soaps

I don't know why you think a minimum 3 years is somehow "all-the-work-experience-in-the-world," or why it's an unreasonable requirement. Rather than thinking you're being discriminated against, maybe you should consider that it's not really in your interest to get a public policy degree with no work experience and that these programs are specifically tailored to hone skills/interests developed in the (relatively) early stages of public policy careers (rather than requiring, as you said,"a career behind [you] already"). What is a degree from a program like LBJ (which I point out only because it's the one you mentioned) going to do for you with no full-time work experience? Without that work experience, what basis would you have to even answer that question? I think you should reconsider how you'll spend a mere 3 years of your life. It can be hard in this economy even for those with work experience and a PP degree to get a job. Just a thought. That said, many programs talked about here admit people straight from undergrad. There is, of course, the risk you are paying a ridiculous amount of money just to start at square one again once you graduate. That is why many students with master's degrees from these schools that admit straight from undergrad are competing with undergrads for entry-level jobs.

A graduate degree in IR is important for working in federal agencies, not as much for working for Senator/Congressman X. You'll eventually find your Hill career stalled without an advanced degree, though, just like everywhere else... "professional staff" and doing "inherently political work" in DC will generally require a grad. degree. But the way to work on the Hill isn't to go to a school in DC... many people who go to DC policy schools think they have privileged access to internships and jobs (it's a marketing ploy by those schools), when really several schools there just oversaturate the market. I know that, where I worked in DC, we deliberately sought out people who weren't from those schools (especially since they tended to admit people straight from undergrad...i.e. with no real experience). I also got all my DC internships without living in DC, and that's not remotely uncommon. None of the top IR schools will be looked at any differently for DC jobs/internships, and for the Hill, it has a lot more to do with your home state and connections for an entry-level staff ass position. Easiest way to break onto the hill would be getting an internship where you want to work, then working up the ladder. It doesn't mean going to a DC policy school. You'd be spending a lot of time/money only to end up in an entry level Hill job anyway, which you can do without one of those degrees. DC experience is essential to get DC jobs, but DC schools aren't necessary for DC experience (especially not on the Hill). I hate to say it but the "instant gratification" path would have been to get a Hill internship while you were an undergrad, then get hired out of college. As it is you'd be in a kind of awkward limbo where you've probably come from a lucrative job and are too experienced for an entry-level staff ass position (and an internship), but you lack the DC experience that would allow them to confidently hire you for something more senior. I'd consider a more traditional IR path (defense/intelligence/diplomacy) and, if you like, you can always be hired as professional staff on the Hill later. Starting an IR career on the Hill is kind of a strange trajectory, in my opinion. The Hill can be very insular. It sounds like you want to be involved in policy planning, and foreign policy planning for the United States really happens in one branch of government, and the other provides review/oversight. How easily you can switch between the two (and which side is more substantive) is open to question.

When it comes down to it you're not going to get around the lack of Hill experience if you want to be a foreign policy LA. You're far more likely to be elevated to that position if you've worked for Congressman/Senator X for however many years and you've worked on foreign policy issues, or Congressman/Senator X trusts you and recommends you for that position elsewhere. A background (especially at a foreign policy think tank or something similar) and advanced degree would help you in that regard, but the experience matters more. I think anything in the executive branch is rather different. For the White House, you can break into the west wing fastest if you worked for the campaign. On the junior levels you might be able to secure something that way, but even then you'd have to be a networker extraordinaire and it's far more likely you'd get a strictly political position. Obviously senior foreign policy advisers have distinguished diplomatic/intelligence/military careers and there's no way around that. If you're a "hot shot" and don't like delayed gratification, try becoming a White House Fellow while going to school. That's a tried and true way of getting onto policy planning staffs, whether at State or elsewhere.

What are you guys even talking about? I've admitted defeat.. my Reese's have been eaten and my axes ground. At the end of the day you just can't argue with advice from some guy "at a more science-y university doing an unrelated master's." I shouldn't even try. You guys will have to excuse me now. I have some important career advice to give over in the physics subforum.

