MYRNIST

Not to interrupt this very entertaining Internet slapfight, but is the above really that much of a concern? Do adcoms really go trolling through forums hoping to find their candidates? And even if they do, why would a candidate putting in extra time and work trying to get educated about grad school be interpreted negatively? I mean, this place is just discussion of schools and the admissions process, not like we're plagiarizing SOPs or something.

For me personally? No school is worth that much debt. I am going for a IR-related masters that's really only an employable degree within the federal government and its contractors. That means my list of potential employers is fairly small, and future earnings not particularly lucrative, and security clearances an issue to keep in mind. So, 100k of debt would be an extremely poor decision in multiple ways. If I don't get the grants/scholarships I need to hit my magic number, I'll work to improve my resume and re-apply next year. I also only applied to schools that either A: have a strong track record of placing people in the careers I want B: give great scholarships C: both. For others? Depends on your situation. If you want to work in the private sector or for a big-time NGO, and plan on getting a very employable degree from a good school (MPP? MPA-ID? etc.), taking out a lot of money in the hope of increasing your future earnings can be a good move. I guess my big issue is people are ludicrously optimistic in forecasting their future careers - hey, once I get that MBB consulting gig/World Bank position/HF political risk advisor, I'll have no trouble paying off student loans! Surprise, all these jobs are very competitive and difficult to get - even if you do get one eventually, it might take a few post-graduation years to get there. Think paying off your 100k of loans is going to be fun then? SenatorSmith is completely right in saying it's all about a managed risk. Fundamentally all of us are making a bet that taking out some debt for education will get us the career and salary we desire. I just think a lot of people are not very cold-headed about assessing the nature of that risk. If your financial plan involves immediately getting your dream job, it's not a very good plan. If you haven't assessed your skills and experience and likely employment outcome relative to how much debt you're taking on, you're not doing due diligence. I'm not saying if you go to school X you only should take out Y amount of debt, I'm arguing in general for people to actually do some research and self-evaluation before loading up on debt (the first post in this thread is a great example). This seems obvious, but judging from the naivete and optimism of a lot of GradCafe posters, it isn't.

Re-applying after non-admission usually carries an expectation that you did something to improve yourself as a candidate. If you demonstrated in your SOP that, even though you didn't change jobs, you gained new skills and experience relevant both to grad school and your future career, you have as good a shot as anyone at HKS admission (aka a very small one). Maybe even better than most, since you've shown them you really want to go there. If you just sent the same application as last year without spelling out how you improved, I would say you wasted time and money in re-applying.

In addition to the fine thoughts already posted (don't know % employed; cherry-picked self-reported HKS stats; etc.) I have a few more objections. 1) 100k of debt for a Harvard professional degree (be it a MPP, JD, MBA, whatever) is probably not crazy. It's a bit of a calculated risk, but the sheer prestige, networks, and quality of education it grants are very real, and should fast-track your career. But 100k of debt for a non-elite MPP/MPA, which apparently many people are willing to do, is absolutely insane. It's taking a massive gamble that a degree not known for large financial rewards will somehow do just that. I mean, I personally probably wouldn't even take that risk even for a Harvard degree; doing it for an American or Syracuse (or wherever, not picking on them) degree without that prestige/networks/quality is really pushing it. 2) It's easy to optimistically plan repaying 100k of student debt when you are sitting behind a computer screen as a very young (<25), unmarried, childless, and house-less person (which I am guessing applies to many posters here). Hey, I only have basic living expenses, a cheap lease, and an internet connection to pay for! But if you want to get married, buy a house, have a kid, take care of your parents as they get old and sick, or assume any other "grown up" financial duties as you get older, that 100k of debt could become a millstone around your neck. It could financially force you to maintain a student-esque lifestyle of small apartments and no family long after it stops seeming free and liberating, and starts to feel like your life is on hold. 3) Getting that much debt could, for a lot of people, actually destroy the dream career they went to grad school to pursue. Specifically, heavy debt is one of the most common reasons for denial of U.S. government security clearance, which is necessary to do many of the cool IR-related jobs in the federal government. The vast majority of spies, traitors, etc. in the USG have done it not out of ideology or family connections, but for cold hard $$$. Struggling to meet a massive monthly student loan bill (or credit card debt, or whatever) makes you a much larger risk to betray secrets for money, and hence not a good target for TS or TS-SCI. How much of a double nut punch would it be to take on 100k of debt just to definitively close off your desired career path?

