reason to take some part-time classes and ace them, to show positive academic progression. - Bust your butt studying for the GRE. Since you have been out of school for a long time, and do not have a particularly strong academic background, I think it is important to show you have the academic chops to go along with your unquestioned professional experience. In your situation Quantitative will be especially important, but luckily it is a highly masterable test - SOP will also be very important, as it is for all applicants. Polish, polish, polish. I think if you do the work to improve your profile (ace the GRE, take quant classes, killer SOP) you would be a great candidate for second-tier schools, and a live underdog at the elites.

If you haven't heard from SAIS yet, you definitely didn't get in. They're admitting a class of 1 this year, hadn't you heard? trollface.jpg

A sub 3.0 GPA will get you auto-rejected at most good schools, barring other aspects of your application being amazingly strong to compensate. Unfortunately yours are not - good but not great GRE, no real IR work experience, not particularly strong language background etc. If you want to get into good schools you have a lot of "make up" work to do. Study up and score higher on the GRE, get a relevant IR internship, take more classes, and maybe you'll get in somewhere better next year.

In at George Washington as well.

This isn't specifically directed at the above poster, but I find it hilarious how everyone always thinks their SOP is amazing. Either the bell curve for SOP quality is way to the right, or people are not very good at objectively evaluating their own writing.

Just got my acceptance letter from Pitt GSPIA, waiting to hear fin-aid results.

If you want hard numbers (not quite as authoritative as "fact", but for inherently subjective rankings "fact" is not really possible), check out: - admission rates (selectivity, in other words) - median GRE, GPA, etc. - median years of work experience - ranking of students' undergrad institutions - employment outcomes (lots of different statistics you could roll with here...) - endowment $ per student - % of class receiving external merit awards (PMF, Pickering, etc.) These will generally back up what JAubrey and I are saying. The biggest factor, and one that is not as easily quantifiable, is frankly you see a lot more really accomplished people with degrees from WWS/HKS/SAIS/GTSFS, than you do from Maxwell. Ditto for who is teaching. Look at alumni and faculty lists for all the mentioned programs - you will quickly notice one school is noticeably lacking in heads of state, CEOs, top diplomats, generals, etc. compared to the others. Work in DC and note where all the executives for your organization (and others) went to school; dollars to donuts it's one of the "elite" programs I mentioned. I'll repeat my stance lest I be accused of being a Maxwell hater: I think it is an excellent MPA program, but would strongly dispute that it is better than or equal to the elite schools.

1) US News and World Report rankings for MPA schools are, in a word, awful. Don't pay too much attention to a source that claims Syracuse is better than Princeton, Harvard, etc. As long as it's a reputable program I wouldn't worry about accreditation. 2) Prestige does matter in terms of getting a job, but it depends a lot on the field you're in. People with consulting experience have said it is a massive factor in even getting an interview. For the federal government, not so much. That said, I think you're putting the cart before the horse in how you're thinking about this issue. Do rankings, in and of themselves, matter for finding employment? Yes, but not that much. Do an institution's alumni network, brand name, career services, renowned/well-connected professors, and overall depth and breadth of education matter for finding employment? Hugely. And top-ranked schools are top-ranked because they objectively perform better on those metrics than lower-ranked schools.

This is not meant to be attacking, but you might want to think about how much your opinion is derived from the innate desire to justify your own decisions. If I remember correctly, you worked in a non relevant field (not to IR, at least) for a while coming out of undergrad, then moved to a foreign country for a couple years to work (not through a study abroad program), and will be entering school with like 5-6 years of experience. Your description of the ideal work experience / life track for IR graduate degrees is basically just a description what you did, and I don't think it's a coincidence. I recently read Mistakes Were Made, But Not By Me, which is by some eminent psychologists, and details just how universal and powerful the desire for self-justification is. I highly suggest reading it, because you will start to see it everywhere in both your own and others' behavior. For a relevant example, I think AW is the least important section of the GRE. Unsurprisingly, it is the section I did the worst on. I think HKS is overrated - I didn't apply there for financial reasons, and now am trying to convince myself I'm not missing out on anything. The human brain is innately programmed to cast our actions in the best possible light. Basically, just trying to say that while you are completely entitled to your own opinion, it is worth thinking about how your own biases cloud it. For what it's worth, I don't think 5 years is ideal, but I do agree on living in a foreign country. Can you guess which one I did, and which I didn't?

