MYRNIST

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.

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.

The irony of someone attending law school calling out another degree program as being an unwise choice in terms of finding a job is rich indeed. Original poster, you are aware that there is a massive over-supply of lawyers, particularly young ones, in the US right? ABA has accredited so many schools, and so many humanities majors see a law degree as a ticket to a sinecure that there are simply too many candidates for too few jobs. I forget the exact stat, but something like 40% of law graduates do not find meaningful legal employment within 2 years after graduation.

It's probably more accurate to say it's a tough job market for any young person right now.

As somebody who doesn't know a thing about consulting, I have to say that this thread has provided entertainment by the truckload for the rest of us.

Keep it up!

I admire your tenacity adollarninetynine, despite repeatedly lying and getting caught you keep at it, good job sport.

Now if you HAD actually worked at MBB or even a solid second tier firms, you'd know that master's degree students do INDEED compete against undergrads in most cases NOT MBAs. I speak from experience, in my cadre for instance about a third had master's degrees be they in finance, economics, history, international relations, engineering, etc. and another third had work experience (normally under two years). MBAs on the other-hand started on the rung above us (this is mirrored in our two closest competitors as well as the top niche firms and even the large Big Four consultancies).

Once again you have no idea what you are talking about.

To the OP, yes you are not in the best place regarding your undergrad and law school history, but do well in your master's and network network network and you will have a shot at securing an interview at a solid second tier consultancy and from there it is up to you (how well you test, interview, and how you do on the required case studies). Firms like Deloitte, Accenture, EY, and PwC are all in reach. Are they MBB? No. But they all do some interesting work and you will learn loads. On campus recruiting will be your best bet, utilize career services as much as possible.

LOL, you think i am trolling. i am probably the only person on these boards that has an inkling of how the recruiting process works for consulting firms. how am i prestige obsessed? because i keep pointing out his TTT law school failure? i think you might be ignorant since you never applied to law schools but going to a TTT and dropping out means OP went to an unranked law school with abysmal scores and still could not cut it there. by the way, have you ever even done consulting before?

my arguments may be confusing for you because you lack the acumen to understand basic hiring and real world functions, but like i said if you don't believe me, just click on the HKS employment statistics and the answer should be right there assuming you have some basic statistical skills. i don't get what is so hard about looking at the stats when the facts are right there in front of you, but i forgot this board is sometimes filled with people who want to pursue their "dreams" even though ever sign leads to them being in massive debt with no marketable skills.

Thanks to fishpoo for telling me that. I actually just got accepted into CMU's DC-track today. Its my first choice so unless Chicago throws me a lot of money I will be attending. I appreciate the advice.

to the prick who said that because I went to a third tier law school I have no shot at going to a decent grad program. Im going to a decent grad program. Thanks so much.

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.

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!

Yeah, I'll check out SAIS, thanks for the advice.

E: re others reactions to the "neo-con" statement, I was a little premature on that, they have large faculty with many different focuses. However, I still think their senior leadership (Wolfowitz, Cohen) and students (Karlin) has advocated and planned some seriously terrible Mid-East FP over the years, but granted will not really affect anything I'm going to study and represents a minority.

Sorry I wasn't too clear, I'm going for an MPP in Policy Analysis not IR. Thanks for the advice though, I'll look at the other programs and try to get some decent letters of recommendation. I am not going for IR b/c I don't think the quantitative analysis is too strong, but if you know of programs that do have strong quant programs I'd appreciate any pointers. I'm really not into SAIS b/c of the neo-con faculty, but I haven't heard any specifics about the program beyond that.

This is literally one of the most asinine things I have ever read on here.

Nah I don't really think they'll be expecting you to have worked for Jane's or the Pentagon at this point. Relevant critical thinking and analytical experience is where it's at. Although I would probably have expressed an undying love of Keifer Sutherland and 24 in my personal statement if I were you.

IDEV is the other end of the scale, unless you've singlehandedly eradicated malaria it's a bit tough to break the threshold - there are so many Mickey Mouse orgs. out there it can be hard to stand out.

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*

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*

Sorry MYRNIST, I've already offered up a burnt offering of a fattened calf on a pyre of old issues of Foreign Policy for a WWS spot

Unorthodox? I didn't know there was another way. I specifically remember in the SAIS instructions something about Adcomminus being a fickle overlord.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.