Disclaimer: the above is by no means a complete explanation of the financial logic of admissions, there are a lot of factors I left out for brevity's sake.

It isn't a strict yes and no answer. In order to keep their finances sustainable, universities need a certain percentage of students to pay their own way. That percentage depends on a lot of factors like class size, university endowment, whether it's a public or private school, etc. This doesn't mean the student literally has to have $100k sitting in the bank; they just need to have funding secured that doesn't come from the school's pocket. It could be their company is sponsoring them, a government, some fellowship, an essay contest, whatever. So from an admissions standpoint, a well-qualified candidate who also doesn't need the university to bankroll their education is highly desirable. But the degree to which this actually helps your admissions chances depends on the school. Since MPP/MPA is a public service-oriented degree, without the very high earning potential of other professional degrees, most schools at least pay some lip service to the importance of financial aid. The vast majority of us don't work super lucrative jobs to begin with, and will enter socially impactful but relatively low-paying careers after graduation; self-funding or huge student loans are impossible or extremely inadvisable for most candidates. Most schools usually toss out some financial aid so they don't end up being nothing but a factory for rich kids and future investment bankers and completely lose the credibility of their "public service" schtick, but that amount is governed by the % of self-funding students they need (mentioned above), and their institutional commitment to public service. For example, WWS has both a humongous endowment and a really strong commitment to public service (their alums actually started bitching when too high a percentage of graduates were going on to lucrative private sector jobs, rather than government service). They can easily afford to fund their entire class. Not that they actually do, but they could. Since they are not under financial pressure to get self-funding students, and actually want future public leaders, being able to pay your own way is not really an advantage in gaining admissions. If they like someone with zero self-funding more than you, they'll just pick them and foot the bill. HKS has a separate endowment from the rest of Harvard and it is actually pretty small (relatively speaking), so they do need quite a few self-funded students.Their own website says most students should expect to be self-funded, which is no joke considering that's about a $100k commitment. I also would argue this implies they don't have a particularly strong commitment to actual public service. The Harvard brand means they'll get plenty of company or government sponsored superstars, and lots of ludicrously wealthy applicants from around the globe (son of Saudi prince? welcome aboard!), perhaps they don't feel the need to be very generous in attracting candidates who would need financial help. Again, I would refer you to the official HKS website, which pretty much spells it out: they don't give much financial aid. Hence, being able to pay your own way would definitely help your admissions chances at HKS, IMO. For what it's worth, I decided not to apply for HKS because I am not (a) independently wealthy ( sponsored by a huge NGO or foreign government © from a developing country with an inspiring life story. Seemed like even if I got in (and that's a low chance), I certainly wouldn't get financial aid. Maybe I'm wrong, but guess I'll never know.

True. That's exactly my specialty and career goal, but obviously YMMV. Understatement700: No, I just applied. It would be quite strange if the Office of Admissions mass-emailed applicants about a non-eligible scholarship...

I already submitted to all three. Even with a low chance of winning, the expected value is high enough to justify the time spent working on them.

The first two are excellent advice.

Well, that makes me feel good about GW but not so much about SAIS. Get away from my damn scholarship money you kids!

Yeah, the SAIS one seemed pretty generic, but the GW one was a personalized message from head of admissions (or at least appeared that way). So it makes sense other people have gotten the former.

I received emails from several universities I applied to (George Washington and SAIS, specifically) encouraging me to apply for several internal scholarship contests. Has anyone else received these? Are they a good omen for admissions results?

