Yale Jackson Master of Advanced Study (M.A.S.) in Global Affairs

[escondido41]

Haven't really found any significant information on this program other than on the Yale Jackson website.  Doesn't help that the current students (as published in their website) all don't have LinkedIn profiles.  Would love to hear feedback from people taking the course, alumni, or those with information.  I am more interested in public policy than international relations add curious if this course or Jackson in general is still a good option in that case.

[theory_philosophy]

Jackson is excellent, but this is their tier two program. The general feeling is that it's more of a pay-and-you-get-in type gig (like Harvard MC/MPA), provided you have an interesting story/work experience.

The flagship program is the 2-year MPP, which has a class size of about 30 and almost everyone who asks for it gets financial aid (I had full tuition covered and they were willing to give more). It is going from the Jackson Institute to (officially) the Jackson 'School,' and it has a very bright future as Yale is committed to carving out a niche from Harvard and Princeton.

[RealistPalan]

How does Jackson compare to the much older programs of SIPA, HKS, SPIA and the rest? @natsecguy

[theory_philosophy]

17 minutes ago, RealistPalan said:

How does Jackson compare to the much older programs of SIPA, HKS, SPIA and the rest? @natsecguy

Everybody has different opinions about this. 

In the policy wonk world, I'm sure HKS and SPIA (formerly the Woodrow Wilson School) likely have the best reputation. This is mainly because Yale's program is so new. 

I was in FAS at Harvard, the main 'academic' part of the university. Nobody took HKS seriously. Nor did anyone at the Law School. It's all about perspective. This is mainly because HKS is so much easier to get into relative to the JD program or the 'academic' programs at GSAS, which have much, much higher median GPAs and standardized test scores. I actually had a professor tell me that HKS courses weren't academically rigorous enough so I couldn't get credit for them (unless they were cross-listed with GSAS). On the other hand, I am getting credit for a course I'm taking at the Law School.

On the other hand, Jackson is trying to remain exclusive. It's flagship degree only takes 30 people (max) and gives them all aid. It's harder to get into than HKS. It also lets you take courses across Yale's schools, including the Law School. The only requirements for the MPP are the 2 or 3 required courses in Year 1. Jackson is also officially going from an 'Institute' to a 'School' later this year. Lots of money has been earmarked. They are consciously gunning for HKS and therefore doing something unique --- not simply aping what HKS has been doing. My sense, therefore, is that Jackson is better respected within the Yale academic community and will eventually be considered more prestigious than HKS, even if HKS has a 'bigger' name. 

This is to say that the Jackson MPP is actually harder to get into than the Harvard MPP/MPA, with higher admitted student stats. If you're comparing the midcareer programs (HKS MPA/MC vs Jackson MAS), then I'd say Harvard is a better option because the rest of Harvard's schools, where you can take classes, are all (minus the Law School) higher rated. You can also take some courses at MIT's Political Science department / Security Studies Program, which is very close by/easy to get to, for credit. 

SPIA is my personal favorite. I've applied for an MPP there this year. Let's see what happens. In my opinion, the Princeton degree is special because - unlike Yale and, especially, Harvard - Princeton has not kept any money-making 'backdoor' degrees across any of its schools. It doesn't have any professional schools other than public policy and, even there, the programs are small, rigorous, and generous with aid (therefore highly competitive). 

Just my 2c after agonizing where to attend. My background: I got into the Jackson MPP, never applied to HKS for the reasons above; I have taken an HKS course with Professor Stephen Walt and attended a study group there while I was a student at Harvard.

I hope this helps. 

[acacia27]

8 hours ago, natsecguy said:

Everybody has different opinions about this. 

In the policy wonk world, I'm sure HKS and SPIA (formerly the Woodrow Wilson School) likely have the best reputation. This is mainly because Yale's program is so new. 

I was in FAS at Harvard, the main 'academic' part of the university. Nobody took HKS seriously. Nor did anyone at the Law School. It's all about perspective. This is mainly because HKS is so much easier to get into relative to the JD program or the 'academic' programs at GSAS, which have much, much higher median GPAs and standardized test scores. I actually had a professor tell me that HKS courses weren't academically rigorous enough so I couldn't get credit for them (unless they were cross-listed with GSAS). On the other hand, I am getting credit for a course I'm taking at the Law School.

