s33

SIPA rarely admits students without work experience (or so I'm told), which suggests to me that you are a very strong candidate. Have you considered working for a few years before going to graduate school? If you do, you are far more likely to obtain funding. The time away from school would also help you to define your career interests.

On what basis are you assuming that NYU will be better for internships or post-degree jobs? I'm not convinced that this is true. Also, I think you are underestimating CMU. It is a highly respected university, and the Heinz school has a reputation that is at least equal to (I would argue superior to) that of NYU Wagner. The fact the CMU is offering you significant funding is also important. I may be missing something here, but I'm having trouble understanding why you are leaning to NYU, when its strengths are outside your main area of interest and it would be more expensive to you (based on what you have written). As I stated before, Michigan is probably the best fit overall, but CMU is a good choice as well (particularly with funding). Finally, living costs at NYU will be substantially higher than at CMU.

Michigan is very strong in social policy, and probably the best program overall among the three. Leaving out financial issues, I think Michigan would be a clear first choice, followed by CMU and then NYU. With the funding CMU is providing ($20,000 is nothing to scoff at), I would give it serious consideration. NYU Wagner is a good program, but it doesn't seem well aligned with your interests.

Harris grad here. My experience at Harris was a good one. Probably the quickest way to gain insights into Harris is to view two threads from last year, entitled 1) "Harris vs. Ford" (simply enter this into the search engine) and 2) "Answering questions about Harris". If, after reading these threads you have further questions, feel free to send me a PM.

Whattheflip, please feel free to PM me if you have specific questions about Harris.

Full Disclosure: I am a Harris grad. To be perfectly blunt, I think that you would be foolish to choose SIPA. That is an enormous expense for a school that is really a peer of the other two. Further, while your interest in regional studies might be better served at SIPA, I cannot see how this is worth 130K. Also, Chicago (nor Heinz, from what I can gather) is not merely a "quant" school. You have more coursework geared to political economy than to statistics/quantitative methods, and the second year of the program affords you ample opportunity to branch out into virtually any area you choose (you may take up to 6 courses outside the Harris School, btw). Finally, by graduating with much less debt, you will have a lot more flexibility to take a job you like, rather than one you need for the purposes of paying off debt. imo, the rational choice comes down to Heinz vs. Chicago-Harris.

Bastille's point regarding the importance of math is certainly correct as far as it goes, but at Boston the OP's courses will consist mainly of applied math (along with the option of picking up a pure math course or two along the way). This will serve two important purposes: preparation for the PhD, and signaling that the OP can handle the rigors of graduate economics coursework at a highly respected program (which Boston University is). Further, because the OP will be evaluated by graduate economics faculty at a highly respected economics program, he will have the opportunity to gain letters of reference he needs to gain admission to a top PhD program. If he goes the 'continuing ed' route with math courses, he will still be an unknown to Econ PhD Adcoms, and his chances of gaining entry to a top program will be minute. In contrast, if he does well in the BU Masters program, his chances will be greatly enhanced.

I consider the Boston MA clearly superior for your purposes because all of your courses there will serve as preparation for an Econ Phd. While you may be able to take an Econ PhD course or two in the course of an MPP/MPA, most of your courses in policy programs will be peripheral to your main interest, which is academic-track economics. If you certain about the Econ Phd, I do not see how an MPP/MPA will help you all that much (also, there is the opportunity cost of the additional year of study to consider). Finally, economics courses in policy programs (even very good ones, such as Berkeley) simply do not provide the technical training to prepare you for an economics PhD. If you go to BU, you will be spending an entire year obtaining such training. Policy programs and economics programs serve very different purposes. The former are useful and interesting, but they are not a good substitute for intensive graduate-level training in economics.

I strongly recommend the MA in Econ at Boston. This will be viewed much more favorably by PhD admissions committees. Even though I am an MPP graduate, I do not believe that an MPP/MPA degree will be viewed nearly as favorably by Econ PhD AdComs as will a good MA in Economics (which BU certainly is). I don't think this is even a close call.

No one can provide reassurance as to possible future regrets, but I can tell you that your present line of thinking is sensible and mature. Fletcher is an excellent program, and being able to graduate with negligible debt (vs. 100K+ at HKS) confers an enormous advantage. Among other things, it will give you much greater flexibility when you enter the job market. In my view (and I speak with some experience, having recently completed an MPP program as a mid-career professional), younger students do not pay sufficient attention to the implications of debt. You must decide what is most important to you, but if I were in your shoes I would choose Fletcher without hesitation.

Cornell's MPA is likely less structured, but I'm sure that you can construct a great program. University-wide, Cornell's academic resources are at least a match for Duke's, and $18,000 per year is a very big difference. I won't say this is a no-brainer, but I think it is approaching that territory.

I think this is an essentially false dichotomy. Public policy rankings are not taken very seriously by most employers, and besides, the Cornell name will generally carry as far (if not further) than Duke's. If finances were equal, I might give a slight advantage to Duke (since their policy program is better established), but in this instance I'd go for the money. The less debt the better!

Agree with Sassytune. The ability to obtain your Master's without incurring significant debt is a huge plus; it really expands your post-degree options (just as large debt limits your options and your freedom of action). Also, bear in mind that you will be very busy during your program, and probably won't have as much opportunity to enjoy the surrounding city as you might think/hope.

These are all good programs. I don't think you would go wrong attending any of them. Of the three, I looked closest at Heinz, and gave it serious consideration (I ultimately chose Chicago-Harris). If financial considerations are roughly equivalent, I would recommend going for 'fit'.