Yeah, most people are not clear on the difference between true graduate programs like PHDs (which typically have tuition covered + stipend, though not always), and professional programs like MBA or MPA (in which you are expected to go into debt, and pay it off with higher future wages). Not that I expect random people decades out of school who never pursued these options to know the difference off the top of their head, but it does get annoying.

The lack of self-awareness in this post is both hilarious and infuriating. If you were an international student in the U.S., and went to a half decent school for undergrad, your parents almost certainly dropped over $100k on your tuition, room, and board. Closer to $200k for good schools. They are providing you with a free house likely worth several hundreds of thousands of dollars. Let's not forget the electricity, heat, water, insurance and other associated bills that are far from insignificant. On top of that, they are paying for all your food. The single mother with a non-skilled job who probably is struggling to stay afloat has the "gall" to suggest you are living off your parents because, newsflash, you are. Think she would mind someone writing her a check for about $500k of aggregate support? And then you castigate her, when your biggest financial worries are "going out" and buying new clothes?! People shouldn't be embarrassed or try to hide that they have significant parental financial support - it doesn't invalidate or cheapen your academic accomplishments, whatever they may be. But for gods sakes, have the decency to at least acknowledge that you are extremely fortunate in the opportunities afforded (literally) to you!

Thread creation fail. Why not just post

The issue is that American is not generally perceived as a top flight IR school. Georgetown is considered by a lot of people as the best professional IR grad program in the US, and GW is not far off it. So you're not just getting a specialized SS program, you're getting the prestige, brand, alumni network, etc. that go along with an elite institution. American is undoubtedly a good school, but no one would claim it's in the first or even second tier of IR programs. I don't know your personal situation, but you might face a trade-off between going to a "better" school without a SS program and DC location (Tufts and SIPA would be good examples), or going to less-prestigious American and getting all the benefits (networking, internships, etc.) that go along with being in DC. Obviously, only you can decide which is a better choice for yourself. Don't forget about Pitt, Maryland, and Missouri State, all of which have specialized SS programs.

Not that going to SAIS or Fletcher is ever a bad thing, but if you want to work in security and get the chance to attend Security Studies at Georgetown or GW at a reasonable cost, that is probably a better option. The top security studies programs are absolute feeder programs for the DoD, 3 letter agencies, State, etc. The curriculum is more specialized, your professors all worked in the field, there are recruiters everywhere, a massive alumni network, special hiring programs, etc. Look at the employment statistics for both programs - the vast majority of graduates are walking out of there directly into relevant security positions. The generalization you cite as a strength of SAIS/SIPA/etc. could also be viewed as a weakness, since specialization is the name of the professional game - they are great degrees no doubt, but they are not uniquely focused on getting you a career in security, ala Georgetown or GW. Honestly, I would say over-specializing yourself in IR is a way, way smaller concern than under-specializing. There are a lot of people walking around with generalist IR degrees who, for all their education, can't articulate a specific professional skill set of actual value in the "real world." If you're going to drop 80k+ on a degree, you better be damn sure you're getting a well-paying career out of it, and you seriously up your chances at that by having an immediately recognizable specialization backed up by a strong university's brand.

All schools applied to, confirmed all have received necessary supporting docs, now comes the wait... Good luck to everyone!

I would disagree with most of the posters in this thread, and say that analyzing why you didn't get into WWS or HKS is a fools errand. The sheer number of extremely qualified applicants gunning for limited spots means that either school could field an entirely different class made up of people who they didn't accept, and have it be just as good. It's arbitrary, a lottery, sub 10% admissions rate of a self-selected pool of elite candidates, whatever you want to call it. You clearly are qualified (prestigious undergrad, good stats, work experience, probably a solid SOP), you just didn't have whatever arbitrary, not-under-your-control profile they were looking for to fill out their class based on ever-changing organizational goals and requirements, the same as 90% of all the other smart and accomplished people who applied there. I think looking at yourself and trying to figure out whats "wrong" with you is a common defense mechanism, in that it makes it seem like admissions are under YOUR control. If I know my "weaknesses", and go out and get experience X and test score Y to correct them, they have to accept me! Well, no - you have no idea why they didn't accept you, and even if you "fix" what you think might be the problem, their admissions target very likely has moved again. Picking apart the exact tone of your SOP, career trajectory, etc. provides zero usable insight, IMO. All you can do is put in the app, and hope you get in. If you don't, it doesn't mean there's something wrong with you. Clearly other schools think you are a great candidate (I'm sure many posters here would love to have an 80% scholarship at Fletcher), so move on. EDIT - you totally should apply again and work to improve your application as much as possible, I'm just trying to inject some reality: that 90% of applicants will get dinged (as you have already experienced), you have no idea why, and it's not worth losing sleep over.

