CML55

Yes.

I think that those two factors are often thought about and discussed on this forum, and for good reason. Because those are the "intangibles" that's why in the original thread I tried to break down the financials as much as possible. One thing about AU vs GWU is the class schedule and relative cost--living expenses will be the same but at least at the Elliott School (don't know about the Comm program) it's significantly cheaper tuition than the other private DC universities. So while you may be receiving some (a lot?) of funding from AU you'll want to break down the relative COAs to make sure it doesn't just bring it to parity with GWU.

1. Part of the reason that there are vastly varying differences between the DC schools is that each program is different, so practitioners of different fields are going to have different opinions. Some of these schools tend to feed into private sector, others public/NPO. The obsession with name/ranking is I think because of all the intangibles that come with that "brand" recognition: the networking opportunities, the resources, the career services staff. I've met alumni from these programs (admittedly the successful ones who show up to admissions info sessions) who brag about helping fellow alums find positions within their firm or organization so it's definitely a factor in your employability. Also, within private firms more than public/NPO, if they're going through a hundred resumes they may just not bother to look at the one from Podunk U in favor of one from a top 20 school because of the implied quality of education/training/skills development at a top 20.

2. I can address this one a bit better: my boss is a HKS MPP graduate, so I ended up talking over my choices with her when I got my admit decisions back. Admittedly I took this with a grain of salt because she is an HKS graduate, but she doesn't think there's a lot of added benefit from the name brand schools in the NPO/public sector. NPOs don't tend to target high profile school candidates because they're more in need of someone with a specific skill set; most are small enough that they can't afford to hire someone based simply on their pedigree. The main factor there would be the level of skills development within their program as displayed on their resume, and in that area there's potentially not a ton of difference between #6 and #15 (UCSD San Diego has a great skills dev program which they highlight as a top 20 school, as does GWU, JHU-SAIS, etc as top 10s).

Now, there's government jobs and then there's government jobs. A bureaucratic position, i.e. one posted on USAJOBS etc that is hiring on the GS scale within X Y or Z agency, may have a certain amount of behind the scenes maneuvering and resume-slipping involved but not a ton; that's where the name brand doesn't matter as much, because the system is set up to try and limit the amount of patronage and influence on hiring. On the other hand, you mentioned jobs on the Hill--those are not in that group of points-based hiring systems. Those are congressional staffer positions and the like, and for those I'd say there's an outsized number of name-brand alumni--my boss has a couple of alumni friends from HKS who work up there either for committees or individual congressmen, my cousin's alumni friend from Georgetown Law helps write tax law in committee, etc. I don't think you can lump Administration/Congress positions in with federal agency positions, because they operate off of different hiring systems and different cultures, so to speak. Even the unpaid senate interns are usually the younger relative/friend of a friend/donor of the congressman, or go to a name-branded school in DC or within that congressman's district/state.

A big part of my decision to attend LBJ was financial. I was accepted to a couple of DC schools, but with little financial aid. Between the higher tuition and higher cost of living in DC, I was looking at about $80,000 more over two years to go to school in DC. As much as I wanted to go to school in DC, I knew that I wanted to go in to government or NGO work and I just couldn't bring myself to spend $80k more to be in DC. On the other hand, between financial aid, working, my savings, and the lower cost of living in Austin, I graduated from LBJ debt-free which was a great feeling to have when I graduated since it meant that I had more options and didn't have to take the highest paying or first job that came along.

If you're interested in working for the federal government, where you go to school will have very little effect on your starting salary. The salary determination process is more or less an equation of education + work experience = GS level X, step Y. The brand name of a school might make a difference in opening doors at NGOs and make a small salary difference, but probably not a big enough difference to offset much extra debt since salaries are generally lower in the NGO/non-profit sector. If you've got your heart set on consulting, then the extra debt to attend a more prestigious program might be worth it, but if you change your mind partway through the program you could be stuck with consulting anyway to pay off the debt. If you come in to the masters as a mid-career student with a lot of work experience though, you could have a higher salary after graduation, so a larger debt payment might not be as big of a problem.

