Path to the 'right' PhD program in pub policy

[narius]

Hi everyone! I need some help. I’ve been on these boards for a little while now and I really like what I see. I wish I had known about this resource before I went for my MPA – not to say that I necessarily would have chosen differently, though.

So, I am starting to think about thinking about getting a PhD in public policy. After working for about three years, I am starting to realize that my interests, abilities, and temperament are better suited to research than clear-cut management, per se. However, public policy attracts me because of its relevance to contemporary issues and applied problem-solving.

A little background on me: I have an undergrad degree from a big, third-tier state school with a mediocre GPA (3.2) in the social sciences, although I graduated in three years and managed to make the best of my time with some solid research and presentation opportunities. I leveraged that into working overseas for awhile before heading back to the States for my MPA. I got my MPA from a small, but regionally distinguished, graduate department and did fairly well (3.7). The school is well known nationally but my program less so. My GRE scores are in the low 1300s (5.5).

I worked for a couple of years in state government and then, fitfully, decided to focus again on international issues, which has me back overseas working as an editor for a magazine.

I’m really toying with a PhD in public policy because I don’t think poli sci really suits my interests, and I would prefer to be in a think tank than, say, academia (although I’d be very happy to teach on the side, if given the opportunity). I also want something that will afford me the luxury of being able to work both internationally and domestically, although more on micro-phenomena than classic IR stuff. That said, I have written freelance fairly prodigiously over the past few years on topics ranging from public management to economic development to international affairs. I have even had afew of my pieces published in major newspapers and a relatively prestigious IR magazine. However, I am not attracted to beat journalism as a career, though I’ve done it and happy to do it if necessary.

Given the above, I realize that I’m probably not going to gain acceptance to my top-choice programs like KSG, WWS, Rand or Harris. I am also somewhat lacking in proper quantitative analysis coursework like adv econometrics, adv stats (I’ve done basic stats and I can navigate SPSS OK), calc and linear alg, so an econ or pol-econ degree is pretty much out of the question. I know I’ll need to probably do a little work on my quant anyway, but I don’t think it will necessarily give me a leg up in the admissions process.

That in mind, I’ve begun thinking about how I should proceed. Should I aim for mid-table PhD programs like GMU (on the somewhat lower end), GSPIA, and American (reach)? Or, should I look for another master’s program to shore up my research credentials and get some more quant under my belt – and redo the GREs while I’m at it – to try and make myself competitivefor a KSG or at least someplace like Indiana or UMD? I am pretty certain that if I actually do some GRE prep (I didn't before), I can probably raise my scores to at least the 1400 range and maintain the 5.5 analytical.

I have a fair amount of debt already so I don’t think I’d like to assume more, so a masters program needs to come with real funding.

What would you do in my situation? Any advice or thoughts or reprimands are welcome.

[narius]

Oh, come on! I know it's along but I could really use the help. One or two of you viewers must have an idea ... please?

[kwhitegocubs]

I'd say that getting a second MPA/MPP would probably look a bit odd on your resume. Now, I can understand how it would give you more time to develop and showcase your research skills. You also might even be attending a MPP program that has a wildly different focus than your first MPA, since the degrees are theoretically different to begin with. Still, I think that it's unnecessary. If you are certain after all of your work and education that you want to continue down the public policy route, then go for the PhD. Your odds of being fully funded are much higher through a PhD program, and while I couldn't disagree with George Mason's general economic ideology more, I'd imagine that a PhD in policy there would get you a good shot at think tanks. Of course, if your thread title's emphasis on 'right' is meant to denote your political stance (or economic stance), then my uninformed guess is that GMU would be a great choice even if you had a bit better numbers. However, since the GRE is a fairly painless standardized test (and learnable), I'd study and retake it. I only wish I would have memorized more than 5% of the ridiculous wordlist, since I got a 650 Verbal despite being an English major. The math section is probably more a matter of reviewing basic math concepts. I spent maybe 2 hours going over geometry and advanced algebra principles, since I hadn't taken any math class of any kind in 6 years, and scored an 800 Q on my first PT as well as the real deal. I'd bet that with a bit of study, you could do the same as well.

I don't know if you did earlier, but if you haven't, you MUST download the free GRE PowerPrep software. Wait until you've studied and memorized the wordlist (if you decide to retake), and then take the two PTs included with the software. I scored 800/640 and 780/660 on the two PTs I took, and scored 800/650 on the real test. So...for me it was an absolutely perfect predictor of how I'd perform.

Now, if you got, say, a 770/650/5.5, then I guess you'd have to throw out applications to KSG and WWS as well as to some higher-end PhD programs. KSG and WWS (or even Harris) would probably be the exceptions to my uninformed advice that you not seek out an MPP in addition to your extant MPA.

