Thoughts on Columbia's MA in Political Science?

[Maeliss]

I am trying to decide between Columbia's MA in Political Science and the MAPSS at Chicago. I hope to go to law school afterwards. There are quite a lot of reviews of MAPSS online but not that many of Columbia's MA in PolSci so I was just wondering if anyone who had done the program could share their thoughts on it. In particular: are MA students afforded good access to faculty? What is the student life there like? How harsh is the marking?

A little info about me: I did my undergrad in Polsci & History at LSE & my field of interest in polsci is political theory. 

[Dwar]

Hey! Congrats on getting into those schools!

I personally don't know a-lot about Columbias MA program specifically, but I would just caution you against going to an unfunded MA program in this field. Unless offered significant scholarships I would discourage anyone from going to them. I have heard, on this forum and elsewhere, that the humanities/social science MA programs are really just cash cows for schools like Columbia and Chicago meant to support the funded PhD programs. Now that's not saying that they aren't good programs where someone can thrive and become a better scholar/policy maker, but they are super expensive and in this field we simply do not make enough to support the loans that would come out of it. 

Now i'm not sure how law school would play into it, in theory a lawyer would be making more than people in the political science field, but even so I think that the above thinking still holds true. That unless offered significant funding they aren't really worth the debt.  

[Imperator Totius Hispaniae]

I'm curious to know why you hope to go to law school after getting an MA in poli sci.  What is the purpose for that?  As someone who went to and graduated from law school, you will not benefit much from doing both, because they are trying to teach you and socialize you to do different things.  MA programs in poli sci are trying to train you to enter into academia or public policy, whereas law school is training you to analyze and think critically, to train you for the bar exam, and to prepare you for a career as a lawyer.  Consequently the teaching, methodologies, and logics for each graduate program are going to be very different, and do not necessarily inform the other. Getting an MA in poli sci will do very little to help you out in law school.  Law school is significantly more applied and is not very theoretical or abstract; you will not be discussing any political theory much or how that shaped laws in the US.  The closest you would get to something like that is a U.S. constitutional law class, but even then political theory plays little role in the analysis of the constitution and U.S. Supreme Court case law.  

Also, as Dwar has stated, I would caution against doing an MA in poli sci in the first place.  I've heard good things about doing MAPSS, but that program is really to prepare students to enter into PhD programs in poli sci.  So if you don't have an intention to get a PhD, I would recommend against applying to that program.  However, I've heard some bad things about Columbia's MA program from numerous sources on this website who have had personal experience in Columbia's MA program.  Columbia's MA program is largely separate from the PhD program, so you will not be getting the same teachers from that program teaching the MA program.  You also will not get the same kind of training, will not be taking the same classes, or have access to the same resources, as students in the PhD program.  So I would strongly recommend against it.  

But honestly, I would really ask yourself what your purpose is--and by extension your career goals-- for wanting to get an MA and a law degree.  The only thing both will do is stick with you hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, and really no better job prospects-in either poli sci or as a lawyer- from having done both programs.

[HBLB]

Im going to also agree with Neo Institutionalist and Dwar, while both Columbia and Chicago are fantastic schools those programs are designed specifically as PHD placement programs. While they certainly wouldn't hurt for law school, the fact that you got into those programs makes me think you could probably get into a very good law school (in U.S. yes, not sure about U.K.). If you are dead set on a masters degree I would either apply or attempt to transfer into the policy/IR masters programs at both UChicago and Columbia. They are both top ten in the world and would set you up for lots of jobs such as NGO, policy/gov, multi national organizations like the UN or EU, and PHD or law school in the future.  Creating valuable experience/practical skills you can put on your resume and allow you to network and build experience far more than just a theoretical program. Columbia's masters programs are through the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) link-https://sipa.columbia.edu. While University of Chicago's is through the Harris School as a masters of public policy and international relations link-https://harris.uchicago.edu/academics/programs-degrees/degrees/ma-public-policy-and-international-relations-mama. Just my two cents, why get a theoretical masters when you can get an equally prestigious policy oriented one that can give you a more practical skill set, a far better chance at a job, and not hurt you for law school applications?

Edited April 8, 2019 by HBLB

[Glarus120]

I am going to echo much of what previous posters have said. I am currently a Ph.D. candidate in a non-Ivy but still well-ranked Political Science program. I did not do an MA, but several people in my cohort did. The only possible justification for getting an MA in Political Science is to better your chances of getting into a good Political Science Ph.D. program. Even then.... there are other ways to make yourself a stronger applicant for the Ph.D. that do not involve handing over a ridiculous amount of money to get a degree that has basically zero practical application on its own. A Poli Sci MA will not help you get any sort of job outside of academia. It *might* make your law school application stronger, but the law admissions committee will consider that MA degree alongside a host of other, potentially more consequential factors and life experiences when evaluating your application against others. 

