s33

I was about to respond at length, but ajcafe has captured the essence of what i wanted to say. There is a lot of wisdom in ajcafe's response. You have potentially much to gain by waiting a year or two for grad school, and would lose nothing but a little time; moreover, you are not realy losing because you are gaining great experience in the process, and strengthening your resume significantly. Unless there are other relevant factors you have not mentioned (e,g. a full ride to one of those schools might cause me to reconsider my view), i think this one is a relatively easy call. Congratulations on your professional accomplishments and the impressive admits.

Harris Grad (2010) here. What Harris1year and HY1 have said is consistent with my own experience- a few years distant though it is. My Harris experience was very satisfying, indeed almost wholly positive. A few points in response to the questions raised above: The 'quant' reputation is a bit - and perhaps more than a bit - exaggerated. The required quant/econ courses are entirely manageable for anyone willing to apply themselves to a reasonable degree, regardless of their academic background. I do not recall any students not getting through the core. There are tougher courses that are elective (and probably recommendable for someone with an economics background), but you can avoid those if you wish. The atmosphere among the Harris student community was very collaborative, not competitive at all. I honestly cannot remember a single example of students competing with one another or not being willing to help another student out. The main negative I heard about was with the Career development office. I was a mid-career student on leave from a position to which I have since returned, so I didn't require their services, but I did hear some complaints about the CDO not being as helpful as expected. But that is 5 years ago now, so I cannot speak to the current situation. I suppose it should also be mentioned that Harris core classes tend to be rather large compared to some other programs. This didn't bother me, in part because the subject matter of core classes is conducive to the 'lecture' format (a format where class size is not so important). After the core- in other words, for the final four quarters of the program -the classes tend to get much smaller. Harris has a lot to offer. Some may find it a bit impersonal (perhaps a byproduct of class size). I found it plenty friendly, but in a quieter way than in some places (nobody gets in your face at Harris; if you want to be left alone you will be left alone, if you want company and friendship there are many opportunities, and I did not find the student body at all cliquish). Harris provides a fundamentally sound training for the aspiring policy professional, particularly those more interested in policy analysis that public sector management. It has a fairly academic bent, which I liked. I also found it a very nice student community. There are other schools (Michigan and Berkeley come to mind) where I suspect I would have had a similarly satisfying experience, but I have absolutely no regrets or complaints. Knowing what I know now, I would make the same choice again.

A dissenting view from a Canadian with some knowledge of these programs and universities. First, in terms of the respective strengths of the economics departments, UBC is much stronger. It is in the top tier of Canadian programs, and McGill is not. Second, as to overall university strength/reputation, UBC actually outranks McGill in some prominent international rankings; eg ARWU. It is certainly not a clear cut decision om general university strength, while in the specific discipline UBC is unquestionably superior. Btw, i have no axe to grind here, as i attended neither school. Good luck with your decision,

gryphonbones, I sent you a pm message. There is an excellent young faculty member at Chicago who does a good deal of research in environmental policy, and who has his PhD from the University Michigan. He is in a good position to compare the two schools (and perhaps others), including in the environmental policy field. I sought his advice before making my own decision on where to attend, and the advice he provided was very objective and sound (as I thought at the time, and continue to think with the benefit of experience). I recommend that you contact him; my pm message includes his name.

Harris grad here. 'Quantitatively rigorous' seems to be sort of a catch-all phrase that encompasses a lot of things - depending upon the audience - including mathematical content, statistical/econometric content, and the use of economic theory and models in policy analysis. While Harris offers a lot of optional courses with heavy mathematical & statistical content, the core requirements are pretty basic and very manageable. To me, the distinguishing feature of Harris is the emphasis on economic reasoning and economic models in almost all the courses. If you are comfortable with basic economic theory, you should do just fine. It really is just a matter of putting in the work. I would imagine this would apply to most other MPP programs as well - the only exception that comes to mind is the Harvard MPA-ID program. In short, the concerns regarding 'quant' requirements of MPP programs are almost always overblown- at both Harris and elsewhere.

