globalsun

The ugly truth is that none of these programs are worth $100,000+ and two years of lost wages. Public sector income that many folks get afterwards will make it a struggle to pay back the loan. For that amount you could get an MBA which is already overpriced to begin unless one gets into a top 5 program. The potential RA/TAships in these IR programs are also extremely limited.

IR Rankings are not valid because they do not use objective measurements since much of the admissions data is difficult to find. This is likely due to the fact that certain pure IR programs would like to maintain an illusion of elitism even though many accept nearly 50% of their applicants. Another reason why no one has seriously tried to gauge IR programs is the small applicant pool when compared to the Law/MBA schools. An pure objective way to rank programs like MBA/Law is probably selectivity, which depends on applicant work experience and GRE scores. If that were the case, Princeton, Harvard, Yale, and Stanford would be at the top. Acceptance rates for these programs are on the spectrum from 10% to 25%. Princeton WWS is the most selective since it offers full ride to its highly experienced applicants, followed by Harvard which receives more applications than any other IR/policy program due to the Harvard alone. Boutique IR/Policy programs in Yale and Stanford are simply selectively due to the fact that have a maximum class size of 20-30 students per year and have stringent quantitative requirements (IPS).

Hi I am graduate of the IPS program and can safely say that students are well integrated into the community. This is due to the fact that many IPS students take courses in the business, law, engineering, and medical schools. Stanford also emphasis interdisciplinary training with departments like the D.School which mandates students work in interdisciplinary teams. IPS is run by both the Freeman Spologi Institute and the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, and graduates have access to the entire Stanford alumni network.

I think the second tier label is thrown around way too easily. Is it determined by name brand of the program, the name brand of the school or its selectivity in admissions? Fletcher, SAIS and SIPA are huge schools with many hundred of students and significant marketing budgets for recruitment. Stanford IPS like Yale IR are both small boutique programs that take in no more than 30 students a year. This means they are more selective with low acceptance rates in the 20% or below range. Both programs also have access to courses at top ranked business, law, and even science/engineering programs, meaning the student can potentially get a far richer educational experience, not to mention more powerful alumni networks. And despite what you might have heard, the funding opportunities are pretty good since there more endowment money per student dedicate to perks like international travel in their first year. On a more meta note, in today's interdisciplinary world, the usefulness of siloed specialty schools which only offer MBAs is waning and the same can be said for other professional degrees like IR. Finally, Stanford IPS has not been academically oriented since it changed its curriculum in 2007. Almost no one without at least some post undergraduate work experience is accepted. The same can be said of the Yale program especially with its recent changes.

Stanford IPS no longer takes people without at least some non-internship experience after graduation. Its no longer the PhD feeder program it used to be.

I can say that IPS does not heavily enforce a language proficiency requirement. I was able to get by with credit from a few undergraduate foreign language courses. Also note that language courses taken at Stanford do not count as a part of the IPS degree. So I wouldn't worry too much about the language requirements. The quant requirements probably need to be taken a lot more seriously though...

While a few classes in the actual science of energy cannot make you a qualified scientist in a particular field, it is a more credible way to ensure that one understands the dynamics of the energy complex system, instead of merely the political or economic aspects. I do agree in the end that the formal academic training is not the only way to become qualified in the field, but I do think studying in a program that requires several rigorous science and engineering courses is a more optimal path than a program without such opportunities. Unless they seriously dig deeply into the topic in their personal spare time, I honestly believe that individuals without the formal science training will not fully understand the practicality of the hydrogen fueled car vs a electric car, or the sustainability of the biofuels.