After graduation, I started working with the federal government at a little over 55K in DC, which is more or less average for someone with a master's and a couple of years of work experience. After taxes, social security, etc, I was left with a little less than 40k/year to live on. That's manageable in DC especially since I'm single, but if I had a large student loan payment like the $600-$900/mo payments you can incur if you take out $60K-$80K of loans or had a family, it would be really tough to live in the DC area on that. My salary has gone up a bit in the almost 3 years since I graduated, but it would still be tough if I had a huge loan payment every month. Without debt, I'm able to live comfortably, though not lavishly, save for future needs, and put away some money towards a down payment on a condo/house later on.

Also, being in DC can give you a leg up in networking, especially for the private sector and NGOs, but all of the big policy schools will have a decent alumni network in DC and the big employers of MPP/MPA/IR grads will hit the big policy schools. We had recruiters at LBJ from a lot of government agencies, several consulting firms, and many different international and DC-based NGO/Non-profits. So, while I was initially a little apprehensive about going to school outside of DC, I don't really think it hurt me in the long run. I got 2 great federal internships and then was eventually hired by one of them. Now, I'm in DC and have been able to take advantage of the LBJ alumni network here and build my own network through my current job and living in DC.

It's ultimately a personal decision, since everyone has a different tolerance for debt, but I generally don't think that a lot of debt is advisable or necessary for most MPP/MPA/IR grads since salaries are not usually that high. I also think that the name of the school, while not irrelevant, is not as important in the public and NGO/Non-profit sector as it is in the private sector. So, paying big bucks for a name brand is not as important as it might be for law schools or MBA programs. For example, a person that I met at an admitted student day for LBJ when I was trying to decide where to go ultimately turned down LBJ to go to HKS. We now work for the same employer, doing the same job with the same promotion potential, and my salary's actually a bit higher because I had a little more work experience before being hired. He has a ton of debt that he's trying to manage, but I don't.

I also think that, if you don't have a good match between program fit and financial aid, it is worth taking another year to work on your application package and/or research other schools. If you got in to top ranked program X with no funding, chances are good you'll get in there again or at least in to a similar program if you apply later. In the mean time, you can do things to improve your application package like trying to boost your GRE, improve your resume, improve your statements of purpose, etc. You can also consider casting a wider net when you apply to schools the second time around because maybe you can get in to slightly lower ranked school Y with decent funding and have similar career prospects after graduation.

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.

So, like many, many others, I will be a poor grad student living in an expensive city this fall.

With or without funding, it might be diffiult to estimate what personal expenses may be in a different, more expensive city. The budget estimates schools provide are helpful, but who knows how much they are under or overestimated.

So, I think it'd be great to hear thoughts, plans, experiences from grads who actually live in expensive cities (DC, NY, LA, etc.) or who are looking to move soon ( Esp to DC! ) and need to keep expenses down.

There is a thread about living of stipends in general, () but a lot of the advice comes down to don't eat meat and never go out. While I have no problem with cutting out meat, some professions rely heavily on networking and socializing, so "never go out at all" is somewhat unrealistic.

There is of course forums topics for specific cities, but some have morphed into meandering conversations and make it hard to just find this specific type of info. So it would be great to hear some city specific money saving tips.

If you are so inclined, it would be helpful to later readers if you specified your city and perhaps estimated how much you pay (or plan to pay ) per category and any advice or insights for saving money.

Example:

City: DC

Total Monthly Budget: $3kish

Housing: 1500 for 1BR in Adams Morgan (1/2 of $3k shared with SO) + advice or insights

Food: 250/month + advice or insights (does DC have farmer's markets btw?)

Transportation: Metro, no car 200/month + advice or insights

Social/Entertainment: 150/month + advice or insights

Comments: (the specifics of this example are complete ballacks btw)


Please, keep it limited to big, expensive cities. Living in Cleveland on the cheap is not so much of an issue

Thanks!

