CIPA 2020

[ax062320]

So I am a bit confused with the CIPA timeline tho it is rolling basis.

I submitted on video interview on Jan 30th and still waiting...

[ehallwyo]

I submitted my video at the end of Jan (can't recall the exact day) and received an offer on Feb 24. If applications are evaluated by faculty committees (idk if they are or aren't), maybe different committees operate on different timelines? I'd imagine they'll send you something by mid-March since that's when most non-rolling programs release their decisions. Good luck!

[ax062320]

On 3/2/2020 at 2:16 PM, ehallwyo said:

I submitted my video at the end of Jan (can't recall the exact day) and received an offer on Feb 24. If applications are evaluated by faculty committees (idk if they are or aren't), maybe different committees operate on different timelines? I'd imagine they'll send you something by mid-March since that's when most non-rolling programs release their decisions. Good luck!

Thanks a lot for sharing that info! That really helps. Congrats!! Hope to hear back soon

[educationmatters]

They emailed me on March 10th with a good scholarship. Best of luck!

[ehallwyo]

CIPA is in my top two along with American. I enjoyed my visit to Cornell this Feb and could see myself there, but its location is a serious consideration for me; I would definitely prefer to be somewhere more accessible. That said, CIPA has given me the best financial aid offer. Anyone else weighing decisions? 

[x26558]

@ehallwyo 

On 3/13/2020 at 5:22 PM, ehallwyo said:

CIPA is in my top two along with American. I enjoyed my visit to Cornell this Feb and could see myself there, but its location is a serious consideration for me; I would definitely prefer to be somewhere more accessible. That said, CIPA has given me the best financial aid offer. Anyone else weighing decisions? 

Similar situation. Presently its between CIPA, Harris, and Batten-- in that order. CIPA funding is not an issue, they seem very generous. Worried about program reputation and location (not the weather, I'm from the north and don't mind it) otherwise I'm a fan. Harris is expensive and the heavy quant/MPP route is not exactly what I want,  but think the Chicago network would be strong and you could carve your own path. Batten worries me for being fairly new and the possibility of getting stuck in the south if not in DC, otherwise I like a lot of the strategic plans on their site and leadership emphasis. 

[sgr2020]

@ehallwyo @x26558

I'm in a similar position as well, currently trying to decide between CIPA ($$$$) and McCourt ($$). I'm drawn to Cornell because the staff seems to really go out of their way for the students. They have been the most helpful/responsive contacts by far. I'm also excited for the reorganization they seem to be doing to bring more attention to public policy at Cornell. The staff seems to really be pushing to improve Cornell's reputation/recognition. Right now I'm just worried about reputation/networking opportunities, but looking around on their website they seem to do a good job of pulling in speakers and leading networking trips out into NYC/DC. We'll see where I end up, but for now I'm leaning towards Cornell. 

[ehallwyo]

@sgr2020 @x26558 

I'm waiting to hear from American to see if they are willing to negotiate their offer with me to match Cornell or at least close the gap a bit. American was my front runner from the get-go, and I almost didn't even apply to Cornell. But after visiting in February, Cornell really grew on me a lot (to the point that even if American does increase their offer, I'll still have a tough choice). The folks at CIPA arranged a whole schedule for me, including a lunch with current students, a tour, a coffee with another student, meetings with the ED and the Career Planning person, and a class sit-in. Though I initially envisioned my grad school experience being in DC, the idea of being somewhere with better access to the outdoors is attractive, too. I don't see myself being in DC long-term, so I don't feel the pressure to have that place-specific networking.

Throughout the admissions process, CIPA and American have done the best job of making me feel like an individual and not like a number. One question I have is what impact, if any, will CIPA being an institution within the College of Human Ecology and not a school itself have on student experience (available funding, program-specific opportunities, etc). I think I may start a thread on Institutes vs Schools to see what others have to say about what practical differences there might be. 

[sgr2020]

@ehallwyo

So it looks like they are actually transitioning the CIPA Institute into a School of Public Policy! I was actually able to speak to some of the CIPA staff and it seems like it will actually be a very positive step for the program. 

