MPP/MPA Programs Mid-Career

[switters]

I have 5+ years of experience working in finance, real estate, high-growth start-ups, and campaigns. I also started my own small business. I'm now switching careers and looking for MPA/MPP programs that are maybe more catered to experienced candidates. Also, I'm looking for programs that can either waive the GRE or do not require it. Would be interested in studying abroad as well. So far I've found American, Sciences Po, and Oxford. Any others worth considering? Also, any idea how schools will view my experience?

Edited August 26, 2020 by switters
Grammar

[GradSchoolGrad]

11 minutes ago, switters said:

I have 5+ years of experience working in finance, real estate, high-growth start-ups, and campaigns. I also started my own small business. I'm now switching careers and looking for MPA/MPP programs that are maybe more catered to experienced candidates. Also, I'm looking for programs that can either waive the GRE or do not require it. Would be interested in studying abroad as well. So far I've found American, Sciences Po, and Oxford. Any others worth considering? Also, any idea how schools will view my experience?

Actually a lot of schools are waiving the GRE of late, you just need to go check them out one by one. Also, please keep in mind, that the average work history for most MPP schools is roughly around 3 to 5 years. I went to grad school with 8 years. 

As for your current list, I generally recommend you not attend them (unless you have special reasons to do so).

1. American - honestly, not the strongest brand and its academic quality pales in comparison with better options. I have seen their policy graduate students at presentations (so hypothetically some of their students), and there wasn't anything impressive

2. Sciences Po - its a more academically oriented program. Unless you seek to come back to the US doing a very academic route or niche things with European context + connections, I recommend you steer away from it for concerns of people recognizing your C/V

3. Traditionally, I really really really like Oxford. Especially if you are straight from undergrad or have a really strong sense of what you want to do after graduation as someone with years of work experience. However, it is a 12 month program (school year + summer), so you don't have that much time to explore + have experiential learning opportunities. Additionally, it doesn't have as strong as a data analytics core training within the program (which is increasingly important in policy). 

I recommend that you:

1. Identify some areas (function, industry, or policy areas that you are interested in and figure out what some top options are.

2. Identify desired / no go locations. 

3. Identify if you want to time closer towards Federal / Private Sector / State and Local / or International 

I could give you generic answers... but I think it is better if your further identify your interests.

[switters]

3 minutes ago, GradSchoolGrad said:

Actually a lot of schools are waiving the GRE of late, you just need to go check them out one by one. Also, please keep in mind, that the average work history for most MPP schools is roughly around 3 to 5 years. I went to grad school with 8 years. 

As for your current list, I generally recommend you not attend them (unless you have special reasons to do so).

1. American - honestly, not the strongest brand and its academic quality pales in comparison with better options. I have seen their policy graduate students at presentations (so hypothetically some of their students), and there wasn't anything impressive

2. Sciences Po - its a more academically oriented program. Unless you seek to come back to the US doing a very academic route or niche things with European context + connections, I recommend you steer away from it for concerns of people recognizing your C/V

3. Traditionally, I really really really like Oxford. Especially if you are straight from undergrad or have a really strong sense of what you want to do after graduation as someone with years of work experience. However, it is a 12 month program (school year + summer), so you don't have that much time to explore + have experiential learning opportunities. Additionally, it doesn't have as strong as a data analytics core training within the program (which is increasingly important in policy). 

I recommend that you:

1. Identify some areas (function, industry, or policy areas that you are interested in and figure out what some top options are.

2. Identify desired / no go locations. 

3. Identify if you want to time closer towards Federal / Private Sector / State and Local / or International 

I could give you generic answers... but I think it is better if your further identify your interests.

This was extremely helpful. Thanks so much!