On the other hand, Jackson is trying to remain exclusive. It's flagship degree only takes 30 people (max) and gives them all aid. It's harder to get into than HKS. It also lets you take courses across Yale's schools, including the Law School. The only requirements for the MPP are the 2 or 3 required courses in Year 1. Jackson is also officially going from an 'Institute' to a 'School' later this year. Lots of money has been earmarked. They are consciously gunning for HKS and therefore doing something unique --- not simply aping what HKS has been doing. My sense, therefore, is that Jackson is better respected within the Yale academic community and will eventually be considered more prestigious than HKS, even if HKS has a 'bigger' name. 

This is to say that the Jackson MPP is actually harder to get into than the Harvard MPP/MPA, with higher admitted student stats. If you're comparing the midcareer programs (HKS MPA/MC vs Jackson MAS), then I'd say Harvard is a better option because the rest of Harvard's schools, where you can take classes, are all (minus the Law School) higher rated. You can also take some courses at MIT's Political Science department / Security Studies Program, which is very close by/easy to get to, for credit. 

SPIA is my personal favorite. I've applied for an MPP there this year. Let's see what happens. In my opinion, the Princeton degree is special because - unlike Yale and, especially, Harvard - Princeton has not kept any money-making 'backdoor' degrees across any of its schools. It doesn't have any professional schools other than public policy and, even there, the programs are small, rigorous, and generous with aid (therefore highly competitive). 

Just my 2c after agonizing where to attend. My background: I got into the Jackson MPP, never applied to HKS for the reasons above; I have taken an HKS course with Professor Stephen Walt and attended a study group there while I was a student at Harvard.

I hope this helps. 

This was indeed very helpful. I have also applied to Yale and as an international student, a strong alumni network and brand reputation are my primary concerns. Do you think Jackson students will have the same networking opportunities that HKS, SPIA or for that matter Duke grads have? I really liked how we customize our MPP at Yale and would like to consider it if I do manage to get in.

 

[RealistPalan]

14 hours ago, natsecguy said:

Everybody has different opinions about this. 

In the policy wonk world, I'm sure HKS and SPIA (formerly the Woodrow Wilson School) likely have the best reputation. This is mainly because Yale's program is so new. 

I was in FAS at Harvard, the main 'academic' part of the university. Nobody took HKS seriously. Nor did anyone at the Law School. It's all about perspective. This is mainly because HKS is so much easier to get into relative to the JD program or the 'academic' programs at GSAS, which have much, much higher median GPAs and standardized test scores. I actually had a professor tell me that HKS courses weren't academically rigorous enough so I couldn't get credit for them (unless they were cross-listed with GSAS). On the other hand, I am getting credit for a course I'm taking at the Law School.

On the other hand, Jackson is trying to remain exclusive. It's flagship degree only takes 30 people (max) and gives them all aid. It's harder to get into than HKS. It also lets you take courses across Yale's schools, including the Law School. The only requirements for the MPP are the 2 or 3 required courses in Year 1. Jackson is also officially going from an 'Institute' to a 'School' later this year. Lots of money has been earmarked. They are consciously gunning for HKS and therefore doing something unique --- not simply aping what HKS has been doing. My sense, therefore, is that Jackson is better respected within the Yale academic community and will eventually be considered more prestigious than HKS, even if HKS has a 'bigger' name. 

This is to say that the Jackson MPP is actually harder to get into than the Harvard MPP/MPA, with higher admitted student stats. If you're comparing the midcareer programs (HKS MPA/MC vs Jackson MAS), then I'd say Harvard is a better option because the rest of Harvard's schools, where you can take classes, are all (minus the Law School) higher rated. You can also take some courses at MIT's Political Science department / Security Studies Program, which is very close by/easy to get to, for credit. 

SPIA is my personal favorite. I've applied for an MPP there this year. Let's see what happens. In my opinion, the Princeton degree is special because - unlike Yale and, especially, Harvard - Princeton has not kept any money-making 'backdoor' degrees across any of its schools. It doesn't have any professional schools other than public policy and, even there, the programs are small, rigorous, and generous with aid (therefore highly competitive). 

Just my 2c after agonizing where to attend. My background: I got into the Jackson MPP, never applied to HKS for the reasons above; I have taken an HKS course with Professor Stephen Walt and attended a study group there while I was a student at Harvard.

I hope this helps. 

Thanks @natsecguy! Helpful thoughts indeed. I share a lot of your opinions. For the sake of discussion, I'll offer a few more to get your perspective. 