I don't think I'm misconstruing your posts at all. You admit not knowing anything about this field and yet you say HYP "basically run the US" and base your advice on that, despite OP's post about a very specific job that most certainly does not require HYP or law/business degrees. That not everyone is criticizing you shows how terrible these forums are at discerning good from bad advice. Everyone knows the value of HYP... it goes without saying, but you seem to think this is special insight based on life experience as opposed to being the eye rollingly banal observation we've all heard a hundred times. What makes it bad, though, is that you seem to think HYP is the proper remedy for any/every problem/question. If not, then what has been your advice exactly? Based on my life experience, nothing about your post is really relevant to this field or the specific job in question. Going to HYP would be great for everyone... but it's like a doctor saying "be healthy" or "don't get diseases!" It's not helpful advice... it's just obvious and not targeted/relevant. There's an excess of terrible advice on these forums and I'm free to point that out. But I guess I shouldn't be so critical. Nabad is right: first, get into HYP, preferably not HYP-lite (i.e. a public policy program), toil for a few years in the private sector, then--and only then, once you've paid off the extra debt of a JD or MBA--go try getting a job as a foreign policy LA with no Hill or foreign policy experience. Despite that needlessly circuitous path, you'll be fine because you went to HYP and could potentially be POTUS.

Funny how none of that has to do with becoming a "foreign policy adviser." No, you don't have to go to Harvard, Yale, or Princeton to be a foreign policy LA and you certainly don't have to go to law or business school. Where did OP ask about most of the stuff you're talking about, Nabad? It just seems like you wanted a soapbox to preach about HYP and diminish the value of non-HYP public policy degrees, while not even understanding the relative value of these schools in a purely IR context. Your friend went to Yale/Jackson and got a great position at the World Bank. That's great, but a lot of grads from IR programs go on to the World Bank... I know two just from GWU. Where did you get the impression from OP's post about "paths to becoming a foreign policy advisor" that he was asking how to navigate the upper echelons of government to become a "top leader" like POTUS or managing director of the IMF? There are certainly more "top leaders" than Ban Ki Moon, even non-HYP ones. Many cabinet-level posts have been filled by non-HYP public policy/IR grads, the most famous of which (right now) would be Geithner. And beyond all that, the blanket statements with regard to law school (any law school) and its value compared to a PhD are hilarious. Talk to an actual law student about whether debt should be a "big deterrent," even ones in T13 programs. I'm sure OP, contrary to everything he said, would be willing to sacrifice a few years of his life at a private law firm before switching tracks to foreign policy and gaining the necessary experience on the Hill that's far more important than an advanced degree. You sure as hell don't need an MBA, PhD or law degree to be a "foreign policy advisor" any more than you need Yale/Jackson to work for the World Bank. A JD/MBA will be just as marketable if they're from good programs as a public policy degree for what OP wants to do (assuming he has the prerequisite Hill/DC experience), but there's no point spending more time or money on something you're not even interested in unless, as Nabad seems to think, you want to become POTUS. Then yes, an MBA or JD from HYP might serve you better. @myshemblable, any of the top IR programs will do just fine. You don't even need an advanced degree, necessarily. It has far more to do with "climbing the ladder" on the Hill than anything else. You won't magically become some senator's top foreign policy wonk without having worked on the Hill on foreign policy issues, whether as a lower staff assistant or with a mix of Hill/NGO experience.

Jesus. These forums are ridiculous sometimes. Even if you think she has taken an excessive amount of time, it's not anyone's place to try to publicly shame her for it, especially if you have no actual stake in the outcome (which some of you clearly don't). Now that I think about it, it wasn't anyone's place to report someone's activity in a private Google group on a public board in the first place, and I regret it ever happened. @are we there yet? You can change the Google group settings so you can get fewer e-mails (or none).

I haven't either, but we aren't supposed to hear back until this month anyway and we still have half the month to go. Searching for off-campus housing this early won't prove very fruitful. June or (more likely) July are when most things for August open up.

Of course. I just think things have shifted to the facebook and Google groups.

Looks like it. Funny how your mind can change so radically day-to-day with grad school decisions.