Seriously, what's with the backlash? I think business schools tend to have higher stipends for PhD students since the opportunity costs are relatively high for us. Many have MBA's or advanced degrees in marketable fields, not to mention several years of work experience.

That said, 35k is definitely still in the higher stipend range. Rice has a new PhD program, so the stipend is part of their method of attracting good students to join.

The only other program that I've heard of offering 35k is HBS, and that's in a much more expensive city. I believe Chicago's Booth GSB pays 30-32k, and I received a 28k offer from Rochester.

Lol did you see how everyone responded so negatively to that? People get very jealous and bitter when you say that you have enough money for things. I didn't think you were flaunting it in a mean way or anything, I've just noticed that especially in the whole grad school culture people tend to get very mean and attack you personally if you're not living in poverty. For instance, when people learn that my parents pay for 100% of all my expenses and I don't have to worry about money when I'm in grad school they immediately attack me and say that I am the worst person on earth, must be lazy/stupid/dependent/not worth the dirt I'm standing on because I'm not paying my own way. Everyone grows up with different circumstances and some people end up getting higher stipends. I'm sure you earned yours, I just find this response to be very amusing, and sad in a way.

So glad my GA is going to be as high as it is, 35k =)

Trust me, that is absolutely fine. This thread is a bunch of nonsense. I think it is funny that you have just made pre-conceived notions of who I am based on my disapproval of your post. Don't be surprised if others take an opportunity to tell you what they think you are.

You are clearly here to find support for your decision to separate yourself from others in your programs. As the majority of posters here are mature, professional, and good people, you won't find that support here. Sorry. Perhaps you will find support in another forum. Obviously, I don't discount that you are a doctoral student...but you are a condescending one at that.

Yes, I do think they're separate from me. That's why my department has a MA and a PhD program, and that's why my profs have different requirements for MA and PhD students in the same courses. If you have a beef with the fact that there are MA and PhD programs, take it up with universities, not with me.

The gist of my post was about how a good chunk of the MA students (as opposed to PhD students) at my department are immature. I have noticed that this is not so much about individuals, but about career choices -- the people who are doing the thesis option in the MA program are serious, the ones who are doing the internship option are the more immature/gossippy kind. Like I said, I indicated that it might vary from university to university, since my university has that internship option (and in my field, that's very rare). I'm not sure why this seems to be the trend among internship students. It might be the fact that they don't take coursework as seriously as thesis students do. At any rate, I think I made it fairly clear that I am biased in favor of thesis students for that reason. I was not portraying MA students as inherently evil, and PhD students as the good. Geez. As I said, PhD students, too, have demonstrated similar immaturity, but it's been rather rare compared to MA students.

Well, for those who accused me of elitism even though I clearly pointed out I was not talking about all MA students:

I have a friend who was, until 2 months ago, an undergrad student at my university. He's 30 and just finished his undergrad and is starting his MA at another university in the fall. I don't think I have any elitist views toward him, or that I think of myself as smarter than him. I used to hang out with a small group of students from my department (none of whom are PhDs, btw), two of whom were undergrads (including that guy who just finished his undergrad), and we played board games once a week during the summer, and every now and then during the fall/spring semesters.

It's not like I'm gonna stop being friends with my undergrad and MA friends. My question was really about whether or not I should continue hanging out with the broader MA crowd because experience has shown that *most* of them happen to be busying themselves with gossipping and badmouthing more than with writing those papers they ought to be writing. Those who are busy being grad students are not around campus often enough, and, by the looks of it, prefer not to socialize with *that* MA crowd either.

Hi rising_star,

Well, I don't have a problem befriending MA students per se. I'm good friends with two MA students who are in the thesis option and are very serious and intend to apply to PhD programs. My beef is with MA students in general, and how immature many (if not most) of them are/can be. I feel that being too involved with them, yes, diminishes my standing, because it drags me into fights/drama that I think serious PhD students would avoid.

