MYRNIST

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.

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!

People underestimate the degree to which they can avoid debt if they are willing to put in the work to improve their admission profile.

I would argue that many critical admission/fin-aid metrics, including GPA, GRE, obtaining internships/jobs (not necessarily your performance in them), and foreign language boil down to who cares more. Not inherent intelligence, not your financial resources, not where you were born. Effort, pure and simple. Put in the work, and you get paid for it (literally).

If you spend 4 hours a night studying in college, you're going to have a great GPA. If you spend 500+ hours studying for the GRE, you're going to have a sick score. If you are willing to troll online for hours to find relevant internships/jobs and send out 20+ applications, you're going to get one. If you take time every single day to study a foreign language, you will become proficient in it. Polishing your SOP, researching your schools to detail exactly how you are a fit for them - so much of apps (and life?) comes down to desire. There are trade-offs involved: time you spend doing those things means time not spent with friends, lovers, a good book, a sunny meadow on a spring day. It might not make you happier, or well-rounded. But if you put in the work, I guarantee someone will give you admission + serious funding.

I'll be attending one of my top schools on a full ride. It didn't just happen - I did all the things mentioned above, and more. Sometimes it sucked, GRE prep particularly so, as I ended up at about 750 hours prep time. But the thought that kept me going was that not being able to attend grad school, which I wouldn't be able to sans major funding, would suck infinitely more. So I put in the work, and now I get to go to school for free. Not because I'm smarter (guarantee that's not the case), not because I'm richer (my bank account laughs at this): because I cared more, and did the work other people weren't willing to do.

You can write this off as self-aggrandizement. Or get upset because you didn't get the financial aid you wanted and think I'm insinuating you're lazy. But fundamentally, grad school admissions and fin-aid are not mysteries. Everyone knows the things they look at to make decisions. It's your choice whether you invest the time and out-work competitors.

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.

Wow, you completely butchered the guy and now are acting all nice. Don't forget that whatever the kid does have in work experience may still count as relevant if it has to do with International Business, especially with SAIS, they love that stuff. I have scoured these forums and have seen less competitive people state that they got into these schools, so I guess you'll never know until you apply, and if you don't get in, you can always improve your candidacy, then again it wouldn't hurt to improve it regardless of getting in. Either way, no point in beating this dead horse of a subject, your morale is probably on the floor by now. Good Luck buddy and sorry to see your country on the verge of some kind of internal disaster.

@Blessyour_heart, do these classes give you 3 credits (US style) or is it based on the British system and do you get graded in the end? Sounds like a good source for jc99, and even $500 is pretty cheap compared to any schools in the DC area unless you are a Montgomery county resident or a Virginia resident. Salamat

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.

just read the threads in the chemistry section! essentially all of the information you would/should need is in there somewhere. it's not as tedious as it may seem now and you'll have a ton of time to sift through it. in the "20_ _ Application Thread" threads most people post little bits about their profiles and what schools they applied to and what discipline, etc. if you look through this abundance of information and still have unique questions of your own, then ask them specifically in a new thread.

seriously. you can't just read the old threads?? a more proactive approach to things will probably serve you well on this forum, in your applications, and eventually in grad school.

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.

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.

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.

That is pretty negative debbie downer. Based on the whole picture, GPA is low but doesnt rule you out since it was at AUB and in the midst of the action. Law School can either help or hurt, your GPA is certainly going to hurt, but the fact that you are one and got barred etc, may have a positive connotation. You speak the languages and you certainly have the "life experiences", but Debbie Downer is right, you have no IR experience. I have seen people with no experience get in, but their grades were top, from top schools with stronger GRE scores. So overall, you have a chance...but this is more based on where you have lived and what you have seen as opposed to what you have done, cause if a take the same candidate that went to a US school and perhaps proficieny in one language and a one year stint abroad...I wouldn't give them a snowball's chance in hell. Let us ultimately know what happens with you, this is a pretty exciting case.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Previous Schools (Name, type, or tier): Ivy
Previous Degrees and GPAs: 3.6+
GRE Scores (Verbal/Quantitative/Analytical Writing): 170V/169Q/5.5AW
Previous Work Experience (Years, Type): 4 years in non-profit, 3 in my geographical region of expertise

Math/Econ Background: micro/macro in college, A-. absolutely no math

Foreign Language Background (if applicable to your program): fluent in two of the (difficult) UN languages, native English

Intended Field of Study in Grad School: International development

Long Term Professional Goals: INGOs, UN, contractors, election monitoring...haven't quite figured it out yet.