I think taking 5 courses at SIPA is pretty standard after the first semester, even if you're working. But there's no doubt the time commitment and academics are rigorous and competitive. Living in NYC has the same unforgiving (but rewarding) characteristics, and that's true no matter what you're doing. You have to invest more to get more (interestingly enough, Thomas Friedman just wrote a piece about this in the Times, even though I normally can't stand him). Anyway, the biggest thing is just the "fear of missing out" that is greatly exaggerated there. You have to strike a balance if you want to be academically focused, and it just depends what type of lifestyle you want. There are weekends in the city where I just chill in the park, cafe, whatever... it doesn't have to be a fast/furious lifestyle on the LES every weekend, and that has diminishing returns anyway. The same is true of academics... there's a point at which you don't need to invest more time/energy into either. You can strike whatever balance you want in NYC, as nothing prevents you from having a pure academic focus at either school, and NYC at least provides the possibility of more. I imagine you'll do fine at either school and both will be distant memories soon enough. A rational calculus doesn't reveal much after a certain point. You just have to choose.

They are completely irrelevant (and absolutely misleading) for public policy schools that focus on international affairs, so they most certainly aren't the "best source out there." Somehow I doubt, even for pure "public affairs" schools, Indiana is better than Harvard and Georgia better than Princeton, which has nothing to do with prestige and everything to do with a school's resources, quality of faculty, and so on. Public affairs as an academic, non-professional discipline is what is being measured here. It's like "public relations" as an academic discipline (i.e. irrelevant). Academicians will have a natural bias toward academic programs, and most of the top programs discussed on this forum are not pure academic programs and most blend public with international affairs. If US News attempted a similar ranking for international affairs programs with no public affairs ranking, it would be like using APSIA to survey schools about the quality of pure public policy programs. It doesn't make sense and it's a fundamental flaw with the ranking. Anyone who goes to Indiana thinking they're at a more highly regarded program than Harvard/HKS is absolutely, 100% delusional. The schools with the best reputation in the government/public sector/NGOs as well as the private sector are not represented accurately in this ranking.

Just look at the top schools being talked about in this forum.... half aren't even on the US News top 25, mainly because those schools have an international affairs focus, but also because the US News definition of "public affairs" is completely unclear (and so is their methodology). The survey response rate is notoriously low (somewhere in the low 30th percentile), and professors will have a natural bias toward pure academician-types that are often only half the faculty at top programs. US News also has the International Studies and Politics ranking (http://www.usnews.com/education/worlds-best-universities-rankings/best-universities-politics-and-international-studies) that is more accurate for int'l affairs programs but is still an academic ranking and not oriented toward professional schools.

Oh Jesus, everyone knows the US News ranking is wildly inaccurate. No need to repost it here thus giving it more false credence. Asking people to provide their own rankings accomplishes literally nothing except revealing the biases of everyone here. If you want an informal assessment of the top programs, you can search practically every thread in this forum.

If you're having trouble finding a job, you can expect to continue having the same (or more) trouble in NYC. It's a tough market for people in our field. I'd send your resume out to employers there to test the waters. Maybe even use a friend's address in the city just to gauge your marketability. If you need to take classes, maybe look at one of the CUNY colleges (even out-of-state tuition is rather low) and consider finding a part-time job or volunteer work. I think that's a good way to fill gaps in the resume, but this is a hugely expensive proposition in NYC. Look at some cheaper neighborhoods/boroughs as well. As for the ROI, any public policy/IR degree should be an improvement on (and not a substitute for) work experience. You may find that, even with a graduate degree, you're starting from square one. That applies to any public policy/IR program in this economy, I think.

Areas around Morningside are still markedly cheaper in my experience. Manhattanville and Manhattan Valley will be around $200/mo less on average for comparable apartments. East of Morningside Park seems even cheaper, although I've never lived there. You can even find deals downtown that are cheaper than Morningside Heights. Apparently a not-insignificant portion of students don't even apply for second-year fellowships even when they have above a 3.4 GPA. Anyway, I'm sure it'll come down to the visit.

