soaps

This whole discussion is immature.

No need to feel bad at all! This is why acceptance rates are a silly metric to begin with. The experience threshold for an MC/MPA is so much higher it's not worth the comparison. If HBS or HLS similarly had a "mid-career" tier or degree, I'm sure the acceptance rates would be much higher as well. Fewer applicants, more self-selective.

And if it is, that'd be strange, because both HBS and HLS have many more applicants than HKS. I think a lot of people look at the overall acceptance rate of HKS, which includes mid-career MPAs and whatnot. Their acceptance rates are much higher than the MPP, which makes it even stupider to compare these schools. Some degrees like the MPA are way more self-selective with much smaller applicant pools.

They don't just do this with HKS. They'll do it with every lower ranked business or law school. The admissions rate for an MPP at HKS went below 20% three years ago... and I imagine, since the number of applicants keeps increasing, that number has just gone lower since then. That makes it comparable to lower T14 law schools if I'm not mistaken. I really thought we had gone past this discussion a week ago. No need to keep reviving it. We get it: HBS and HLS look down on HKS. They probably look down on everyone. Can we move on now?

Well, I don't see any updates on the blog/website/Sparks, nor any e-mails about it.

Where did they post this update?

I double-majored in political science and philosophy with a heavy IR focus.

No, he confused it with last year.

Hahaha, sorry. I guess I've been going crazy waiting for results and HKS is always on my mind. But what I said can be applied to any school, I guess.

If you spent time at 740 Park you'd be loitering. I don't think anyone here is looking to be a top hedge fund manager. HKS is hardly the worst offender in terms of the egregious cost of education. Thousands of schools do the same thing, and it's doubtful their brand names pay the same dividends as Harvard. This principled opposition to HKS seems heavily biased and, quite frankly, a little bizarre. They also do have what is effectively a loan forgiveness program for those who work in public service, although it's unclear from their website who (and how many) qualify. If Harvard had a smaller class like WWS, I'm sure students would be very well-funded. But saying HKS should, out of principle, eliminate literally hundreds of spots comes off as arrogant and even privileged--as though you have some fundamental right to have your professional school education fully funded. There is no need to passionately rationalize your decision for not going to HKS... if you didn't apply, great, that's your choice. Leave it at that. There's no need to go out of your way to cast HKS as having some terrible "essence" based on its financial aid program. You're free to do that, but if you do, you should expect people to respond negatively. Each applicant will make their own determination.

Was the admissions deadline the same last year? If I recall correctly, they also simplified their application this year, so I'm not sure how that affects their timeline. To me it seemed like they were trying to get out decisions earlier.

You should probably explain the entire situation and not just ask if you can send an updated resume, because of course they won't allow you to send additional materials. If you listed a job as starting at some point in the future, I doubt they would take account of this in their admissions decision anyway. However, given that your resume is on record as listing a job you never had, you should correct the problem. Otherwise you'll have an obvious falsehood on a resume Harvard has on record, and it'll be a lie of omission if you don't correct it. They will not only assume you started the job, but that you have been in that job for the entire time up until you matriculate. That is not a good thing. If this new job factored into their decision in anyway, which I doubt it would have, then you obviously shouldn't benefit from having listed something that didn't happen. Solution: tell them, otherwise it seems like you lied on your resume. In the more likely scenario a future job didn't factor into their decision (because, after all, you haven't started working there), I don't think telling them will hurt your prospects for admission. So, either way, you should probably let them know. Really, you probably should not have listed a job you hadn't even signed a contract for. But jobs do fall through sometimes, and as of right now, Harvard thinks you're working at that job and you haven't corrected that perception yet. You should probably do that before and not after they are done deliberating on admissions.

Will any of you be waking up nervously on Friday? I guess it's more likely they'd send something the following week.

The chances of getting one of these fellowships are considerably lower than gaining admission to HKS. I'm sure you wouldn't be in consideration for one of these fellowships unless you already met the basic HKS admissions profile.

