jaw17

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there also a credibility issue? If you're really interested in the American diplomatic relations component, I would think that Georgetown is pretty unbeatable and will give you more first-hand knowledge from the US perspective (including Prof. Tucker, who looks at exactly these issues and has a background in the government intelligence community, and has a great reputation to boot). Especially with the unrivaled resources of the Library of Congress right down the street... My husband is finishing up his master's there, and while he hasn't studied under Tucker, he's loved the classes he took from both Benedict and Millward, who are also China specialists. I definitely vote Georgetown.

Oh, plus Boston is way, way more fun than Baltimore... Then again, the city dump is probably more fun than Baltimore, so that's not saying much

Purely from a short-term career perspective, I suspect that the opportunities afforded by the two programs would be roughly similar, and so if this is mostly just a career move then either will get you where you want to go. They both have stellar reputations, but from an educational perspective - and not just a "PhD positioning" one - Harvard is the better fit with your interests. There are a number of policy-oriented folks at PIH (Canning, Bloom, Bossert, Hsaio, Mahal, Reich, etc.), as well as Michael Kremer over at FAS, so I wouldn't worry about not having access to the faculty that officially sit in HSPH's policy department. At Hopkins, on the other hand, Hugh Waters is really the only policy/economics guy stranded among a bunch of (world-class) international epidemiologists, while almost all of the classes in JHSPH's policy and management track are focused on Medicare, Medicaid and other domestic issues. So based on your expressed interests, I think you'd enjoy your studies more at Harvard; if you could endear yourself to Kremer, you might even be able to parlay that into a job with the Poverty Action Lab afterwards, which is much more economics-oriented than most of the other junior-level field positions available. Of course, if you do move forward with Hopkins you could conceivably undertake the joint MHS/MA with SAIS's Global Health & Foreign Policy Initiative under Scott Barrett, who does a lot of work around the economics of global public goods such as climate change and disease eradication. That might give you more credibility on the economics side than the MHS alone. If you don't mind my asking, where do you work now? That would help me (and other posters) better understand which skills and qualifications you need to beef up most. For what it's worth, I work at an international development think tank and was so strongly advised against Hopkins by my boss (an alma mater of JHSPH herself, back when their econ emphasis was stronger) that I never even applied - given my particular focus on the development and delivery of pharmaceutical products, there was literally no one there that could advise me. Again, that was looking at the doctoral level, where the stakes are far higher, but the principle still stands. That's just my two cents, though, and that doesn't address the question of how much student debt would be worth it to gain the marginal benefits from Harvard. That's a tough call, and thankfully one that I don't have to make. (While it's probably not constructive to mention at this stage, it sounds like LSE's MSc in International Health Policy or any of the programs at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine would have been right up your alley - did you consider those?)

Harvard - absolutely no question. Hopkins is very, very weak on the policy/economics side, particularly within the international health department. Not that it matters all that much, but which specific program are you in at Harvard - the PhD in Health Policy or the DrPH in Population & International Health? Also, I'd love to know more about your specific interests within the general policy/economics space! BTW, there is a small public health thread within the Social Sciences forum - might be worth reposting there. UPDATE: I just realized that you're deciding on a master's program, not a doctorate. I still think that Harvard is probably the way to go, assuming you're considering the SM in Population and International Health (vs. the MHS in International Health at Hopkins), but the stakes certainly aren't as high. However, Harvard will still better position you for the SD if you do decide to continue on - in policy and economics circles, you may well hit a ceiling with just a masters.

As far as opening up spots for those on waitlists goes, do the faculty/staff emails suffice or do the schools usually wait until receipt of the official snail mail response form?

I would say that it partly depends on your area of interest within development - for example, if you're interested in health than GW is by far the better fit since you could take advantage of their public health school. But my own observations of the development field is that while the MA is a necessary hurdle to jump, the degree itself matters far less than the connections you get out of the program. And given that they're both located in DC, you'll have plenty of opportunities to network at either - in fact, arguably GW has the advantage there if they offer more evening classes (leaving time for internships and public events). As for continuing on to a PhD: Since their aren't really any PhD programs in either international development or international relations, I personally can't imagine that the disciplinary departments you'd be applying to would prefer candidates with an MA in one over the other. On the other hand, they'll care more about rankings than your average employer. Tradeoffs, tradeoffs. But frankly, that's a lot of debt to carry in this field...

Ummm....what would your PhD be in, exactly? To my knowledge, there are relatively few (if any) international development-specific doctoral level programs, at least in the US. So presumably you're talking about either econ PhD programs, which have a pretty set course track that you would have to take (and hence would take just as long), or public policy PhDs, which are also relatively rare but probably more flexible about course requirements. Or am I missing something entirely?

On the other hand, consider that if you're the only one in the relationship pursuing the holy grail of a tenure-track position, there's a very good chance that he'll need to compromise on location again..and again, and again. So from an "equity" perspective, I would definitely think about compromising on the programs this time around, all else being (sort of) equal. That said, if program 1 is ranked signficantly higher, that might give you (and by extension, him) more geographic flexibility later on. Just my worthless two cents.