If you don't think even graduates of the two most elite schools on the planet should pursue consulting, who exactly do you think should? Martians? I agree with your general point (that it's a tough field to get into), but guess what, thousands of people do every single year. It's consulting, not the freaking Illuminati. You got in. JAubrey got in. I can name 5 different friends who got in, and most of them went to considerably less prestigious schools than Harvard and Princeton. Up and out means there are constant openings. Your statements about not taking on massive debt for a MPP/MPA degree are, IMO, completely correct regardless of your career path. I think OP would be a fool to take on big debt for grad school. But you really don't need to act like consulting is some completely unreachable goal even for elite applicants. Especially since my spider-sense tells me the reason you adopt this condescending jackass persona and hype up the difficulty is mostly to stroke your own ego. OP, even a 1600/4.0 Ivy grad applying for consulting will get boiling coffee hurled in their face and forcibly removed from the building. It's a secret society only accessible by superhuman paragons of awesome... LIKE MYSELF! Did I mention I worked in consulting? Oh, like 6 times? Whatever, talking down to people on the Internet gives me such a diamond cutter.

Second this. If this is what consulting is like - people endlessly feuding about the exact twists and turns their professional path took, rather than focusing on their deliverable skills like grown adults - I am even more glad I have no desire for that kind of work.

I live in China, so that 50/50 ratio you cite seems like a golden dream to me. I never get packages shipped from the U.S., and if I do, customs screwed with them.

Their difficulty in finding a job is also likely compounded by the fact that a lot of Chinese students seeking a U.S. education get in through admission coaches, professionally written SOPs, and flat-out falsifying letters of recommendation, transcripts, etc. So on paper they have all these skills and experiences that should get them a job, but not in reality. And before anyone tries to accuse me of being prejudiced, please note: 1) there is a lot of data to support this 2) I currently work in a Chinese school, and see this behavior every day.

Such as?

So in general I totally applaud and agree with your attitude, but I would dispute the above statement. Consulting firms (a desired employer for many people on here, apparently) often only hire out of certain top universities. Government agencies often have special hiring fairs + entry programs for their pipeline schools, which are usually the top ones in their field. That's not to even mention the massive role networking plays in getting jobs - no matter how often you cruise Monster or usajobs, the job you end up with is likely (statistically speaking) to be one you found through a human connection, which places a steep priority on alumni networks. The top schools are the top schools for a reason, they give you a massive leg up in terms of getting the job you want. So while it doesn't "hurt" you in a broad sense to go to a non-elite school, it does lower the odds you get the career you want. I'd also point out that for many of the jobs people on here want, there is a massive discrepancy between employment supply and demand - the WB, consultancies, State Dept., etc. all have way more applicants then they have jobs to fill. In that kind of employment market, stuff like your university's brand and alumni network becomes even more important. Not to say a non-elite MPA school is bad or anything, just need to adjust your professional expectations accordingly. I think the main thing is that the majority of posters on this forum are seeking international relations focused schools in hopes of an IR career. The list of MPA schools with an institutional focus on IR is relatively small, compared to those focusing on general non-profit / public management. So schools like Duke or Michigan, while solid schools for domestic-focused MPAs but not very renowned for their IR programs, don't get much play. Same thing for USC, Wisconsin, UNC, etc. All good schools, just not for professional IR degrees.

I hope schools have different WE requirements for different concentrations... as a Security Studies applicant, I feel it is vastly harder to get direct work experience in the field, as compared to applicants for int-dev, human rights, etc. There are a million different NGOs all over the world for those (more places to get hired) and relatively low barriers to entry (no security clearance, no government hiring process, etc.) Meanwhile, JSOC and intel agencies are not exactly keen on picking up 23 year olds. The above is definitely a self-serving viewpoint, because direct work experience is the only possible weakness in my profile. I have post-college work experience that is definitely applicable to the field (analytical positions, overseas, etc.) but haven't directly worked for any of the organizations I really want to (hence the whole point of going to grad school...) Hope I don't get dinged for that, since as I said, there are very high barriers to entry in the field. Not that I worry about it or anything... *facetwitch*

No, it makes sense. You're essentially arguing : 1. since non-elite schools cost so much less, their scholarships give more "bang for the buck" 2. non-elite schools have more money reserved for scholarships 3. public schools = in-state tuition 4. non-coastal locations = lower coast of living (obviously not applicable for a lot of programs). A lot of really important factors left out though (not your fault, schools are awful at giving detailed info on financial aid). A big factor to consider is class size, since it obviously affects how dispersed the scholarships are. TAMU has well over 500 students - Yale has like 30. Distribution between MA and PHD students, if applicable. TA positions available. etc. etc. Now if you'll excuse me I have some goats to sacrifice to Adcomminus, the dark god of graduate admissions - once He grants me a ticket to WWS in exchange for my eternal soul, all this fin-aid talk will be irrelevant. Yeah, my financial plan is a bit unorthodox.