As a previous poster said, MA programs in Poli Sci largely exist as cash cows to fund Ph.D. students. If you have the money to burn, go for it. If you have to take out any sort of loans, I would strongly advise against it. Because you brought up "access to faculty" specifically (which is a very legitimate concern), I'll just say this- in a place like Columbia with funded Ph.D. students and "academia famous" faculty, you will never be high on any professor's priority list as an MA student. 

I know nothing about the MAPSS program at Chicago. But I cannot imagine a way it could possibly be worse for you than doing an MA in Poli Sci (regardless of the prestige of the department), given that you intend to go to law school, not do a Ph.D. 

[oats]

8 hours ago, Glarus120 said:

The only possible justification for getting an MA in Political Science is to better your chances of getting into a good Political Science Ph.D. program. 

Sorry but this is simply not true. MA programs are cash cows (although not necessarily for the PhD students), but that doesn't make them useless outside of a resume booster for PhDs. The right MA will position you well for government or consulting jobs that you wouldn't be competitive for otherwise. Chicago's MAPSS and Georgetown's SFS come to mind as excellent programs that will go a long way towards placing you in highly competitive jobs outside of academia. If you want to do something like work for the foreign service, NCTC, or consult for other political or national security related clients, I would absolutely recommend getting a masters and not a Ph.D.

[Dwar]

59 minutes ago, oats said:

Chicago's MAPSS and Georgetown's SFS come to mind as excellent programs that will go a long way towards placing you in highly competitive jobs outside of academia.

The programs that you mentioned are professional policy MA programs geared at getting students into the industry and working. They are not meant to send students to PhD or JD programs, or academia. So yes, they would help you and are often times a requirement for getting a good paying government or industry job.

But that isn't what the OP is asking. They are asking about Political Science MA programs from schools which are known for being cash cows. a public policy MA and a political science MA are two different things. One (Public Policy) is meant to prepare students for work, while the other (political science) is generally meant to prepare students for a PhD or academia. 

With that being said, most of the time a political science MA is generally not worth the money one puts into it. As most political science PhD programs offer MA degrees to their students along the way (and are hopefully funded) going into  massive debt for a political science MA in order to boost a PhD application is simply not a good investment. Now obviously if one gets a lot of scholarship or funding (which while rare isn't unheard of for a political science MA) then it might be worth the time. But I would strongly caution against anyone going into debt for a MA in political science. there simply isn't money in this line of work that will pay off the debt in the long run. 

[Glarus120]

3 hours ago, oats said:

Sorry but this is simply not true. MA programs are cash cows (although not necessarily for the PhD students), but that doesn't make them useless outside of a resume booster for PhDs. The right MA will position you well for government or consulting jobs that you wouldn't be competitive for otherwise. Chicago's MAPSS and Georgetown's SFS come to mind as excellent programs that will go a long way towards placing you in highly competitive jobs outside of academia. If you want to do something like work for the foreign service, NCTC, or consult for other political or national security related clients, I would absolutely recommend getting a masters and not a Ph.D.

If you look at what I actually wrote, you will see that I was responding to OPs question asking for advice about choosing between a policy degree (MAPSS, specifically), and a Poli Sci MA. Chicago MAPSS and Georgetown's SFS degrees are policy-oriented, applied degree programs. Political Science MAs are primarily grounded in theoretical coursework and geared towards preparing students to work within the specific academic discipline of Political Science. They are different types of degrees entirely, with different career trajectories. A Poli Sci MA will do nothing for you in terms of making you competitive for "government or consulting" jobs, particularly when factoring the opportunity costs entailed by giving up those 2 years in which you could have been obtaining practical (and, ideally, paid) work experience related to your desired policy field. 

 

 

[oats]

26 minutes ago, Glarus120 said:

If you look at what I actually wrote, you will see that I was responding to OPs question asking for advice about choosing between a policy degree (MAPSS, specifically), and a Poli Sci MA. Chicago MAPSS and Georgetown's SFS degrees are policy-oriented, applied degree programs. Political Science MAs are primarily grounded in theoretical coursework and geared towards preparing students to work within the specific academic discipline of Political Science. They are different types of degrees entirely, with different career trajectories. A Poli Sci MA will do nothing for you in terms of making you competitive for "government or consulting" jobs, particularly when factoring the opportunity costs entailed by giving up those 2 years in which you could have been obtaining practical (and, ideally, paid) work experience related to your desired policy field. 

 

 

I can't agree with you. If you spend time in government or industry you will know that's not the case. The primary difference between the "applied degree" programs and all the others is what their front office focuses on for placing students. During my time in industry students from programs like Georgetown and Johns Hopkins were the most prevalent, but that's largely because they graduate 3-4 times as many students. I regularly worked with people that had masters degrees from places like Duke, Harvard, UCSD, Columbia, NYU, and others. Some positions are just as, if not more, competitive than the academic job market and an MA will open up doors that simply would not be there before. You can make a pretty good career at someplace like the CIA or a think tank with an MA. Without it you'll hit your ceiling fairly quickly.