Of course I'm defensive, but it has more to do with the view that DC (and DC schools) are some sort of panacea for IR against which all other schools are measured, and SAIS students/hopefuls are the worst offenders here. In reality, many people deliberately want to escape that environment, and I think these forums reflect attitudes/behaviors that are prevalent in DC (namely, the compulsion to use some prestige/reputation calculus). That's what turns these forums toxic, and in any case, if I'm being derided for de-emphasizing reputation rankings pulled out of thin air and emphasizing the importance of work experience, it's a poor reflection of this forum's priorities. OP didn't ask this guy to rank all IR programs; he asked about SAIS and Gtown. The only other time I've commented in a SAIS thread is to disspell the idea that a SAIS degree can be used as an MBA, which is another myth that still needs debunking here. I've never derailed a SAIS thread before except maybe this one, and that's because it needed derailing. If I'm the only one jumping on someone comparing schools as "meaningfully worse" than others with only condescension and internships to justify his point of view, so be it.

The fact that you keep highlighting internships as your only relevant work experience just proves my point. Ah, well, my apologies for thinking you might care about offending others. I didn't realize that was an unreasonable expectation; then again, I'm not a student at SAIS, where unjustifiable arrogance is apparently the norm. I love how you are just doubling down on the DC intern stereotype. I had a feeling you were probably a CSIS intern, the think tank that loves to oversaturate social media with reports of how highly regarded and highly ranked it is, despite the weaker brand name. Sort of reminds me of SAIS. And again, you probably have this impression of an "expectation" to go to IR schools because you have no meaningful work experience. The expectation is to get an advanced degree, yes, and IR programs make sense for people who have work experience. Those who use IR programs merely as a launching platform to get DC internships, however, diminish the brand name of every IR school. You don't need to justify your internships to me, but the fact that you felt the need to proves how insecure you really are. Arrogance doesn't make up for insecurity. As for your State internship, it's not hard to get a DC internship at State. I'm sure SAIS did help distinguish you... from all those undergrads. If you think it's not apparent you're pulling this "ranking" out of thin air, you're woefully mistaken. I'd love to know the methodology you're using (beyond your own self-serving impressions) that put Fletcher "just below" SAIS and MSFS. I'd reiterate you're a SAIS student with no meaningful work experience thinking you are qualified to rank your own school's peers. But of course you don't realize how ridiculous that is because you also think being an intern at State, the Hill, and some think tank actually impresses people and gives you meaningful insight into some mysterious, esoteric system like "IR circles." That is the DC image interns have. Students who are banking on their school's reputation (and who bother ranking reputations at all) reveal immediately how inexperienced they are because they have no idea how little these reputations matter in comparison to meaningful work experience. You will be nothing in the job market compared to applicants with more than internship experience, even those at schools you've given "meaningfully worse" reputations like GWU. But I'm sure HKS and WWS students are grateful (and relieved) you've put them at the same level as you, the inexperienced SAIS student. That made me chuckle. Those schools, unlike yours, value work experience to a much greater degree, and thus have a much better reputation even in these "IR circles" you've interned with. You may think (well, clearly think) you're special, but the experience threshold (and competitiveness) of SAIS isn't as high as you think it is. After all, that's why you're there.

I wasn't questioning whether IR/public policy schools were meaningful; I was merely pointing out this question exists (to a large degree) in DC and at think tanks, where fellows have often come from (or teach at) these schools. I point that out because SAIS isn't as highly regarded in that environment as this guy claimed; rather, the opposite tends to be true because the interns that come from those programs tend to have more confidence/arrogance than meaningful work experience. This isn't true of everyone, and it's not only true of SAIS, but unfortunately it's true of a large (and vocal) chunk. Many people who end up at these schools with meaningful work experience go there to hone specific skills, and their success can largely be attributed not to their school but to their own drive and background and the synthesis they achieve with their particular programs. But perhaps despite that, even if many junior staff were considering IR programs, the near universal impression of them after actual employment tends to be significantly diminished, and this is especially true for DC-based schools. It is partly a product of an economy that forces MA students to take internships and junior staff positions that traditionally go to undergrads (and that don't require much skill beyond what an undergrad offers). That is why many deliberately choose schools outside DC to get out of the DC bubble where arrogance is often conflated with competence, where the market is oversaturated with public policy and IR degrees, and where interns think they run the country. I think anyone who has spent any significant amount of time in DC would echo this sentiment. If I thought IR programs were meaningless, I wouldn't have applied to any, but I don't think they make sense for people straight out of undergrad. Again, for people honing specific skills, SAIS (and any of the top programs, or even those that aren't considered "top") are awesome. For people with no work experience, it's just funny how they trumpet their school's brand name so loudly, and SAIS students are known precisely for doing that. This forum is a case in point. Any school frequently talked about here, including those he thinks are "meaningfully worse," can be great if they're a complement to work experience. The only sense in which public policy/IR programs suffer, and this is especially true in recent years, is that they oversaturate the market with interns and junior staff with MAs doing grunt work. People who go into these programs, even GWU and American, can avoid that and go on to do amazing things, and the prestige/reputation of their school matters little.