Anyone else heading to a doctoral program at Wharton? I suspect that I'm probably in the minority here... When my husband was visiting the UPenn history department last week, he made the mistake of mentioning that I was heading to the business school to another student - who promptly responded "too bad, for a moment there I thought you seemed pretty cool."

I received my acceptance via email tonight.

PhD - he already has his MA.

Husband just got an acceptance via voicemail - so I guess they're starting to notify.

I suspect that the Harvard MA will give you a leg up getting into the Harvard PhD program, since you would have had the chance to work with those same profs - so if that's your dream end point, I'd probably shell out the money in the near term. But otherwise I'd go with Seattle.

Thanks Ammar & N08D0! I'll take that advice under serious consideration when we decide which areas to focus our "scope out" session on. Any other input?

I'm really sorry to hear about your dilemma. I'm not a history person myself, but have been haunting (ok, stalking) these boards on behalf of my husband, who is just finishing the MA in Global, International & Comparative History program at Georgetown. With that in mind, I can mostly speak to your second idea. Since he wasn't a history undergrad, the MA degree allowed him to demonstrate that he could succeed in grad-level coursework, get strong LORs, prepare advanced writing samples, and take more language classes. I think these really came into play given his incredibly small and somewhat "homeless" subfield - beat modern Central Asia! - where there was added pressure to be a strong all-around candidate in the absence of an obviously perfect fit with any one professor. Since it's a 3-semester program, you could apply for entry in Spring 2009 and then still be able to apply for the PhD admissions cycle for Fall 2010 - e.g. you'd only effectively "lose" one year, not two. And Georgetown was very clear from the beginning that all of the credits transfer should you subsequently be admitted to their PhD program. In effect, that means that you'd only have 2 classes left before beginning your comps and dissertation. (Depending on the school, most other places will accept some credits but still require another 1-2 years of additional coursework.) Financially, Georgetown ended up paying for 4 of the 10 required courses (1 in the 2nd semester, and 3 this term). So overall, it cost us about $24k in tuition, of which $17k was in subsidized Stafford loans. On the one hand, that's a lot. On the other, it led to his acceptance to Princeton, whose annual stipend is nearly $10k more than your average school's and so he'll "make up" the money in the very near term. Update: I should note that while I'm mostly familiar with Georgetown, there is a similar joint program that's just been launched by Columbia and LSE. They extended the application deadline until April 1, so you could still apply for the fall.

Can you clarify why you're applying to an MA at all, if your goal is academia? Why not straight to PhD?

Cornell07: Which field did you apply to at Harvard? It occurs to me that, like my husband, your interests might fall between two research fields - in your case, US history and international/transregional history. My understanding is that the latter is usually less competitive, although I'm sure others would know better.

I'm no help whatsoever, but I'm incredibly impressed that you've been accepted into grad programs w/o undergrad training in history. What's your academic background, and where are you heading next year?

Silencio1982 - Are you sure that you want to live in between, as opposed to just picking one city? I know several people who commute between DC and Baltimore daily, and while it's not fun, it's definitely do-able. Depending on your age and stage in life, you might want to factor in the social aspects of your decision - e.g. almost everyone here makes their friends either through school or work, and living neither here nor there will make it extremely difficult to participate in social activities... Personally, if I were in your shoes I'd opt for living here in DC near Union Station (to easily pick up the regular commuter trains to Baltimore). That way neither of you would have to drive - and thus avoid the nightmare that is parking - and you would have access to all of the resources available in Washington (Library of Congress, public seminars and events, summer work opportunities, the occasional class at other area institutions, and a far superior social scene). Just my two cents. Oh, and congrats!

Husband was just admitted, but is leaning towards declining in favor of Princeton. However, since we'll almost certainly be living in Philadelphia, I'd be interested in whether there are any compelling (academic) reasons that he should weight it more favorably than it's northern neighbor. Thoughts?

I am just absolutely floored by how well things have worked out for both my husband and me (see signature). Especially in his case, the whole raft of acceptances and waitlists for a really niche history field was completely unexpected and is a perfect example of cases where a MA in history can be a valuable stepping stone to a PhD. Unbelievable, really...

Me? Never! I'm Duke blue through and through 8) However, I worked with Harsha briefly and liked him a great deal.

Be sure to take a class from Prof. Harsha Thirumurthy at UNC - he's a fantastic guy doing some brilliant research on the economics of AIDS treatment programs in Africa!

Did you both apply to the same program? I wonder if it would make sense for you to call let the graduate administrator know that his status affects your decision - who knows, maybe they can bump him up a notch or two on the waitlist.

I suspect that Penn is a fantastic program full of great, kind profs...and one very crabby and incompetent program administrator who unfortunately happens to be the external face of the department. Does anyone know whether it's feasible/appropriate for history grad students at one university (say, Princeton) to inquire about auditing a few courses at another university (say, UPenn)? I think it's looking about 90% certain that we'll be in Philly next year to accommodate my program, and it would be nice if husband could take some of his language classes there rather than commuting additional days to Princeton.