And I completely agree with you on being able to build a network outside of DC. I'm also not sold on remaining in DC for the rest of my life, so I like how Cornell has much more diverse placement options. 

[ehallwyo]

I just came across that announcement last night! The article I read said it could open as early as Spring or Fall 2021, which means that the transition could be right in the middle of our time there. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not, because I imagine that there will be some wrinkles that will need to be ironed out. I'm also wondering how the coronavirus may impact these plans, in terms of budget (eg if significantly fewer international students are able to matriculate/pay tuition). Definitely an exciting prospect though, since it means extra attention and resources will be allocated to the program during this time. 

[GradSchoolGrad]

18 hours ago, ehallwyo said:

@sgr2020 @x26558 

I'm waiting to hear from American to see if they are willing to negotiate their offer with me to match Cornell or at least close the gap a bit. American was my front runner from the get-go, and I almost didn't even apply to Cornell. But after visiting in February, Cornell really grew on me a lot (to the point that even if American does increase their offer, I'll still have a tough choice). The folks at CIPA arranged a whole schedule for me, including a lunch with current students, a tour, a coffee with another student, meetings with the ED and the Career Planning person, and a class sit-in. Though I initially envisioned my grad school experience being in DC, the idea of being somewhere with better access to the outdoors is attractive, too. I don't see myself being in DC long-term, so I don't feel the pressure to have that place-specific networking.

Throughout the admissions process, CIPA and American have done the best job of making me feel like an individual and not like a number. One question I have is what impact, if any, will CIPA being an institution within the College of Human Ecology and not a school itself have on student experience (available funding, program-specific opportunities, etc). I think I may start a thread on Institutes vs Schools to see what others have to say about what practical differences there might be. 

So this thread was amusing to me. I have heard of CIPA as a program (I did higher ed policy) but never ever encountered any CIPA person in any pubic policy event or even seen them on a roster for anything. Never in:

1. National policy research presentations

2. Policy case competitions (including one in New York)

3. Policy simulation events 

4. Career events

have I ever met CIPA person.

So out of curiosity, I dug into CIPA... and I found some huge warnings signs.

1. They seem to be a disproportionately high straight from undergrad program (I looked at their career print out and did a LinkedIn search on 3 people they highlighted randomly. 1 was military and 2 were straight from undergrad). There is nothing wrong a person going straight from undergrad to an policy program, but when a program is heavily undergrad focused, you are not going to get much of meaningful network out of that.

2. A reorganization (especially a big one) is not something you want to be involved in as a student because you get caught up in all the political side swiping and resource balancing. This is especially true as the program is part of "an institute" so it likely doesn't have much leverage to begin with. Imagine if your family got broken up and had to merge with another family how crazy that would be. Same deal in higher education terms. 

3. Their career outcomes document is interesting in that they don't differentiate between joint program / dual degree students and single MPA program students. (U. Chicago and Harvard Kennedy School do). That is a basically a tricky way for a school to make their employment look artificially better, since people may have gotten a job based upon another program and not the MPA. 

4. Not to sound shallow, but the speakers I see on their roster have interesting roles, but compared to Syracuse or Indiana are not nearly as exciting. 

To me CIPA is like Stanford MPP. Yes the Stanford name is spectacular, but the program really doesn't carry that much weight. It is also a warning sign when a school has to advertise that their grad program is part of the "ivy league".

Some food for thought. 

Edited March 23, 2020 by GradSchoolGrad

[ExponentialDecay]

@GradSchoolGrad

I have also never met anyone from CIPA, but all of the red flags you point out are true of almost all policy programs, including Georgetown McCourt. The proportion of students matriculating straight from undergrad has risen everywhere in the past few years, including very competitive programs like the HKS MPA-ID. I'm sure that share will tumble now that we are entering the recession, but if this is an issue for you (and I agree that it should be an issue if you are an early or mid-career professional looking to expand their knowledge and professional network with people who have held at least one job), you should apply to highly ranked MBAs. That's the only professional masters that isn't riddled with undergrads.