Jackson/SPIA funding seems excellent. It is shocking to me that HKS as a policy school doesn't offer funding for its 50k plus per year degree. It seems reckless to offer a service oriented degree and charge 100K+ tuition. I remember at one of their info sessions that stated less than 40% of students were on aid meaning people either have outside funding (slim minority), are self-funded (even slimmer minority), or are just going into colossal debt. 

Jackson seems like a long-term top tier program, I am just worried in the short-term it won't offer the same robust experience a place like SPIA/SIPA/HKS will just due to institutional memory. 

Small cohort is also great but at the graduate level I wonder if ~30 is stifling. To me, a big part of the graduate school experience should be meeting new people and cross-pollinating ideas. Not sure this happens with a cohort of 60 versus 150. 

Good luck this cycle!

[Boolakanaka]

1 hour ago, RealistPalan said:

Thanks @natsecguy! Helpful thoughts indeed. I share a lot of your opinions. For the sake of discussion, I'll offer a few more to get your perspective. 

Jackson/SPIA funding seems excellent. It is shocking to me that HKS as a policy school doesn't offer funding for its 50k plus per year degree. It seems reckless to offer a service oriented degree and charge 100K+ tuition. I remember at one of their info sessions that stated less than 40% of students were on aid meaning people either have outside funding (slim minority), are self-funded (even slimmer minority), or are just going into colossal debt. 

Jackson seems like a long-term top tier program, I am just worried in the short-term it won't offer the same robust experience a place like SPIA/SIPA/HKS will just due to institutional memory. 

Small cohort is also great but at the graduate level I wonder if ~30 is stifling. To me, a big part of the graduate school experience should be meeting new people and cross-pollinating ideas. Not sure this happens with a cohort of 60 versus 150. 

Good luck this cycle!

Jackson/SPIA funding seems excellent. It is shocking to me that HKS as a policy school doesn't offer funding for its 50k plus per year degree. It seems reckless to offer a service oriented degree and charge 100K+ tuition. I remember at one of their info sessions that stated less than 40% of students were on aid meaning people either have outside funding (slim minority), are self-funded (even slimmer minority), or are just going into colossal debt. 

Why---with all due respect, but Harvard in many ways has turned into an exercise of how to monetize elite education---and the ultimate proof is in the pudding. Dollars to doughnuts, within the next five years, all graduate programs--even those under the umbrella of "professional degrees" will be entirely underwritten by Yale. So, while HKS has a large advantage in terms of both name and historical track record in public policy, mark my words, the entire apparatus of Yale will be behind making Jackson a success. Consider, it already has a decided advantage in ancillary programs such as YLS and YSE---further, YSM is already the b school leader in non-profit management and has been for the last five decades.  Summarily, Yale, in my estimation, has greater institutional symmetry and on a per capita basis, much more resources.

[theory_philosophy]

3 hours ago, RealistPalan said:

Thanks @natsecguy! Helpful thoughts indeed. I share a lot of your opinions. For the sake of discussion, I'll offer a few more to get your perspective. 

Jackson/SPIA funding seems excellent. It is shocking to me that HKS as a policy school doesn't offer funding for its 50k plus per year degree. It seems reckless to offer a service oriented degree and charge 100K+ tuition. I remember at one of their info sessions that stated less than 40% of students were on aid meaning people either have outside funding (slim minority), are self-funded (even slimmer minority), or are just going into colossal debt. 

Jackson seems like a long-term top tier program, I am just worried in the short-term it won't offer the same robust experience a place like SPIA/SIPA/HKS will just due to institutional memory. 

Small cohort is also great but at the graduate level I wonder if ~30 is stifling. To me, a big part of the graduate school experience should be meeting new people and cross-pollinating ideas. Not sure this happens with a cohort of 60 versus 150. 

Good luck this cycle!

I agree with everything that you've said. I think Jackson is already top-tier (I say this as somehow who chose not to attend it, as I decided to skip a policy degree altogether and do an academically-oriented research degree instead), and things will only get better from here. 

Re: the cohort size, I think the addition of Jackson fellows and the MAS mid-career folks should round things out. Beyond cohort, class mix matters a lot too. In the class I took at HKS, for example, the guy to my right was an MPA/MC from the military, the guy next to him was a fellow with an intel background, the girl to my left was from the Graduate School of Education (?!), and the guy below me was an MPP candidate from a developing country. The wide range of experiences/backgrounds/ages made things fun. I think all policy schools strive to achieve such a class. I would imagine things are not too dissimilar at Jackson - though cohort still matters, of course.