Another point on the statement that they won't make you more competitive is the simple fact that so many consulting firms are willing to pay for your MA. I know of at least 2 people who got poli sci masters funded by their employer. Consulting firms bill in large part based on your education, and many government positions explicitly require a graduate degree. An employee with an MA allows consulting firms to bill more and fill more positions.

Your point about opportunity cost is also not necessarily true. If you get a fair bit a technical training during your masters it will boost your starting salary much higher than what you would have gotten otherwise. I know several people with MAs that landed data science jobs right out of school and are now making six figures with only a couple of years of experience. If, on the other hand, you want to study something like theory and plan to work at a non-profit or political campaign then yeah, you're right. Skip the degree and get the experience.

An MA is expensive. It is not for everyone. There are more valuable degrees you can get. But they absolutely have more value than simply boosting your Ph.D. resume. They are a great option for many students depending on their goals.

[Glarus120]

2 hours ago, oats said:

I can't agree with you. If you spend time in government or industry you will know that's not the case. The primary difference between the "applied degree" programs and all the others is what their front office focuses on for placing students. During my time in industry students from programs like Georgetown and Johns Hopkins were the most prevalent, but that's largely because they graduate 3-4 times as many students. I regularly worked with people that had masters degrees from places like Duke, Harvard, UCSD, Columbia, NYU, and others. Some positions are just as, if not more, competitive than the academic job market and an MA will open up doors that simply would not be there before. You can make a pretty good career at someplace like the CIA or a think tank with an MA. Without it you'll hit your ceiling fairly quickly.

Another point on the statement that they won't make you more competitive is the simple fact that so many consulting firms are willing to pay for your MA. I know of at least 2 people who got poli sci masters funded by their employer. Consulting firms bill in large part based on your education, and many government positions explicitly require a graduate degree. An employee with an MA allows consulting firms to bill more and fill more positions.

Your point about opportunity cost is also not necessarily true. If you get a fair bit a technical training during your masters it will boost your starting salary much higher than what you would have gotten otherwise. I know several people with MAs that landed data science jobs right out of school and are now making six figures with only a couple of years of experience. If, on the other hand, you want to study something like theory and plan to work at a non-profit or political campaign then yeah, you're right. Skip the degree and get the experience.

An MA is expensive. It is not for everyone. There are more valuable degrees you can get. But they absolutely have more value than simply boosting your Ph.D. resume. They are a great option for many students depending on their goals.

I think you are still not understanding the differences between the two types of MA degrees that OP is deliberating between. That Poli Sci MAs and policy-oriented/applied MAs have different "focuses for placing students" is not a difference that emerges from those programs' "front offices"- it is the product of fundamental differences between the coursework that students take and the type of research they conduct. That you have all these coworkers with degrees from all those great schools you listed is not the point- it is the type of MA that they have that matters. It's cool that you know a handful of people who work in industry with Poli Sci MAs (although I would double check what their degrees actually are because you seem to be conflating several different types of MA programs), but, as a good social science researcher I am sure you know that personal anecdotes do not equal evidence on which to base generalizable conclusions. OP needs to make a decision based on what their individual priorities are, and I wish them the best in that decision. ✌️

[oats]

2 hours ago, Glarus120 said:

I think you are still not understanding the differences between the two types of MA degrees that OP is deliberating between. That Poli Sci MAs and policy-oriented/applied MAs have different "focuses for placing students" is not a difference that emerges from those programs' "front offices"- it is the product of fundamental differences between the coursework that students take and the type of research they conduct. That you have all these coworkers with degrees from all those great schools you listed is not the point- it is the type of MA that they have that matters. It's cool that you know a handful of people who work in industry with Poli Sci MAs (although I would double check what their degrees actually are because you seem to be conflating several different types of MA programs), but, as a good social science researcher I am sure you know that personal anecdotes do not equal evidence on which to base generalizable conclusions. OP needs to make a decision based on what their individual priorities are, and I wish them the best in that decision. ✌️

As someone who first got a policy-oriented MA, worked in industry for a few years, and then went on to get a Ph.D., the distinction you're trying to create isn't real. It's just not. I think you may have missed the point of me listing off the various institutions. It's not that they are great schools, it's that many of them come from the type of programs you claim add no value in the job market.

I concede the point that I don't have complete data on the effect of an MA from varied institutions on the job market. But as a good social science researcher I am sure you know that some evidence is better than none. I've presented you with my data points, what are yours? You're currently a Ph.D. candidate, so what are you basing this advise off of? Did you get a terminal MA? How much time have you spent in government and government consulting work? Maybe you have done all of this and we have both had very different experiences. That's possible. But if you haven't had at least a few years of experiences in the market you're commenting on I would recommend you question how informed your perspective is.