[columbia09]

As of right now, the only big MC/MPA program that still unfortunately requires the gre (and is very uptight about using it -_-) is HKS. Princeton’s MPP just dropped theirs and that one is free! Worth it for the small class size (20 people a year) and the Princeton brand name on your resume. Keep in mind that both programs require 7+ years of work experience and that’s the minimum 
 

last year I applied to SIPA and NYU without the GRE and got in without a problem 

Edited August 26, 2020 by columbia09

[escondido41]

18 hours ago, columbia09 said:

Princeton’s MPP just dropped theirs and that one is free!

Holy smokes!  I was about to reply to you saying you are wrong, but I checked their website again and the GRE requirement is gone (It is still there for MPA though)!  Is this a recent development?  I don't see any official announcement since the official opening of applications is September.  But this is very crucial news for me as they were the only ones I am applying to that required a GRE.  The downside is I was looking at the GRE to counter my poor GPA.  Then again that is no guarantee.

 

By the way HKS MC/MPA does not require GRE if you are applying under the Mason Program. 

[columbia09]

6 hours ago, escondido41 said:

Holy smokes!  I was about to reply to you saying you are wrong, but I checked their website again and the GRE requirement is gone (It is still there for MPA though)!  Is this a recent development?  I don't see any official announcement since the official opening of applications is September.  But this is very crucial news for me as they were the only ones I am applying to that required a GRE.  The downside is I was looking at the GRE to counter my poor GPA.  Then again that is no guarantee.

 

By the way HKS MC/MPA does not require GRE if you are applying under the Mason Program. 

The mason program is for if you’re coming from a developing country (I’m in the US). Which is unfair for us and also if you’re applying from Israel it isn’t required. Totally unfair.

 

Yes it is a new development, they were talking about throwing it out for awhile because the program is for working professionals. The MPA is mostly geared for people coming right out of college 

[2711383]

46 minutes ago, columbia09 said:

The mason program is for if you’re coming from a developing country (I’m in the US). Which is unfair for us and also if you’re applying from Israel it isn’t required. Totally unfair.

 

Yes it is a new development, they were talking about throwing it out for awhile because the program is for working professionals. The MPA is mostly geared for people coming right out of college 

Lol how is it unfair for you when the GRE is tailor made for US students. That's the main reason why most of Europe doesn't bother with it (except for the UK with quantitative programs)

[2711383]

Also the MPA isn't for people coming out of college. Most MPA admits have 4+ years of experience. 

[columbia09]

12 hours ago, 2711383 said:

Lol how is it unfair for you when the GRE is tailor made for US students. That's the main reason why most of Europe doesn't bother with it (except for the UK with quantitative programs)

Doesn’t matter if it’s “tailor made” for US students. It’s still an extra, and sometime expensive, step we have to take. I’ve been working for multiple years in industry and have a stellar academic record. This exam shouldn’t be a factor in my admissions process. Which is why I hope the GRE becomes extinct eventually. Looking at how many schools are dropping it, it may very well be gone 

[columbia09]

12 hours ago, 2711383 said:

Also the MPA isn't for people coming out of college. Most MPA admits have 4+ years of experience. 

That’s how admissions at Princeton advertised their MPA program 

[GradSchoolGrad]

18 minutes ago, columbia09 said:

Doesn’t matter if it’s “tailor made” for US students. It’s still an extra, and sometime expensive, step we have to take. I’ve been working for multiple years in industry and have a stellar academic record. This exam shouldn’t be a factor in my admissions process. Which is why I hope the GRE becomes extinct eventually. Looking at how many schools are dropping it, it may very well be gone 

Realistically, the problem isn't you, but what is going on in undergraduate education in the US. Undergraduate education is too often being commoditized (even in historically more competitive schools) and with rampant grade inflation, it is becoming more more difficult to decipher actual academic potential based upon an undergraduate transcript. 

Some schools are waiving it in order to acquire sufficient number of students when many students are logistically challenged from taking it during COVID times. However, the bottom line is that not sending it means not providing a data point. I'm not saying the GRE is perfect as a test and point of measurement. However, in my opinion it is rightfully viewed as having a reliable means of verifying the validity of a good transcript and possibly allowing the telling of a more complex story behind a not so great transcript. 