Most policy programs don't differentiate between regular and dual degree graduates in their job publications. They also don't track how many people went back to their employer after the degree (which is a lot of people). 

And reorgs, unfortunately, are underway at several highly-ranked policy programs that I shan't mention on the internet and, in the coming couple of years, are likely to hit even more schools. In large part the education reorgs are part of a structural change happening all over the policy world, which now values a very focused training in in-demand skills over 2 more years of liberal arts education.

[GradSchoolGrad]

1 hour ago, ExponentialDecay said:

@GradSchoolGrad

I have also never met anyone from CIPA, but all of the red flags you point out are true of almost all policy programs, including Georgetown McCourt. The proportion of students matriculating straight from undergrad has risen everywhere in the past few years, including very competitive programs like the HKS MPA-ID. I'm sure that share will tumble now that we are entering the recession, but if this is an issue for you (and I agree that it should be an issue if you are an early or mid-career professional looking to expand their knowledge and professional network with people who have held at least one job), you should apply to highly ranked MBAs. That's the only professional masters that isn't riddled with undergrads.

Most policy programs don't differentiate between regular and dual degree graduates in their job publications. They also don't track how many people went back to their employer after the degree (which is a lot of people). 

And reorgs, unfortunately, are underway at several highly-ranked policy programs that I shan't mention on the internet and, in the coming couple of years, are likely to hit even more schools. In large part the education reorgs are part of a structural change happening all over the policy world, which now values a very focused training in in-demand skills over 2 more years of liberal arts education.

@ExponentialDecay
 

I think we agree on the same concepts, but I will make the argument that a level of detail does matter, and we might disagree on where the direction of things might go (then again, neither of us can 100% read the future - at least I can't)

1. I want to point out the difference between programs having increasing proportions of straight from undergrad vs. currently having a disproportionate share of straight from undergrads (I view 25% or higher as disproportionate). As public policy has become more popular as an undergrad major, grad schools across the board are trying to tap into the straight from undergrad market, that includes McCourt. Its one thing to come from a position of being predominantly work-experienced (I would say only approx 5% of my McCourt class was straight form undergrad) to starting off being heavily straight from undergrad. At HKS (granted this was a decade ago) my sister was one of low single digit numbers of straight from undergrad). 

The reality is that among the better MPP/MPA/IR programs, the average starting age is roughly 25 to 27 (as in it has been published in some marketing material in the past 3 years or so). I would be concerned if a school doesn't actively address their average age (I could not find it for CIPA). So the bottom line is that a program not riddled with straight from undergrads is the rule among the better MPP/MPA/IR programs who generally strive to be professional schools (now strive and achieve are two separate things). 

As and Ivy with a terrific Cornell brand name, it would greatly concern me that CIPA A: don't publish average age (at least I couldn't find any) and B: the majority of people they highlighted in their career prospectus are straight from undergrad (since usually the ones with the best career outcomes are those with work experience and you normally would want to highlight them in a career prospectus). 

2. You are also right that most programs don't do a good job segmenting their career outcomes, but the better ones do. HOWEVER, what CIPA does which I have never seen before is to spotlight people (who aren't famous or in positions of high standing) who have jobs that are 100% not related to their MPA degree, but their other degree. I view that as a ploy to paint career success period and covering up for the lack of pure MPAs to market. 

3. There is also a difference between a large scale re-org surgery vs. continuous improvement projects. Yes, you are right, to keep up with the times, a lot of schools/programs are conducting various levels of organizational design improvement. HOWEVER, it is one thing for a well-established school to add a new program, create a new research center, or create a joint degree. That is continuous improvement, like building an addition to your house or changing out your car's brakes. Sure there will be some level of disruption, but the mainframe of the program is still there.

It is something completely different to do a complete reorganization of an institute to be sliced and diced and merged with other programming. That is like breaking a car apart and then reconstructing it with a new engine + transmission. It may be necessary in the long run, but being caught in the middle of it as a student is not pleasant. That is what CIPA is doing. 