Hi wonkish, I think given your emphasis on labor and environmental policy in global supply chains, a school would need a top notch economics, environment, and business programs. IPS might be a good fit since it shares courses with Top 5 Economics and Business program, which are located right across the street from IPS in addition to several great Environmental Sciences departments. The GSB actually hosts a major forum on supply chains, so the campus is definitely a good place to learn about the topic. http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/scforum/ HKS could potentially offer all those courses given its economic and business programs, but I always hear from my HKS friends that the curriculum is highly structured and offers little flexibility if you have a niche focus. I could be wrong about that though. Princeton lacks a business program but it likely has enough resources to cater to your specific interests as it does have great environment and economics programs. Fletcher should offer you flexibility but many the courses you need might require a commute to MIT or Harvard, as there is not so much a critical mass of faculty on these topics on campus. I am not sure about SAIS as they are a more focused on traditional international finance issues, and lack access to cutting edge business and environmental science faculty and coursework. Just my 2 cents. Hope this helps.

My observations were based on the need to have an interdisciplinary education to understand interdisciplinary issues like energy, especially for those without an undergraduate science background. I fail to understand the rationale of having an energy policy degree if the program provides no direct way to seriously engage the engineering and scientific experts in the field. Its no wonder that Washington policy wonks are so easily fooled by boondoggles like corn ethanol, clean coal, and hydrogen cars. As with the individuals bios you diligently linked to, most did not attend the three above mention IR specialist schools that were at the heart of the critique or do not even work in the energy/environmental field (Romer). I do not know why you included Bill Richardson since he is career politician who was absolute failure in crafting a sustainable energy policy during his term at the DOE. And presenting one small boutique consulting firm mostly staffed by alums of the same school does not seem like a vote of confidence to me. Finally, if you haven't noticed, this country has an absolutely broken energy policy. And I think some portion of it can be attributed to people who have limited interested in the sciences, but a lot of "passion" in networking. P.S. the personal attacks do not belong the Gradcafe no matter how much more experienced you think you have.

Hi, I think you have sufficient work experience and should not have problem meeting the minimum prerequisite requirements. I would try to improve the GRE quant score to above 700 (ideally 750 which is the mean for entering students). IPS has a 20-25% acceptance rate, though its becoming more selective each year. Fletcher, SAIS, and SIPA all have acceptance rates in the 30% range and lower mean GRE scores. As I know only one individual who has done the MPP/MIPS program and it might not be necessarily for most students as the 2 programs share a good chunk of the core classes. You can always apply for the joint MPP in your first or second year. The criteria for MPP acceptance is good performance in quantitative microeconomic courses, 700+ GRE quantitative scores and native english skills. Overall given your interests in energy and the environment, Stanford is really an unbeatable place to study the field. Compared to the other programs like Princeton's MPA, KSG's MPP, and Berkeley's MPP, IPS is much more internationally focused. Out of those 3 schools only Berkeley has a Energy/Environmental department that can rival Stanford's, though Princeton and Harvard do have some centers of excellence. But to be taken seriously in the energy/environmental in the field, you need to go to a school with great engineering/science program. I do hope people interesting in energy/environment and who are applying to traditional IR schools like Fletcher, SAIS, or Georgetown realize that.

Just to clarify, First year IPS tuition is actually around 35k (Two 18 unit quarters and one 10 unit quarter) while second year tuition at 10 units per quarter is around 25k. That math along with very high paying TA/RA opportunities, subsidized travel, and generous internship stipends made it worth it for me.

Hey Foodlover28, 1) Practicum is an intensive 6 month group research project that involves working with clients like the Peterson Institute of Economics, World Bank, Carnegie Endowment, and Defense Intelligence Agency. Teams of 4-5 IPS and Stanford MPP students work on the project with the assistance of their Stanford faculty advisors. Students are expected to utilize the quantitative skills they learned in their first year to craft the research paper, policy brief, and client presentations. If the report are of sufficient quality, they can get quiet a bit of national press coverage as did the pension report from last year: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/business/07pension.html As for internships, IPS provides generous funding for internships over the summer and many students also spend part of the academic year interning, so yes its definitely possible to get real world client experience during your time at Stanford. 2) I would say employment is very evenly split among the multilateral/research sector and private sector firms. Its actually very easy to connect to research institutes on campus and off given the intimate size of the cohort, since we are the only professional policy program in Stanford. Stanford's connection with research centers/ think tanks across the country are very strong. They actively seek Stanford students since they we come in with different perspectives about issues that help balance out entrenched east coast thinking. 3) Its pretty easy to get funding for those who actively seek it. One after all is not competing with hundreds of other IR/policy students. 4) The professor relationships are usually pretty great. People at Freeman Spogli Institute (FSI) and other centers on campus are very open to working with students from IPS. I have had great relationship with Stanford's the engineering departments as I concentrate on energy and environmental issues.