Edited August 28, 2020 by GradSchoolGrad

[columbia09]

7 hours ago, GradSchoolGrad said:

Realistically, the problem isn't you, but what is going on in undergraduate education in the US. Undergraduate education is too often being commoditized (even in historically more competitive schools) and with rampant grade inflation, it is becoming more more difficult to decipher actual academic potential based upon an undergraduate transcript. 

Some schools are waiving it in order to acquire sufficient number of students when many students are logistically challenged from taking it during COVID times. However, the bottom line is that not sending it means not providing a data point. I'm not saying the GRE is perfect as a test and point of measurement. However, in my opinion it is rightfully viewed as having a reliable means of verifying the validity of a good transcript and possibly allowing the telling of a more complex story behind a not so great transcript. 

How when it’s only testing math and vocabulary skills? My opinion, subject tests would be great indicators instead of a test that sees if you’re a walking dictionary 

 

[GradSchoolGrad]

29 minutes ago, columbia09 said:

How when it’s only testing math and vocabulary skills? My opinion, subject tests would be great indicators instead of a test that sees if you’re a walking dictionary 

 

Subject tests would be ideal, but adding more tests to the diverse (in terms of academic matter) US education landscape would be a logistical nightmare. Math and Verbal are decent barometers (emphasis on decent, not great) of two major baselines that having strong necessity regardless of program about the ability to graduate (not to get a job, but ability to graduate and ease of graduation). . 

[2711383]

1 hour ago, columbia09 said:

How when it’s only testing math and vocabulary skills? My opinion, subject tests would be great indicators instead of a test that sees if you’re a walking dictionary 

 

I agree on verbal, it's not a good indicator of anything. But if you're going into a quantitative subject and can't do well in the high school level algebra of the GRE, it's a pretty huge red flag for adcoms.

[columbia09]

53 minutes ago, 2711383 said:

I agree on verbal, it's not a good indicator of anything. But if you're going into a quantitative subject and can't do well in the high school level algebra of the GRE, it's a pretty huge red flag for adcoms.

I did horrible on the SATs and I did very well in my calc classes at my school. Some people aren’t standardized test takers. Plus a lot of people do “tricks” to help solve the problems 

[GradSchoolGrad]

36 minutes ago, columbia09 said:

I did horrible on the SATs and I did very well in my calc classes at my school. Some people aren’t standardized test takers. Plus a lot of people do “tricks” to help solve the problems 

I think you are conflating your personal experience with what I am putting down in terms of order of magnitude.

1. First and foremost, undergraduate transcript and work experience performance is and should always be prime for the graduate school experience.

2. I am not disputing that those who have the time, money, and natural aptitude for test taking can improve their performance for standardized tests. However, it is undeniable that standardized tests are another metric point that indicate some level of performance and I think there is a right way and wrong way to use the metric for graduate school admissions for some level of academic performance (and yes, being able to use tricks is a demonstrable skill). That being said, there is a right way and a wrong way to use this metric IMO to tell a more nuanced story.  

The wrong way: This person has a 4.0 GPA from top public + and stellar work experience, but because he/she is 33% percentile of applicants, we should deny admission

The right way 1: This person had a 2.9 GPA from college 7 years ago, but has stellar work experience and recently took the GREs and earned 90 percentile. Indications show the person's life has changed and probably do well academically. 

The right way 2: This person had 2.9 GPA from college 2 years ago, but has a statement saying that there trauma suffered during junior year. Grades were As/A- Freshman to Junior year and Ds Junior to Senior. Recent GRE shows 80 percentile and one year of work experience has been stellar. Lets figure out more during the interview.

[columbia09]

2 hours ago, GradSchoolGrad said:

I think you are conflating your personal experience with what I am putting down in terms of order of magnitude.

