globalsun

Chicago gave me a generous fellowship too. But I feel an one year degree is a just way too short to achieve to get a full, well rounded education in IR. Stanford heard that from its alumni and extended its one year MA IR program to two. Looking at the CIR curriculum, its essentially taking the first year of a Chicago Political Science Phd program. I also would not blindly trust what the website says in terms of job placement as many people who found great positions in consulting or banking probably likely were doing a dual degree with Booth MBA Program. Its really hard to imagine one can get a job with Booz Allen Hamilton with only a one year, academic IR degree. Also take note that the program is not fully accredited by the APSIA. Still I think I will be headed to Chicago on the 6th, just to see for my self. If my only goal was to improve my odds for a later Political Science Phd, then Chicago would be a great choice.

I was accepted to with a good amount of aid. I think I will be going to the open house. The general impressions of the program are: 1. Very theory based. Academically its probably a extremely rigorous given the massive thesis due at the end. You can extend to a second year if your research requires it. 2. The one year, bookish nature of the program is also way too short for you to find internships, etc. 3. Chicago is not an ideal location for future international policy jobs. 4. Chicago's reputation is very strong in the academic community especially at the Phd level, but its reputation to employers might be more limited than other big name programs. 5. It is a good school to go if you are preparing for a future Phd. 6. Not that competitive to get in (50% admit rates I heard from staff). 7. Small program and the faculty I have talked to seemed nice.

Ah excellent. Finally a Georgetown MSFS thread. No offense to the MPP crowd, but gradcafe should really revamp the general government affairs forum and replace it seperate public policy AND international relations forum. Except for gold plated programs like WWS and KGS, the two demographics apply to totally different programs! As for Georgetown here are some of my views about the MSFS program. + Excellent name recognition in the field. + Located in DC. + The feeder school for the foreign service. - Very weak in its East Asia focus, which will hurt the program in the long run. - Does not emphasize quants, unlike neighboring SAIS. - Projects are usually short with no final project like Fletcher, limiting its potential for future Phd wannabes.

IRPS is still a young program and its influence in the policy circles is minimal. It is designed for individuals who want future careers in East Asia or Latin America, which seems to suit your situation. But its relative rank is not that significant as it the programs feeds off the more respected Economic and Political Science Phd programs at UCSD. That along with its extremely generous admissions rates (55%) has made me less interested in attending. You will get a great education though... Going to SAIS would give you a lot more immediate recognition in the DC policy corridor while LSE is an good bridge to Phd or Law programs. Out of curiosity, how much aid is UCSD offering you?

One of my close friends goes to IRPS. My general impression of the program based off his observations and from alumni are: 1. Very lax admissions requirements for admissions. 55% accepted vs the 20-30% range of most top IR programs. People with almost no work experience and average stats can get in. While there are a lot of smart people in the program, IRPS cannot really compare with the Big 6 IR schools in terms of average students quality. 2. The school has a large amount of students from East Asia, which makes sense given the Pacific focus. This can be a regarded as a positive or negative. Even though my area of experience and interests revolve around the region, I personally would prefer a more diverse student body. 3. While at the alumni dinner, I was not so impressed with the overall placement of graduates. Even the most successful of the alumni are doing nothing related with the IR field, while the many recent grads are doing more domestic policy work. 4. One thing I don't doubt is that you can get a solid education there. In its a very professionally oriented program that heavily emphasizes economics and other business skills (accounting). Overall, IRPS is a good and growing program with a strong focus on East Asia. The only other school that can compare in East Asia regional strength is SAIS. The major strike against is its less than stellar brand and student body when compared to the top schools. I would still go there in a heartbeat over more established 2nd tier programs in American, GW, and Denver though. But if you have gotten into GSPP or Harvard MPA/ID already, you have it made my friend! I would also not recommend UCLA MPP btw.

Hi I was accepted to the Stanford IPS program and wait listed at Berkeley's MPP. I also got into SIPA, Tufts Fletcher, U Chicago CIR, and UCSD IRPS. I'm still waiting on Harvard KSG, SAIS, Georgetown MSFS, along with several UK schools. The Stanford program is very young as it will graduate its inaugural class this spring. Its a internationally focused policy degree unlike most MPP programs. Its also very small in size, with at most 30 students coming in each year. Since I live near the area, I was able to drop in on their "Practicum", where they given a presentation by the co-founder of Kiva. My general impression of the program is that it offer opportunities I have not found at many larger IR/Public Policy programs like study trips, internship stipends, and student led conferences. The small class size can be considered a benefit or hindrance to future opportunities though. It also shares many of required classes with the Stanford Public Policy program, and electives with the poli sci, law, and econ departments. GSPP and UCLA are both more domestically oriented policy programs. I have to say that the Berkeley faculty is amazing and by far the best domestic public policy program in the Western United States. As for the MPA/ID in Harvard, its definitely the most quantitatively challenging program in the field and designed for people with significant international development experience. I decided to only apply for the more traditional MPP because of those reasons. Personally I am divided over all the programs I have been accepted into. If you desire a broader range of careers than I think a Stanford degree will allow you to go farther than a more established program at a less prestigious university. If you want to find work and network with the policy crowd, then something studying in DC is optimal. I have been hearing from a friend at SAIS about intense competition for great positions in the DC bubble.