A rule of thumb is 10% - so for an "about/around" 500 word application try to stay in the 450-550 range.

I think you have plenty of relevant work experience. Your financial analysis background would be highly useful in public policy consulting, which often boils down to "what should we do with our money, and what's the most efficient way to do so." Relevant work experience doesn't necessarily mean you have to already been doing what you want to - if you were, why would you be getting another degree? Just make sure to emphasize in your SOP (1) exactly how the skills you've acquired in finance will transfer to your desired public service career (2) what skills you DON'T have that a MPA from School X would teach. Actually, I think the fact that you're coming over from finance without a ton of previous involvement in public affairs could make fora very compelling SOP. Fair or not, there's a certain popular perception of people who work on Wall Street and their concern for other citizens in this country. Spinning your SOP along the lines of "I'm giving up the $$$ and prestige to do good" could play very well. Bottom-line, I would polish your SOP to get exactly the right point across. It also would not hurt to seek volunteer opportunities with roughly the role you want to play at a consulting firm. Also, reading WWS student bios is a great way to question every life decision you've ever made. I assume there must be a factory somewhere churning out people with 4.0 undergrad GPAs, fluency in 6 languages, and a dual career of nursing crippled refugees to health + managing sovereign wealth funds. Just remember that out of a self-selected pool of elite applicants, WWS admits like 10%, and there is often no real distinction between those who got in and those who didn't in terms of competitiveness. If admission is essentially a lottery (which I would argue it is), there is no sense trying to make yourself into an "ideal candidate", since that concept doesn't actually exist in reality. There are just really qualified people who got in, and really qualified people who didn't.

Eh, I also usually go by the 10% rule, but not if they explicitly say no more than 600 words. That is an unequivocal instruction not to exceed the specified limit. On apps where they say a statement of X words, in approximately X words, etc. you have some wiggle room, but for SAIS I personally would stick to their limit.

Also, can't really make recommendations without knowing (a) what aspect of IR you're interested in (int. development? security? law?). A school that is great at one might not be so hot at another. ( your work experience. Greatly affects your competitiveness. If you provide those I'm sure people would be glad to help.

That's a solid point; what seems "very quant-focused" to me, coming from a poli sci and area studies background, probably wouldn't even move the needle for a MS stats person.

1) You sound like a PERFECT fit for Johns Hopkins SAIS. It is arguably the most prestigious MPP/MPA school in the world, and more than that, has a very very quant-focused curriculum. It is mandatory that at least half of your entire curriculum, regardless of field concentration, consists of economics coursework. If you want to focus on particularly math-y topics like international finance, the percentage of quant classes is even higher. 2) U.S. government jobs are paid according to a set system of bands (GS-6, GS-7, etc.) that are all publicly available. Look at the OMB page for jobs you envision yourself having, and see their salary. 3) Tons. The U.S. government is one of the biggest customers of consulting services in the world. Booz Allen Hamilton is a particularly giant government-focused consultant, but there are many others (SAIC, Raytheon, Carlisle, etc.) 4) That will be uphill sledding, but if you create a compelling narrative in your personal statement about why you are switching fields, and how your experience in finance will translate to public service, you can definitely do it. 5) Quite well. MPP/MPA programs are professionally oriented, so there is no stigma to being a working professional rather than an academic, as there would be for a PHD program. Hope this helps, and good luck.