You have sources or numbers for this understanding? Not attacking, serious question. I'd be very interested to see it, because this doesn't pass the smell test. (merit) Funding = a candidate's perceived quality relative to the school's median applicant. While some of the non DC/Ivy institutions are fine schools, I don't think it's controversial to say as a whole, they are not as good as the elites. So naturally the competition for financial aid is going to be a lot more fierce at the elite schools, but that doesn't mean they are stingy. My money would be on most MPA-IR schools having relatively similar financial aid stats, aka Ivy X and Southeastern State University both give out an average of 50% tuition scholarship to their top 20% applicants (just making those numbers up.) It's just that at Ivy X, you need to be a rockstar compared to elite candidates, whereas at Southeastern State you have to be a rockstar relative to a non-elite applicant pool. If you didn't get aid at a DC/Ivy and did at a "lesser" school, that doesn't mean one is stingy and one is generous, just means you're a fish changing the size of the pool it's swimming in. Go back through old admittance threads on this forum, and there are plenty of people getting great scholarships from DCs and Ivies. That's not to even mention that DC/Ivies typically have a larger endowment, more secondary and named scholarships, place more people in 3rd party scholarships (PMF, PRISP, etc.) With all that said, I could be totally wrong - hence wanting to see some hard facts on it.

Some better sites to ask on would be (forgive me if you already know about these): SailorBob - big SWO community AirWarriors - naval aviators forum Both have tons of members with very wide ranges of experience. If you ask in either of them, I am fairly certain you will find an answer, or someone who's been through it.

1) University of Phoenix 2) Walden University 3) Princeton

I know at least two people who were accepted, but never actually "placed" within that time limit and hence had to start the whole process over again (they all elected not to, and moved on).

Let me preface this by saying I didn't down-vote you... ...but that argument is pretty weak. You acknowledge that taking on a massive debt load to jump-start a career with poor ROI (no matter how personally rewarding one may find it) will make your life harder and close off many life doors, but assert that if it's "really what you want" that it will be "worth it." I would argue that just because you "want" something doesn't mean it's a good decision. People often want things they later end up regretting or changing their mind on - tattoos, cars, spouses. Part of being an adult (or at least a functioning one) is the ability to weigh your personal, often emotionally-driven desires with cold hard reality. That's true with things as relatively minor as what car you buy (yeah, you want the Bugatti, but you're going to get the Camry), and even more so for humongous life decisions. Using the logic of "I want to" can justify any decision. Let's weigh out the pros and cons of developing a 20-year long serious drug addiction. Yes, I know I will be giving away tons of my income for the next 20 years. Yeah, it will stop me from owning a home or even a decent apartment. Sure, I can't start a family, and none of my loved ones can ever depend on me for help. OK, I will be saddled with near-constant stress for the next few decades from juggling finances to feed an ever-hungry black hole. Fine, my life possibilities are incredibly narrowed. But it's what I want! ...until a emotionally satisfactory job isn't enough to compensate for all the other aspects of your life being total shit. (any of the above sound applicable to the debt situation, btw?) I'd like to note I'm not saying give up on your dream, just saying that massive debt isn't a very smart way to achieve it. You can find ways to get where you want without financially shooting yourself in the face.

Добро пожаловать на град-кафе! Где на Украине вы сейчас проживаете? Trying to enunciate an exact professional difference between the two degrees that would hold true for all schools is pretty difficult, and pointless. There are plenty of managers with MPPs, and plenty of analysts with MPAs. Not to mention different schools will cram different curricula under the same degree name (i.e. a MPA at Princeton =/= MPA at LBJ). I think it would be more productive for you to focus on finding programs with a really strong background in preparing people for non-profit work, and go for those (regardless of whether its an MPA or MPP). Non-profits are way out of my batting zone, sorry I can't offer program suggestions.