[theory_philosophy]

10 hours ago, acacia27 said:

This was indeed very helpful. I have also applied to Yale and as an international student, a strong alumni network and brand reputation are my primary concerns. Do you think Jackson students will have the same networking opportunities that HKS, SPIA or for that matter Duke grads have? I really liked how we customize our MPP at Yale and would like to consider it if I do manage to get in.

 

Absolutely. Jackson seems ideally placed to leverage broader Yale networking as well, which is top notch. 

I think Jackson being new is actually its biggest advantage. It allows the administration to consciously design all elements of the program after studying limitations/drawbacks in what it calls its two 'peer programs' (HKS and SPIA) for years. If being super nit-picky, I'd say that SPIA still has more prestige (because of being older, not necessarily 'better') and a stronger network too - but the MPP there is stifling with way more requirements. It's all about what you value more. Good luck!

[theory_philosophy]

9 minutes ago, natsecguy said:

I agree with everything that you've said. I think Jackson is already top-tier (I say this as somehow who chose not to attend it, as I decided to skip a policy degree altogether and do an academically-oriented research degree instead), and things will only get better from here. 

Re: the cohort size, I think the addition of Jackson fellows and the MAS mid-career folks should round things out. Beyond cohort, class mix matters a lot too. In the class I took at HKS, for example, the guy to my right was an MPA/MC from the military, the guy next to him was a Belfer Center Fellow with an intel background, the girl to my left was from the Graduate School of Education (?!), and the guy below me was an MPP candidate from a developing country. And I was from GSAS. The wide range of experiences/backgrounds/ages made things fun. I think all policy schools strive to achieve such a class. I would imagine things are not too dissimilar at Jackson - though cohort still matters, of course.

 

[Boolakanaka]

See:  https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2022/02/24/were-not-going-to-get-a-second-chance-at-this-levinsohn-outlines-planning-priorities-for-the-new-jackson-school-of-global-affairs/?fbclid=IwAR1bxLuxRpgv54hLwVJYGx0FTn3UIf-ux5t2GAUqeehHiYPsrBet75X5gpE

[GradSchoolGrad]

On 2/26/2022 at 1:48 PM, natsecguy said:

Absolutely. Jackson seems ideally placed to leverage broader Yale networking as well, which is top notch. 

I think Jackson being new is actually its biggest advantage. It allows the administration to consciously design all elements of the program after studying limitations/drawbacks in what it calls its two 'peer programs' (HKS and SPIA) for years. If being super nit-picky, I'd say that SPIA still has more prestige (because of being older, not necessarily 'better') and a stronger network too - but the MPP there is stifling with way more requirements. It's all about what you value more. Good luck!

I think one very important item that is missing from all this robust discussion is the employer's view. Sure the Yale name will go far when individual students fan out their resumes. However, employers (especially bigger and more prestigious ones) like to base their campus based hiring decisions off of a. positive historical experiences and b. relationship with career services. With Yale Jackson being so new, employers that consider HKS, SAIS, SFS, SIPA, Terry Sanford, and etc. due to outstanding history won't consider Yale Jackson because there is no history. 

This is not a critique about Yale Jackson's programming. It is simply a reality of going to a grad school that doesn't have top tier employment history.

FYI: Yale Jackson's employment results are here:

 https://jackson.yale.edu/careers/jobs-after-jackson/employment/

Its solid... really good... Obviously the smaller class size hinders breadth - that I can't ding Yale Jackson too much, but it is a fact of life. Depth is there, but not HKS and Princeton level.

[theory_philosophy]

16 hours ago, GradSchoolGrad said:

I think one very important item that is missing from all this robust discussion is the employer's view. Sure the Yale name will go far when individual students fan out their resumes. However, employers (especially bigger and more prestigious ones) like to base their campus based hiring decisions off of a. positive historical experiences and b. relationship with career services. With Yale Jackson being so new, employers that consider HKS, SAIS, SFS, SIPA, Terry Sanford, and etc. due to outstanding history won't consider Yale Jackson because there is no history. 

This is not a critique about Yale Jackson's programming. It is simply a reality of going to a grad school that doesn't have top tier employment history.

FYI: Yale Jackson's employment results are here:

 https://jackson.yale.edu/careers/jobs-after-jackson/employment/

Its solid... really good... Obviously the smaller class size hinders breadth - that I can't ding Yale Jackson too much, but it is a fact of life. Depth is there, but not HKS and Princeton level.

What you're saying obviously makes sense - but I'd like to disagree with the extent of your conclusions.