Hey foodlover28, I would love to answer your questions: 1) Quiet a few IPS students do internships, though its recommended to do start in the second year when one has finished the core quant courses and can take on a reduced unit load. There are many campus related research opportunities. 2) A large portion of last year's class ended up working in DC or went back to work for their prospective governments. Those that remain in California mainly work for the vibrant startup scene we have in the Silicon Valley. Career services are covered by three routes: the IPS Career Services, Stanford's Alumni Center, and the Career Development Office. 3) I picked IPS over the IR programs in the East Coast like SAIS, SIPA, Fletcher because of the stronger quantitative focus and the more innovative, interdisciplinary coursework. It really combines the best qualities of IR and Public Policy programs into one. A drawback (or positive) of the program is the size of the student body which is around 20 each year. This means that the IPS community is very tight nit and clique free. IPS students also interact with students from business, law, medicine and engineering on a constant basis, far more so than normal IR programs, which can become echo chambers.

Hi xwt, I am sorry you got the impression that the program is theory oriented. It is emphatically not. The curriculum is interdisciplinary and practical with emphasis on econometrics. All students partake in a final team based practicum project with real world clients like the World Bank and the Carnegie Endowment, instead of an individual thesis. Many courses are also based in the schools of business, law, and engineering, all top 3 in the world.

Hi Compost & Recycle, Congrats on your acceptance! I am a current IPS student and would love to answer your questions. The overall the coursework is pretty quant intensive, more so than SAIS and Fletcher, but comparable to GSPP. The curriculum is less theory than it is portrayed on grad cafe, since there is no IR theory course at all. Much of the core courses are jointly held with Stanford's internal MPP program. IPS students also take classes with great IR Professors at the Freeman Spogli Institute like Fukuyama and Rice along with the opportunity to take courses at the GSB, Law School, and Engineering. Tuition is also lower than most programs since to meet graduation requirements, you need only to pay around 32k the first year and 25k the second year, so combined tuition is under 60k for two years. There are generous 2nd year funding opportunities serving as research or teaching assistants. For example many IPS students were offered introductory economics TAships which provided a total of 45k in tuition waivers and stipends. Also the program provides summer internship stipends of around 5k and funds a week long global study trip to destination of choice. Overall, the debt most IPS students is very low when compared to the other programs even with aid. If you have any more questions please feel free to ask me.

Sorry for the very late response to each of your concerns: First, there are some people who did not enjoy the professor in the Stats and Econometric courses in the Law School due to the teaching style, but that has been ameliorated by the option to take the those courses in the Polisci department. Second, in terms of placement in multilaterals, several members of last year's graduating class landed jobs at the IFC and the World Bank, mostly due their contacts at Stanford. In fact World Bank internships were being thrown at IPS students last year. So Stanford alumni and faculty are absolutely well connected in D.C. And yes, the Extreme Affordability course is amazing at Stanford since you get to work abroad and work along side top students from the law, business, engineering, and medical schools. Third, in terms of funding, 1/3 of the class received full assistantships for their second year, essentially meaning they did not have to pay for their second year. Also tuition requirements are lower in the second year since course work is more project based, meaning average tuition is around 24,000 dollars. Definitely the most affordable major IR/Policy degree, second to WWS of course Lastly, as for Fukuyama, he is currently teaching An Introduction to Political Development course in the PoliSci department which is open to IPS students. And yes, he has and will continue to do some great lectures for IPS students. Hope you are having a blast at SAIS!