1. First and foremost, undergraduate transcript and work experience performance is and should always be prime for the graduate school experience.

2. I am not disputing that those who have the time, money, and natural aptitude for test taking can improve their performance for standardized tests. However, it is undeniable that standardized tests are another metric point that indicate some level of performance and I think there is a right way and wrong way to use the metric for graduate school admissions for some level of academic performance (and yes, being able to use tricks is a demonstrable skill). That being said, there is a right way and a wrong way to use this metric IMO to tell a more nuanced story.  

The wrong way: This person has a 4.0 GPA from top public + and stellar work experience, but because he/she is 33% percentile of applicants, we should deny admission

The right way 1: This person had a 2.9 GPA from college 7 years ago, but has stellar work experience and recently took the GREs and earned 90 percentile. Indications show the person's life has changed and probably do well academically. 

The right way 2: This person had 2.9 GPA from college 2 years ago, but has a statement saying that there trauma suffered during junior year. Grades were As/A- Freshman to Junior year and Ds Junior to Senior. Recent GRE shows 80 percentile and one year of work experience has been stellar. Lets figure out more during the interview.

Absolutely, but too often I see the wrong way as was the case with me when I first applied to grad school in 2015. 

[GradSchoolGrad]

1 hour ago, columbia09 said:

Absolutely, but too often I see the wrong way as was the case with me when I first applied to grad school in 2015. 

I mean I think there is a difference between non-law/medicine professional schools (MBAs, MPPs, MSW, MPH, and etc.) vs. JD/MD vs. pure academic. Professional schools have become more holistic within the past 3 years or so, and I think you just missed the wave of change.

One of my former professors actually led the push for making the SAT optional and it has been interesting to see how that has developed of late.

Edited August 28, 2020 by GradSchoolGrad

[columbia09]

1 hour ago, GradSchoolGrad said:

I mean I think there is a difference between non-law/medicine professional schools (MBAs, MPPs, MSW, MPH, and etc.) vs. JD/MD vs. pure academic. Professional schools have become more holistic within the past 3 years or so, and I think you just missed the wave of change.

One of my former professors actually led the push for making the SAT optional and it has been interesting to see how that has developed of late.

Yes big difference. You can’t get out of the mcat or lsat. Especially since you have to take boards and the bar. 

[Boolakanaka]

2 hours ago, GradSchoolGrad said:

I mean I think there is a difference between non-law/medicine professional schools (MBAs, MPPs, MSW, MPH, and etc.) vs. JD/MD vs. pure academic. Professional schools have become more holistic within the past 3 years or so, and I think you just missed the wave of change.

One of my former professors actually led the push for making the SAT optional and it has been interesting to see how that has developed of late.

Just  to add a little banter to the discussion, the LSAT has a fairly accurate barometer if you will be able to pass the bar exam. I think the figure I have seen,  that at numbers below 155, place you at a 50-50 chance of passing, and below 150, less than a 25 percent you will ever pass the bar. 
 

What is even more incredulous, is that there are law schools out there that have an average lsat score of around 150 or so, e.g. like Capital University Law, where Rep. Jim Jordan went, and maybe why he never passed the bar.

[columbia09]

9 minutes ago, Boolakanaka said:

Just  to add a little banter to the discussion, the LSAT has a fairly accurate barometer if you will be able to pass the bar exam. I think the figure I have seen,  that at numbers below 155, place you at a 50-50 chance of passing, and below 150, less than a 25 percent you will ever pass the bar. 
 

What is even more incredulous, is that there are law schools out there that have an average lsat score of around 150 or so, e.g. like Capital University Law, where Rep. Jim Jordan went, and maybe why he never passed the bar.

He never took it according to an interview. There’s someone in my office who took it three times and still never passed it. It’s hard enough for most lawyers to find jobs with a passing bar exam can you imagine without it ?