4. I will wager that due to the recession, more people will go to grad school straight from undergrad, hoping to ride out the recession. That was the case in the 2008 recession. 

5. I also do agree with you that for many experienced professionals (especially those choosing an MPA over an MPP), an MBA may legitimately be a better investment with higher ROI and flexibility, even if you decide to focus strictly on policy / non profit.

Edited March 24, 2020 by GradSchoolGrad

[ExponentialDecay]

@GradSchoolGrad

I mean, I don't know when you got your masters, but things changed a lot in the policy masters arena even in the past 5 years. None but the most competitive programs have out of undergrad proportions as low as 25% lol. Programs at the level of Georgetown, SAIS, SIPA accept anyone who can put together an application in English.

The reality is that among the better MPP/MPA/IR programs, the average starting age is roughly 25 to 27

The mean is pulled up by the 40 year old army vets. The median age is more like 23. Today's reality is that the majority of policy masters students are recent undergrads or people with <1 year of work experience, usually not in a policy role. I do think these programs are still valuable academically and professionally, but getting into one is no longer in itself a marker of your quality as a specialist.

HOWEVER, what CIPA does which I have never seen before is to spotlight people (who aren't famous or in positions of high standing) who have jobs that are 100% not related to their MPA degree

Really? It's pretty common. Harvard may disclose when spotlighted applicants are dual-degree, but they absolutely still feature them.

HOWEVER, it is one thing for a well-established school to add a new program, create a new research center, or create a joint degree.

I'm talking about reorganizing or eliminating existing flagship programs and culling staff. This sector is in a great deal of upheaval. Every policy masters today is having an identity crisis because employment options for policy generalists with 6 figure debt from a 2 year masters have dried up long ago. Schools are trying to plug large and persistent cash flow holes. Of course no one knows what will happen post-corona - hopefully, there will be a boom in student applications and at least the top schools will get more time and budgetary space to work through a gradual transition, but shit was moving scary fast in the past two years.

I'm not privy to the reorg happening at CIPA and it is indeed not a good idea to go to a grad school that's going through a major transition. What I'm saying is that many of the students who are matriculating this fall at schools you consider "prestigious" are stepping into the same mire.

I think a policy degree is still the right career choice for many people. But I don't think the decision can be made on prestige anymore. Most of the grads from Harvard and Princeton are stuck in the same employment situation as people from lesser schools.

[GradSchoolGrad]

1 hour ago, ExponentialDecay said:

@GradSchoolGrad

I mean, I don't know when you got your masters, but things changed a lot in the policy masters arena even in the past 5 years. None but the most competitive programs have out of undergrad proportions as low as 25% lol. Programs at the level of Georgetown, SAIS, SIPA accept anyone who can put together an application in English.

 

1. I graduated this past Spring. I know McCourt was at most 10% straight from undergrad at most in my start class (that includes the international students) with an average age of 25 or 26 upon entering. Terry Sanford at Duke MPP I know was single digits numerically straight from undergrad for my start year group (among the Americans). Where are you getting your numbers from? When did you graduate from grad school/or what year are you in?

2. The oldest military vet in my MPP program was 31 starting out. The oldest I have ever met or known of in an MPP program is 34. I am an Army vet. I know we pull up the average, but given how we are still a small population at most schools (at my program there were 6 out of 130ish or so) , we can only do so much. 

3. In the two employment documents from HKS I have looked at, they do identify the numbers that are dual degree and they have highlighted dual degrees that are at least tangentially tied to policy. A pure non-policy dual degree resulting job (i.e. products at Nordstrom) isn't something HKS has spotlighted. Again, the difference is level of detail, and I view that to be a point of concern when a school pulls a move like how CIPA plays it. 

4. The sector is interesting. From a career perspective, the pathways to outcomes are much more uncertain and more technical training/subject matter training is part of the game. Careers are also diversifying. As in MPP/MPAs are going into job areas that previously they did not occupy or did not exist. From a demand perspective, I see most schools growing their enrollments. However with Corona and pending crash of the Chinese international students numbers, that may likely change. For applicants, I would point out that scholarships really do matter to help you avoid debt. 