Chicago Harris grad here. I do not think there are any appreciable quality differences between Chicago and Berkeley, so your decision should probably be based on finances and locational preference. Both programs are strong in policy analysis generally, and social policy in particular, and both are more geared to domestic policy. Chicago is very good in quantitative analysis and methods, but I suspect Berkeley is as well (everything I have heard anecdotally suggests this to be the case). In short, these are very similar programs, although Berkeley is significantly smaller in terms of student numbers. This can definitely be a plus in Berkeley's favour, although I rather liked Chicago's size because I got the chance to interact with a very diverse group of people (there are a lot of international students in the program as well). As an international, you will likely not qualify for in-state tuition remission, even if you manage to secure an RA/TA position, so I doubt that finances will be all that much different between the two.

Publicpolicyhopeful, If your academic record is good (GPA of around 3.4 or better) and you have a strong GRE (75th percentile or better) - and please note that these are rough guidelines and should not be viewed as cutoffs - I cannot see anything that would prevent you from getting into a good MPP/MPA program, potentially with decent funding. Your graduation from a less well known school is in no sense disqualifying, although it does raise the importance of the GRE in the the admissions calculus. Based on what I have observed (as an MPP graduate of Chicago Harris), the range of career interests suggested by your posts can quite readily be realized through successful traversal of a good MPP/MPA program. Actually, based on your posts, you could easily pass for a composite of several people that I knew in the program at Chicago, and most of whom are now gainfully employed in their respective fields of interest. Different schools weigh the various admissions factors differently, but I can tell you that at Chicago the numbers (GPA and GRE) are really important in both admissions and (especially) funding decisions, and work experience is typically not all that important. More than anything, they seem to be looking for public-service oriented individuals who show intellectual promise, as potentially strong policy analysts/researchers. Good luck, and feel free to PM me if you have specific questions about Chicago.

lilysoul, As a graduate of UChicago (not MAPH), I am not surprised by the varying responses to the program. For the right kind of student, Chicago's standalone Master's programs (MAPSS, MAPH, MA in IR, etc) can serve as an excellent springboard for admission to top-notch PhD programs. I would expect that MAPH publishes it placements (I know that MAPSS does, or did), and it might be a good idea to look for/request this information. In my view, the main question is, are you the 'right kind of student' for MAPH? By this, I am referring not only to your academic ability and your work ethic (both of which should be pretty high in the distribution if you hope to do well), but also to your willingness to be proactive in seeking out research opportunities. To be blunt, Chicago is not the kind of place where faculty will 'hold your hand', or seek you out. I think that some Master's students find the experience rather isolating, and it is quite easy to go unnoticed. Chicago is not a place for the timid, the faint of heart, or those who are unwilling to work very hard; I say this as someone who has spent significant time at two other 'global top 20' universities, and in my view Chicago's academic culture is both the toughest and potentially the most rewarding of the three. Chicago is the closest thing to a 'pure' academic experience that I have encountered. That can be good or bad, depending upon your preferences and your perspective. Many find Chicago to be a 'cold' place (I am not referring to the weather). I did not find it so, but I can understand how some others would. Financial considerations aside, I'd say Chicago is a great place to find out if you want to do a PhD, because their MA programs are really designed to prepare you (and assess your suitability) for the life of a PhD student. I do not have any familiarity with Tufts, so I cannot really offer an informed comparison. Good luck with your decision. btw, your status as an international student will have no bearing upon financial aid at PhD programs, at least at private universities such as Chicago (and Tufts).