I think this just boils down to which programs are the least quantitative, and aside from SAIS, no one ever gives a consistent answer. It's also unclear what you mean by qualitative public affairs program, since quantitative analysis is partly what defines those programs. But, for example, I applied for the MPhil in IR at Oxford, and they also have an MPhil in Politics. The MPhil in IR is a taught program emphasizing theory/history while also preparing people to be practitioners in foreign policy. It has some quant, but not nearly as much as American programs. It's also not necessarily a professional public affairs degree, but it's the closest thing I can imagine to a "qualitative" public affairs degree. Anything in the U.S. doesn't quite fit that label. The MPhil in IR is also ridiculously hard to get into, though. Something like a 6% acceptance rate... :/

I would contact admissions officers before doing anything. Could be they'd just disregard an online course, especially if it's not graded and can't give you a transcript.

I'm skeptical that any of these will convince an admissions committee. A few years ago I talked to some admissions directors who recommended cheap but reputable programs in the DC area. I think they do care where you take these classes. Have any of you talked to admissions officers about Coursera? What did they say?

Still wondering how someone is debating "HKS with partial funding" before admissions decisions have even been sent out...

I'm glad for this. Maybe it'll allow more people who are actually interested in HKS and not a "backdoor" to be there this year.

I think the entire comparison is silly. He claims the caliber of HLS/HBS students is ridiculously higher, but the caliber of a PhD student in theoretical physics would also be ridiculously higher compared to HLS/HBS students. You can't reach a meaningful comparison between these schools because they seek to measure and create different things. The idea that even a Harvard undergrad would "make fun" of an HKS student, especially mid-career students who have vastly more impressive profiles and life experiences, is frankly laughable. I'm positive HLS/HBS are harder in terms of coursework, but people in those programs are required to have a more competitive mindset that prepares them for a linear, conventional career path. I think people often make the comparison with HKS because HLS/HBS students can get the same kind of jobs as a graduate of HKS, but not vice versa. But that's precisely the point: HKS prepares fewer people for a more narrow career path in a field that still has a large pool of jobs, and so it's naturally less competitive. HBS/HLS are more easily marketed for practically anything. And yet, the dividends paid from HKS/HBS/HLS in a public service context are roughly the same, so why not take the path of least resistance? One of the political officers during my State Dept. internship switched careers but was a graduate of HLS, and his boss (the Deputy Chief of Mission) graduated from a state school and god a mid-career masters. These labels--and the ridiculous comparisons being made here--matter less the further you get into your career. And for some public service career paths, they are ridiculous to begin with.

... are you implying you've heard something from Harvard?

The problem with this is that no one is remotely consistent about which schools they say are more quant heavy than others with the exception of SAIS. I've heard the exact opposite about the MPP at HKS (not really quant heavy), I've seen HKS listed as one of the least quantitatively rigorous, I've heard that GTown is incredibly quant heavy and cares about high quant GRE, and I've heard the opposite of that as well. Same goes for SIPA, and SIPA is the only school I've applied to that requires a quantitative resume. I don't get where people get their info, but no one has ever been consistent on this, and I've been perusing forums for years now.

Yeah, I applied for the MPP and MIA. It's hard to measure my full-time experience because I took time out of school to complete some full-time internships (State Dept., Justice Dept., U.S. Senate, and a top foreign policy think tank) and then worked for a think tank briefly before volunteering in India. In total those amount to over 2 years of experience, but I have less than a year of post-grad, paid experience. I'm American and half Spanish, so I'm never sure what to put on those forms. My GRE was 168V/148Q, so pretty bad. You have a lot of experience! I might have to get some more of that, haha.

Sure! I applied to HKS, Oxford (MPhil in IR), and SIPA. I haven't heard anything yet, naturally. I went to a good public school with a 3.89 GPA, but didn't do well on the quant section of the GRE. My background consists of several full-time internships and a brief stint at a foreign policy think tank, followed by volunteer work with a refugee community in India. What about you?

Public relations is very different from public policy/administration. They aren't the same type of program.