Schools Applied to & Results: Fletcher (Board of Overseers $$), Georgetown MGHD (full tuition $$$), WWS (full tuition+stipend $$$$), Yale Jackson (full tuition+stipend $$$$), SAIS ($)

Ultimate Decision & Why: My month+ decision time was a huge roller coaster ride. Fletcher and SAIS were crossed off early for $ reasons, though I think both are excellent programs. Princeton flew me out from abroad to go to their admitted weekend, but I also was able to attend most others'. I was completely sold on Georgetown's program, which despite being brand new offered a curriculum uniquely catered to development professionals, and amazing personal attention from the director and faculty in a cohort of only 20. Yale offered me an extra assistantship on top of full tuition+living costs and the Jackson director called to talk at length about the changes in their curriculum this year (new Core courses with hand-picked phenomenal teachers, more practically-minded). However, ultimately WWS's admit day sold me on how unbelievable the alumni network is, allowing you to basically call up anyone around the world and have them offer you a job (only slight exaggeration). That reputation and alumni base was something both other programs lacked due to their "newness." I admittedly went with the most risk-adverse choice.

Advice for Future Applicants: Assemble a "team" of people, both those also going through this process and those that have finished it, that will help you read various SOP drafts and cheer you on when you are overwhelmed. If you apply to even 5 or so schools, you will have SO MANY statements, mini-essays, policy memos, etc. to write that you may well produce 20 relatively distinct pieces before you're finished. Your eyes will cross if you don't have fresh ones to look them over for you, and it's too much to burden one person with so you need at least 3-5 people I would say. Not ashamed to say that being on GradCafe helped me immensely because it was a built-in community of other people juggling the same multitasking and agonizing through the process, from GREs to apps to waiting to decision-making. When you eventually make the decision, be sure to talk to current students and alums as much as you can for the "real scoop."

Keep in mind that the hardest thing is not just to get in, but to not go into tons of debt for your dream degree, and for getting $ I think test scores/GPA prob matter somewhat more than for admissions. To me it seems like the greatest irony to get a degree designed to help in a career in international development, pay full sticker price, and never be able to pay it off/be forced to veer off of your career track due to debt.

Echoing what others have said: having family in Pakistan or other sensitive country is not going to bar you in and of itself from a security clearance. I know Pakistani-Americans and Kashmiri-Americans who were born overseas, naturalized, and received clearances. I also know FSOs with family members with records or run-ins with the law who have obtained clearances.

It certainly will take some time. One thing you can do in the meantime is start gathering all your old addresses, contacts, references, their contact info, etc. e-Quip (the form you fill out for your clearance) is dozens of pages long and asks for extensive information. Getting all of that in place now could help when you quickly turn around your e-Quip and start the clearance process.

Your critical language skills (by advance intermediate I'm guessing that's a 2+ or a 3 on the language scale?) are certainly going to give you a bump on the waitlist if you pass your orals. In other words, you will receive extra language points over someone who just knows Spanish. Like FSOonthego said though, it doesn't impact your security clearance.

The FS really values diversity, so you could be quite an asset to the Department. It would be worth applying, if that's really what you want to do.

Disclaimer: I am from the west coast of the US, and am attending a university next year with fairly limited name recognition. So I'm not getting on my high horse.

That said, I like to think that in my life I have researched colleges and universities to an exhaustive, perhaps even unhealthy extent. My research into graduate MPA/IR/etc. programs was no different. I also participated in an academic youth camp based in Poughkeepsie, NY several summers ago. And despite all that, I've never heard of Marist. I'd be surprised if an employer outside of Dutchess County has heard of the school, let alone had an opinion of its MPA program.

Furthermore the mere mention in your post of a possibility of non-accreditation raises some major red flags.

But what do I know?

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.

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.