Also consider Stanford's International Policy Studies Program. Fukuyama just moved to Stanford from SAIS. But like SAIS, its a program that emphasizes quantitative readiness...

Honestly HOUBMA, the advice you give out is false. Your odds of acceptance decrease dramatically with 2.5 GPA even with a decent GRE score, unless of course you have been out of the academia for 10 years and served in the military. Even then, one is playing against the odds.

Have you considered Stanford or Berkeley? Their energy and environment programs are definitely superior to what is offer at Columbia, Yale, and perhaps Harvard due to superior hard science and engineering programs. They are also name brand institutions with more innovative curriculums than what can be found in the East Coast. Stanford offers a Masters in International Policy Studies and Berkeley has the Energy Resource Group Masters program.

Where is there evidence for the statement that most employers view a Ivy League graduate education as no better than whats offered at State Univerity X?

SAIS is not the place to study energy issues. Go to a school with strong hard science and engineering departments if you really want to learn energy. SAIS's Policy Concentration was essentially gutted to become a Energy and Environment only track, however an overview of their courses shows that the curriculum remains stuck in the 90s. That said, programs at Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, and Harvard offering far better training on global energy matters.

I applied because it was a well marketed name in the IR field and the fact that Columbia is in an Ivy. But on closer inspection and on campus visits, I found SIPA's classes sizes were way too large to form a cohesive graduate community. The spamming and corporate style of the administration and the rather deceptive second year "fellowship" option also alarmed me. The curriculum also frankly seemed like a watered down MBA with a relatively light economics curriculum compared to SAIS. The school also lacks a strong Asia focus, preferring to be remain relatively Eurocentric in its world view. Bad student reviews of other fluffy SIPA programs and the lower quality of the incoming admit pool sealed the deal. This is all for the highest costs of any IR program. So yes, it can be substantiated.

Hi inc85, I think you have severely misrepresented IPS. First of all, IPS has a superior quants than SAIS and the HKS MPP. The quant prerequisites are heavier than any other program outside of MPA/ID at Kennedy, and most IPS students have already complete the economics courses that most SAIS students are required to take for their economics track. The program is also tailored for multilateral work given its emphasis on transnational issues instead of regional area concentrations common at SAIS and SIPA. The program director and many IPS faculty also come from work in the UN, IMF, and World Bank, so to say it does not help student get into multilateral agencies is laughable. Most second year IPS students also do get real research and teaching assistantships that does provide for tuition and a generous stipends, something most IR graduate programs do not offer. SIPA's second year "fellowship" is really laughable by comparison. SAIS or HKS are also not known to provide additional support in the second year and low paying hourly assistant jobs are about the best you could hope for on campus. FYI: Fukuyama is coming is also leaving SAIS this year and joining the IPS.

Yale's program is definitely more ideal if you want to go the academic track since its very big on theory. I know a professors at Stanford who used that route as a buffer to get a PhD. Go for IPS if you want more multidisciplinary learning as it mixes a MPP curriculum with the low-theory IR coursework. Stanford also has superior graduate programs in nearly all the important sectors with only Law being the close exception. Still, overall I think these two smaller programs are a better bet than the larger IR schools (SAIS, Fletcher, SIPA) due to overall intimacy and better brand name world wide.

Yale's program is definitely more ideal if you want to go the academic track since its very big on theory. I know a professors at Stanford who used that route as a buffer to get a PhD. Go for IPS if you want more multidisciplinary learning as it mixes a MPP curriculum with the low-theory IR coursework. Stanford also has superior graduate programs in nearly all the important sectors with only Law being the close exception. Still, overall I think these two smaller programs are a better bet than the larger IR schools (SAIS, Fletcher, SIPA) due to overall intimacy and better brand name world wide.