Your little personal ranking there is arbitrary and more than a bit silly (and most likely offensive to many people on these forums). SIPA meaningfully below Tufts? What on Earth are you basing this on? You just come off as a pretentious putting your school above all others and then evaluating which are its "peer" programs. It's even funnier you compare it to HKS and WWS as an afterthought. Your perception differs markedly from reality, to say the least. You may have interned at some think tank, but having worked at one in both DC and NYC, no public policy schools are respected; in fact, you're generally discouraged from going to any of them. And in the first place, if you're a grad. student interning at a think tank, you did something wrong (pro tip: those internships are meant for undergrads). SAIS has no standing above any other school except on the GradCafe forums, where (and you're a case in point) SAIS students think they're some elite squadron of IR students. It's especially interesting they think that when, outside these mysterious "IR circles," no one knows what SAIS is. You're someone who hasn't even graduated from SAIS and you have your own personal ranking of IR schools? ...really? I was just comparing the perceptions in DC, where Georgetown is undeniably better regarded overall. You might not recognize that because you are probably only in DC because you're a SAIS student or intern, which is consistent with the SAIS stereotype I became familiar with while living there (you share that with GWU and American). A common SAIS stereotype is inexperience, not "super elite IR hero." I interned with SAIS students... as an undergrad. The fact that you think a couple economics courses on the margins contributes materially to how you are evaluated (or perform) at the State Department proves how ignorant you are of what an FSO really does, even for those who choose the economic cone. And I think you're wrong about State overall. Even asking friends and former supervisors, there's a strong cultural aversion to identifying the benefit of one program over another (largely because this benefit does not exist); in fact, it matters less and less the more you advance in your career, and even less so your first two tours. When you're bidding for posts, it matters much more who you've worked with. Not to mention, most people at State have not gone to public policy programs, so you are way overemphasizing the importance of brand name within State. Are you attending SAIS straight out of undergrad or something? I wouldn't be surprised. You have the arrogance of someone who has only ever been an intern and thinks he understands the "system." The mere fact that you're at SAIS doesn't give you the automatic credibility you think it does given the school's tendency (or perhaps reputation) of admitting people with little to no work experience.

On the brand name issue, I think GTown is actually stronger overall in DC. It really depends what you mean by "IR circles," as there is no unified IR circle in DC. Within the State Dept., I think SAIS probably has the stronger reputation, but how much this means in a meritocratic agency where there is a strong cultural push against nepotism/elitism is open to question. GTown has a stronger cultural component, as MSFS students will be lumped in with other GTown stereotypes (whether positive or negative). Most probably assume SAIS is in Baltimore as opposed to being a JHU outpost. I don't think either is more highly regarded in IR NGOs. Within think tanks, for example, I don't think any IR/public policy program is highly regarded.

Found this post by a current SIPA student in the Google group. It reflects what I've heard from both friends at SIPA and other current students I've interacted with. Say what you will about the administration, but large classes/inaccessible professors is a stereotype that just doesn't hold water. Thought it was relevant (bolding is her own):

It's really nothing to worry about... that's what happens when people read Yelp reviews. If we went by that, every restaurant/building in the city would be shut down. I'm looking forward to engaging everything about Columbia's intellectual culture/environment, whether it's the World Leaders Forum or just sitting at the Hungarian cafe on Amsterdam chatting with other grad. students...