I remember how, during my undergrad years, my TAs (all PhD students) were very serious and based on what I saw at my department back then, never really hung out with MA students, and actually mostly kept to themselves when at school. To me, that's what PhD students are "typically" like, and what I saw at my current university is entirely different than what I had expected to see, and somehow, it feels strange / not right. I don't know if my TAs were different outside the school environment -- could be. My question was about both hanging out with MA students while at the department as well as socializing with them outside the academic environment.

My strained relations with a few MA students has left me wondering if it was because I stooped to their level of immaturity in hanging out with them? I don't know, just thinking out loud. Don't get me wrong, I'm not the elitist kind -- if I had been, I wouldn't have befriended them to begin with. But some of my experiences with some MA students has left me wondering if it's better off being disliked for not being social enough, than being disrespected and laughed at and badmouthed, after being too social?

I don't know -- I just wanted to hear other peoples' views about this, and their experiences with it.

It's a good point. We'll know in 7 hours either way.

Apologies, and I'm not trying to humblebrag, but: I wrote an article for small news outlet on Wednesday. Today I found out it had been copied and reprinted on another site, including my bio, picture, etc. without my (or the news outlet's) permission. So today has been spent trying to track down the "editor" and convince him that it's wrong to pretend to readers that I wrote an article for his very, very sketchy website. Nightmare...

Oops. So I kind of neglected to reply in a timely matter! Anyway, the open house wasn't too exciting--we had a tour of campus, a reception with a couple professors and current students (just mingling with some food trays and drinks), and then we could attend a class afterwards. For me, it wasn't any of the mingling or the professor speaking that really swayed me, it was attending the class. I really enjoyed it, and plan on enrolling at GW now. I haven't officially accepted the offer yet, I'm still waiting on financial aid to come back just to be sure. I have until June 1st anyway.

I don't want to be rude bigotryismoronic, and I think you expressed your point well overall, but on a personally level I'm not a big fan of the expression "blacks" even if you decide to capitalize it. And I'm even less a fan of joking that one cannot speak in the midst of these Blacks freely because they are habitual ass whoopers. I'm not sure others would agree, but given the overtures both your post and your screen name make towards racial sensitivity I thought I might just mention the discrepancy.

This isn't specifically directed at the above poster, but I find it hilarious how everyone always thinks their SOP is amazing. Either the bell curve for SOP quality is way to the right, or people are not very good at objectively evaluating their own writing.

i don't know about the analytical writing section, but I think your quantitative score is what you have to worry about.....

Wondering if anyone has applied to and/or heard from programs in political communication namely from George Washington (Media and Public Affairs) or American? Like most people here, I'm obsessively worried my stats aren't good enough . . .

Wondering if anyone has applied to and/or heard from programs in political communication namely from George Washington (Media and Public Affairs) or American? Like most people here, I'm obsessively worried my stats aren't good enough . . .

I saw this link to an interesting article in another part of the SoP subforum as well as a few other places with advice for SoP's and thought that this would also be a good place to link it. Its an individual committee members point of view about what they don't like to see in a SoP. Although there are a lot of comments to it that seem to give the impression that she is not the only one who feels this way on committees.

Hope that it helps other people!

http://chronicle.com/article/Leave-Dr-Seuss-Out-of-It/126098/

While vocab is very important for the text completions, etc., I found that the hardest part is trying to decode and "dumb down" my response to the reading comprehension questions. I had the same problem with the SATs in high school (I'm in a humanities MA program right now, so I know it's not my actual reading comprehension that's the problem).

For a lot of the reading comp questions, I'd look at the answer choices and say "All of these sound completely idiotic," and then have to eliminate until I got to the least-stupid-sounding answer, and I was still wrong a good percentage of the time. I found that the Princeton Review helped me to decode the dumbass answers on the test pretty well. Not 100% of the time, but at least better than I'd been doing.

Good luck!

My revised GRE score is as below
Quant: 163
Verbal: 156
AWA: 4.0

I studied for 30 days and it was sufficient to get me this score. With more time and right kind of preparation, you can achieve an even higher score.
I have compiled all my preparation techniques in this blog - http://www.revisedgrecracked.blogspot.com/

Hope it helps for your preparation. All the best!