Harris grad here. There are many students who enter the program with minimal quantitative backgrounds. The required courses for the MPP do not require all that much math, although facility with algebra and basic calculus is certainly helpful in the statistics and economics core sequences. All that you need in this regard can be acquired in math camp. The best advice I can offer is to 1) prepare for math camp by brushing up on algebra and pre-calculus/calculus (any basic text should suffice); and 2) pay close attention and work hard during math camp. If you do this, you should be able to pass the math qualifying exam at the end of math camp, irrespective of your formal quantitative background. The Harris program offers a number of more heavily quantitative courses for those who are so inclined, but these are optional. In short, if you do a little bit of studying beforehand and apply yourself during math camp, you should be fine.

In your situation, I would recommend serious consideration of turning down your offers entirely. Your list of admits suggests to me that, with additional experience, you should have little difficulty gaining admission to a good program after another year. You would not only be able to increase your personal savings, but also increase your odds of being awarded scholarship funding at a good program. I really think that you have little to lose, and potentially much to gain, by working for a year and not committing to unfunded opportunities. You may wish to ask programs if students who defer for a year are 'locked into' a commitment (I do not know how this works). I think it would be wise to keep your options open. Good luck.

Since your ultimate goal is a PhD, I think the most important factor would be your opportunity to engage with faculty who could provide effective references for your PhD applications down the road. Faculty references will certainly be more important than any minor (and likely entirely inconsequential) differences in published program rankings.

Just a quick followup to my previous comments. I found the 'theoretical' orientation at Harris - in particular, the core political economy sequence - to be of practical benefit in aiding my understanding of political processes. This is not a 'hands-on' type of skill, but is very useful nonetheless for those of us whose policy work interfaces directly with the political world. I did not want to leave the impression that Harris is a good choice only for those who are PhD- bound. I am not - and never was- PhD bound, and I chose Harris for its distinctive strengths. I was very satisfied with the program, which provided pretty much exactly what I was seeking and expecting. I think the bottom line is that these programs are all of high quality, but each has somewhat different orientations and objectives. The best advice I can offer is to find out as much you can about each program, know your own strengths, weaknesses, needs and objectives, and decide on the basis of these factors (and funding, if there are financial differences). It really is a question of fit.

I knew a few people who went in 'cold' without any calculus, but they were at a distinct disadvantage. You are required to pass a math proficiency test at the end of math camp, and if you do not pass the test, you are required to take a math course during the first quarter. I think your life would be easier if you took some calculus beforehand, to maximize your chances of passing the math proficiency test the first time around. The first quarter is the most difficult, and it is made harder yet if you have to take math in addition to your core courses. The answer really depends on how confident you are in your ability to quickly pick up the math skills you need over the course of a 3-week math camp. p.s. in my cohort, about one-third of students did not pass the calculus proficiency test on the first attempt.

I would definitely not label it "right-leaning" in political atmosphere. When conversations turned to political matters I found sentiment among students to be primarily (though by no means exclusively) on the liberal end of the spectrum. There is a somewhat 'market-friendly' orientiation that is the natural product of having so many economists on faculty. I would describe it as quite apolitical, and I think that both conservatives and liberals can feel very comfortable there.

I looked closely at Heinz (as well as Michigan), before ultimately choosing Harris. My sense is that Heinz and Harris have a lot of the same strengths - in particular, a solid grounding in economics and quantitative methods. The main differences that I observed were as follows: 1) Heinz seems to have a more 'MBA' type curriculum, with a fair bit of emphasis on management and 'job-related skills', whereas Harris approaches matters from a somewhat more academic/theoretical perspective. If you enjoy theory, I'd say you might be more comfortable at Harris; if you strictly prefer applied work (or dislike theory), Heinz might be a better fit; 2) political economy is a central part of the Harris curriculum, unlike most other policy programs (including Heinz, at least when I was looking into it). In short, if you enjoy theory, economics and political science, Harris should be a great fit. If you strongly prefer applied work and gaining job-related skills, I'd give the nod to Heinz, all else equal. I hasten to add that I liked a lot about Heinz, and came fairly close to going there, and that these are only my impressions. I hope I have done justice to the Heinz program -which looked really good to me, if not quite the best personal fit.