BTW, I've written for two college newspapers and also contributed little things here and there outside of those gigs, so I understand why beat journalism is such a fun and entertaining fallback .

[wooldogg]

My 2 cents: don't get another MPP/MPA degree. If you want a PhD, apply to a bunch of programs (10-12). If you're worried about your preparation, take night classes. I don't think a second masters degree is going to help you.

[narius]

Thanks KWhite and Wooldogg for your input - very much appreciated. Just to clarify, I'm not looking for another MPP - I was thinking more along the lines of a standalone masters like the one from Chicago CIR or Columbia's Quant Methods or Tufts's MA in Econ. That way I could get either the research experience I need and/or the quant background I need to make it in a PhD program, while giving myself a little more credentials to boot. But I see your points - it's probably not the wisest investment - in time even if I got funded - to go for another master's unless it was a really compelling offer.

GMU is definitely intriguing (although I'd consider myself a centrist, as I tend to vote all over the place and I've worked for both Dems and Repubs), but I'm not convinced that it could land me a good job (though the DC access is definitely worthwhile).

With my stats as-is, but let's assume I boost my GREs to the low 1400s/5.5, what do you think my chances are at places like UNC-CH, UMD-CP, American, and Harris? Any other suggestions? THANKS!

[flyers29]

GMU is definitely intriguing (although I'd consider myself a centrist, as I tend to vote all over the place and I've worked for both Dems and Repubs), but I'm not convinced that it could land me a good job (though the DC access is definitely worthwhile).

Why is that?

[narius]

Why is that?

Hey Flyers - My perception might be based on flawed anecdotes, but I have several relatives in academia - all recently finishing their doctorates from the best schools (as in Harvard/Oxbridge caliber) - and they are always telling me how stupid saturated the academic market is these days. Now, I know the consulting/think tank world is a little different, but I figure that if someone with my relatives' credentials, experience, and great networks is having difficulty, then I would be in particularly bad shape with a degree from a less recognized department.

Again, I realize that there is some transferability incongruence here, and GMU is definitely a rising star (reasons why I haven't kept it off my list), but I would like to aim as high as I can. But honestly, career pragmatism trumps prestige for me, so I'd be happy going anyplace with good placement opportunities.

Does that make any sense?

[flyers29]

Hey Flyers - My perception might be based on flawed anecdotes, but I have several relatives in academia - all recently finishing their doctorates from the best schools (as in Harvard/Oxbridge caliber) - and they are always telling me how stupid saturated the academic market is these days. Now, I know the consulting/think tank world is a little different, but I figure that if someone with my relatives' credentials, experience, and great networks is having difficulty, then I would be in particularly bad shape with a degree from a less recognized department.

Again, I realize that there is some transferability incongruence here, and GMU is definitely a rising star (reasons why I haven't kept it off my list), but I would like to aim as high as I can. But honestly, career pragmatism trumps prestige for me, so I'd be happy going anyplace with good placement opportunities.

Does that make any sense?

Well I think your relatives do make some sense with regard to academia--that's one of the seemingly endless debates as far as "how much does school affect placement" (both sides have strengths to their arguments). But outside academia, it's not quite as cutthroat. Sure, if you go to the website of a place like Brookings you'll see that they employ a lot of Ivy League PhDs. But in my experience I've seen that people pretty much come from all tiers of universities. Some universities have top-notch programs in certain areas even if they're seen as average on the whole. All I'm saying is that there are a heck of a lot of people who do moving and shaking who aren't employed by a "household name" think tank or company, and many of them come from less prestigious universities.

[narius]

Well I think your relatives do make some sense with regard to academia--that's one of the seemingly endless debates as far as "how much does school affect placement" (both sides have strengths to their arguments). But outside academia, it's not quite as cutthroat. Sure, if you go to the website of a place like Brookings you'll see that they employ a lot of Ivy League PhDs. But in my experience I've seen that people pretty much come from all tiers of universities. Some universities have top-notch programs in certain areas even if they're seen as average on the whole. All I'm saying is that there are a heck of a lot of people who do moving and shaking who aren't employed by a "household name" think tank or company, and many of them come from less prestigious universities.

I think you make some really good points, and I have a generally similar impression, but I'm still a little worried about career prospects. Of course, a lot of the outcome is up to me - my research, research activity, publication rate, etc. - but I don't want to do all the right things and get pigeonholed in a dead-end nonprofit because my school's 'brand' isn't strong enough. Not saying this would necessarily be the case at GMU (or even someplace like Auburn), but I still want to try and reach as high as I can. What do you (or anyone else) think of my chances at other mid-table schools?