5. I also agree that you can't rest on prestige, but there is a lot to be said about how a better resourced / professional development opportunity accessible oriented school can make a significant difference + provide flexibility. Sometimes that correlates to better career outcomes and sometimes it doesn't. In the case of CIPA, I would argue it doesn't. It also really depends on what the person's career focus to be. I always found it interesting how there were so many opportunities for healthcare policy or infrastructure policy (where the money is) but very few people I knew was ever interested in those roles because of the lack of "cool" factor. Regardless, by virtue of location and program history, the opportunities for CIPA would be less compared to say a UVA-Batten or NYU-Wagner. Of course it means nothing if a student can't take advantage of it.

6. As for being to get into a non HKS or WWS policy school, there is definitely a sliding scale of lowering standards for those who the school knows can pay full tuition. I also found it interesting that I met so many people in lots of policy programs (including my own) who only went there because they got rejected from a top 25 MBA school. However, I would say that even the top tier non-elite (for the sake of argument - SIPA, SAIS, and the like) are still decently competitive to get in for the average applicant. 

Edited March 24, 2020 by GradSchoolGrad

[educationmatters]

On 3/23/2020 at 7:50 PM, GradSchoolGrad said:

So this thread was amusing to me. I have heard of CIPA as a program (I did higher ed policy) but never ever encountered any CIPA person in any pubic policy event or even seen them on a roster for anything. Never in:

1. National policy research presentations

2. Policy case competitions (including one in New York)

3. Policy simulation events 

4. Career events

have I ever met CIPA person.

So out of curiosity, I dug into CIPA... and I found some huge warnings signs.

1. They seem to be a disproportionately high straight from undergrad program (I looked at their career print out and did a LinkedIn search on 3 people they highlighted randomly. 1 was military and 2 were straight from undergrad). There is nothing wrong a person going straight from undergrad to an policy program, but when a program is heavily undergrad focused, you are not going to get much of meaningful network out of that.

2. A reorganization (especially a big one) is not something you want to be involved in as a student because you get caught up in all the political side swiping and resource balancing. This is especially true as the program is part of "an institute" so it likely doesn't have much leverage to begin with. Imagine if your family got broken up and had to merge with another family how crazy that would be. Same deal in higher education terms. 

3. Their career outcomes document is interesting in that they don't differentiate between joint program / dual degree students and single MPA program students. (U. Chicago and Harvard Kennedy School do). That is a basically a tricky way for a school to make their employment look artificially better, since people may have gotten a job based upon another program and not the MPA. 

4. Not to sound shallow, but the speakers I see on their roster have interesting roles, but compared to Syracuse or Indiana are not nearly as exciting. 

To me CIPA is like Stanford MPP. Yes the Stanford name is spectacular, but the program really doesn't carry that much weight. It is also a warning sign when a school has to advertise that their grad program is part of the "ivy league".

Some food for thought. 

Thank you for your thoughts! As someone who is weighing USC and CIPA, do you have any thoughts on USC? 

[GradSchoolGrad]

1 hour ago, educationmatters said:

Thank you for your thoughts! As someone who is weighing USC and CIPA, do you have any thoughts on USC? 

Assuming you got the same scholarship (or lack of scholarship), for me it is a no brainer --> USC Price school all the way. 
 

Now... I will say that USC Price has much stronger pull and network out west than DC / New York.  However, CIPA is so behind in pretty much everything, even if you were shooting for a DC job coming out, CIPA still wouldn't be a strong a case. At best its a wash, but I would still go with USC Price.

Reasons are:

1. Your projects and research opportunities will be much expansive and interesting at USC - period

2. Much more access to leaders in the field public policy professors... 

3. You are in a solid school with USC and not an institute trying to figure out its identity

The only remote reason to even imagine going to CIPA over USC Price is if USC Price gave you no money and CIPA gave you full ride + stipend, and you have aspirations to be in DC / New York + really want to be in a program with a small group of people (some people like that summer camp flavor)