First, I'll just say we all know the rankings (even FP's) are silly and have a stupidly low survey response rate, not to mention high variability year-to-year. But more importantly: I think once you talk to SIPA alumni and students, you may get a different impression of student-professor relationships. Especially if you're in a smaller concentration, once you start taking your concentration/specialization classes, the class sizes are much more reasonable. The only complaints I heard were from the EPD concentration, which did seem large and impersonal. I attended the human rights and conflict resolution sessions, though, and I got the impression of a small, closely knit community. The HR director talked to me for a while afterward about customizing a program based on my interests, and he seemed personally interested in having me in the program and told me to e-mail him any questions. That said, admissions/financial aid seems understaffed and constantly overwhelmed, and the school may both benefit and suffer from the fame of some of its faculty. But you don't hear Gtown students complaining that Madeleine Albright doesn't hold regular office hours, nor should anyone expect Stiglitz to be. Anyway, it means nothing coming from one person, so hopefully you'll be able to develop your own impression after meeting with professors. At the admitted students day, I didn't quite get the impression of a "partying" culture (although there was that aspect) so much as a very social one. SIPA seems surprisingly socially integrated, especially compared to other schools at Columbia. There is the risk of the Columbia bubble, but midtown is 15-20 mins away, and the LES is no more-or-less convenient than anywhere else on the west side. I've had no trouble going out in the rest of Manhattan, as physical proximity matters less here than connectedness. It's easier/cheaper to live near a subway line up here, and the UWS has two subway lines that may even give it easier access to parts of downtown than some areas that are better located but more disconnected. Where you hang out and go out is up to your personal preference. I hang out on the UWS and go out downtown. The only risk is the cost of a cab from the LES to Morningside Heights at 4 in the morning. But, I was also surprised by how many students emphasized the academic rigors over the social aspects, which seems in-line with the Columbia reputation. The Upper West Side itself is (in my opinion) the most beautiful area of Manhattan and has so much history. The scale is still big, even farther up north, and Morningside Heights in particular is gorgeous with access to three parks and many historic architecture/buildings. I can't tell you the number of times I've walked along Riverside Park down to 59th and marveled at the views. That matters to me personally since I value a beautiful, serene space to live in. You'd also be living in an area that has produced so many famous writers/artists/musicians, and I think the upper Upper West Side is about to experience another reinvention with many people being outpriced of W'burg and other areas and coming back to north Manhattan. Columbia is renowned for its intellectual culture and it's apparent everywhere. Staying in NYC is the biggest factor for me. The things I value in life aren't purely (or merely) academic, and many people at SIPA seemed to have the same attitude. I may be in the minority here, but I just see grad. school as another stepping stone in life, and so the peripheral, soft factors of a school matter a lot more to me. That's why complaints about administration/career services seem so insignificant to me since they seem in-line with how things function in NYC in general, and everyone endures it willingly. And in any case, nothing about a school's curriculum is going to impart more truth or wisdom than any other, but the environment you live in and people you meet there might. I'd echo what others are saying: visit the school and trust your instincts. But for what it's worth, I think your instinct about the unique type of person attracted to SIPA/NYC is right. It'll be the type of person who wants access to the amazing wealth of cultural/intellectual resources of a big city and a big university, and for whom the malfunctions of a big system are an everyday part of life. My impression of what some others want from other schools is a small, controlled environment, which may be what Medford is and which certainly isn't what SIPA offers. I've consistently been impressed by SIPA students the same as I'm usually impressed by anyone in NYC, and the vast majority I've talked to love being there, despite the same common complaints about the administration. Just walking into the international affairs building will show you how engaged and passionate SIPA students are, but walking into the admissions office might give you a different impression. But complaints are university-wide and are almost a part of Columbia culture, which makes effusive optimism about the school strangely countercultural. That's probably why SIPA's reputation has remained the same over the years. Anyway, best of luck deciding!

The only thing that might be wrong of the negatives you listed: I've talked to friends and other current SIPA students outside admitted students day, and they think most professors (except maybe the all-star faculty) make themselves very available. The trouble is probably that there are so many big names at SIPA... I doubt Stiglitz holds office hours, for example. I found the faculty at each concentration session I attended very warm and inviting, so maybe you have time to make a short trip up to SIPA to visit with faculty/staff to make your decision. Best of luck deciding!