People underestimate the degree to which they can avoid debt if they are willing to put in the work to improve their admission profile.

I would argue that many critical admission/fin-aid metrics, including GPA, GRE, obtaining internships/jobs (not necessarily your performance in them), and foreign language boil down to who cares more. Not inherent intelligence, not your financial resources, not where you were born. Effort, pure and simple. Put in the work, and you get paid for it (literally).

If you spend 4 hours a night studying in college, you're going to have a great GPA. If you spend 500+ hours studying for the GRE, you're going to have a sick score. If you are willing to troll online for hours to find relevant internships/jobs and send out 20+ applications, you're going to get one. If you take time every single day to study a foreign language, you will become proficient in it. Polishing your SOP, researching your schools to detail exactly how you are a fit for them - so much of apps (and life?) comes down to desire. There are trade-offs involved: time you spend doing those things means time not spent with friends, lovers, a good book, a sunny meadow on a spring day. It might not make you happier, or well-rounded. But if you put in the work, I guarantee someone will give you admission + serious funding.

I'll be attending one of my top schools on a full ride. It didn't just happen - I did all the things mentioned above, and more. Sometimes it sucked, GRE prep particularly so, as I ended up at about 750 hours prep time. But the thought that kept me going was that not being able to attend grad school, which I wouldn't be able to sans major funding, would suck infinitely more. So I put in the work, and now I get to go to school for free. Not because I'm smarter (guarantee that's not the case), not because I'm richer (my bank account laughs at this): because I cared more, and did the work other people weren't willing to do.

You can write this off as self-aggrandizement. Or get upset because you didn't get the financial aid you wanted and think I'm insinuating you're lazy. But fundamentally, grad school admissions and fin-aid are not mysteries. Everyone knows the things they look at to make decisions. It's your choice whether you invest the time and out-work competitors.

I think it's relevant. It's saying if OP wants to, he/she might consider re-applying next cycle, and use the time in-between to really boost his/her profile. OP clearly is a good applicant, based on the list of accepted schools. With more work experience, higher GRE, more language, maybe some part-time classes with A's, I bet OP would get great funding.

If it's so obvious that you can transform your candidate profile, why do so many people create a false dichotomy of big debt, top school vs. less debt, second-choice school? Why not do the work to get less debt, top choice? I am not the only poster in here saying that taking a year off to improve yourself is a highly viable option.

People underestimate the degree to which they can avoid debt if they are willing to put in the work to improve their admission profile.

I would argue that many critical admission/fin-aid metrics, including GPA, GRE, obtaining internships/jobs (not necessarily your performance in them), and foreign language boil down to who cares more. Not inherent intelligence, not your financial resources, not where you were born. Effort, pure and simple. Put in the work, and you get paid for it (literally).

If you spend 4 hours a night studying in college, you're going to have a great GPA. If you spend 500+ hours studying for the GRE, you're going to have a sick score. If you are willing to troll online for hours to find relevant internships/jobs and send out 20+ applications, you're going to get one. If you take time every single day to study a foreign language, you will become proficient in it. Polishing your SOP, researching your schools to detail exactly how you are a fit for them - so much of apps (and life?) comes down to desire. There are trade-offs involved: time you spend doing those things means time not spent with friends, lovers, a good book, a sunny meadow on a spring day. It might not make you happier, or well-rounded. But if you put in the work, I guarantee someone will give you admission + serious funding.

I'll be attending one of my top schools on a full ride. It didn't just happen - I did all the things mentioned above, and more. Sometimes it sucked, GRE prep particularly so, as I ended up at about 750 hours prep time. But the thought that kept me going was that not being able to attend grad school, which I wouldn't be able to sans major funding, would suck infinitely more. So I put in the work, and now I get to go to school for free. Not because I'm smarter (guarantee that's not the case), not because I'm richer (my bank account laughs at this): because I cared more, and did the work other people weren't willing to do.

You can write this off as self-aggrandizement. Or get upset because you didn't get the financial aid you wanted and think I'm insinuating you're lazy. But fundamentally, grad school admissions and fin-aid are not mysteries. Everyone knows the things they look at to make decisions. It's your choice whether you invest the time and out-work competitors.

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.