All employers should probably know about the Jackson curriculum, selectivity (much more selective than HKS, which has become somewhat of a joke due to massive cohort sizes, especially in terms of international students getting in with lackluster credentials), and general Yale reputation as a university overall (which is objectively better than many of the universities housing the top non-Harvard/Princeton policy schools). I'm sure employers also know, or will soon know, that everybody who gets into the Jackson MPP can get into HKS, whereas it's not necessarily true vice versa (just check the incoming stats, like GPA and GRE, etc.) 

It seems to me that anybody from any of the top policy schools would have a roughly equal shot getting an interview if the rest of their job application is strong. Non-school factors seem to matter a lot too, like self-branding (cringe) and commentary in FP/FA, etc. 

I feel the presence of the MAS people and the Global Fellows (or whatever they're called) probably evens out the breadth, and there's something to be said about smaller class sizes (vs. 50+ people type large lectures at HKS). 

Again, I didn't enroll in the Jackson MPP because I decided not to do a policy degree altogether last year, so I'm not defending 'my school.' There is no doubt in my mind that Princeton likely has the best reputation (as it should) and HKS is probably second (just for its size and influence, because everything else sort of sucks).

[GradSchoolGrad]

7 hours ago, natsecguy said:

What you're saying obviously makes sense - but I'd like to disagree with the extent of your conclusions.

All employers should probably know about the Jackson curriculum, selectivity (much more selective than HKS, which has become somewhat of a joke due to massive cohort sizes, especially in terms of international students getting in with lackluster credentials), and general Yale reputation as a university overall (which is objectively better than many of the universities housing the top non-Harvard/Princeton policy schools). I'm sure employers also know, or will soon know, that everybody who gets into the Jackson MPP can get into HKS, whereas it's not necessarily true vice versa (just check the incoming stats, like GPA and GRE, etc.) 

It seems to me that anybody from any of the top policy schools would have a roughly equal shot getting an interview if the rest of their job application is strong. Non-school factors seem to matter a lot too, like self-branding (cringe) and commentary in FP/FA, etc. 

I feel the presence of the MAS people and the Global Fellows (or whatever they're called) probably evens out the breadth, and there's something to be said about smaller class sizes (vs. 50+ people type large lectures at HKS). 

Again, I didn't enroll in the Jackson MPP because I decided not to do a policy degree altogether last year, so I'm not defending 'my school.' There is no doubt in my mind that Princeton likely has the best reputation (as it should) and HKS is probably second (just for its size and influence, because everything else sort of sucks).

I am an employer that works with our recruiting team to hire people from grad schools (including policy schools) and the stark truth is that even if I wanted to get my employer (or competing organizations) to hire from Yale Jackson, it would be very difficult to do so. This is because we focus on pipelines. We have established pipelines with graduate programs that consistently yield matriculants that a. sustain high performance, b. receive support and coaching from their alumni and c. have a history of staying in our company for at least a few years or so (basically not a flight risk). It simply doesn't make sense for us to divert recruiting resources to build a recruiting pipeline to a new school with no history of performance and no alumni base to provide support. Also, since Yale Jackson has such a small alumni base, its not like any alumni is in the position to build a coalition to lobby their employer to hire from Yale Jackson (I mean for some super small orgs maybe). 

So even if Yale Jackson had a good curriculum and overall University strong reputation it doesn't matter to major employers. From an employer perspective it is not worth the risk. Also, I will say that

a. curriculum doesn't matter because every graduate student has the ability to customize their curriculum to some extent. 

b. overall University strong reputation doesn't matter either. People generally help their alumni from the same program and not their University at large (some minor exceptions). What really matters is the school. This is why no one cares about Stanford MPP or the Harvard Graduate Theater program (that went defunct due to per alumni performance). 

If you look at the Yale Jackson employment reporting, it is very clear they don't have consistent pipelines to employers as there is no consistency across the years (except for Fox Fellowship and Military Officers going to graduate school). I am also not bullish on Yale Jackson with career outcomes. They are beefing up their faculty by hiring their friends from academia, but they do not seem to be developing experential learning programs or hooking on a consistent roster of employers. The latter two is what makes a strong graduate school program for employment. Like I said. No non-academic employers care about what professor you had (this isn't law school or a PhD program). Instead, employers like myself care about risk profile. 

[theory_philosophy]

On 3/2/2022 at 11:38 PM, GradSchoolGrad said:

I am an employer that works with our recruiting team to hire people from grad schools (including policy schools) and the stark truth is that even if I wanted to get my employer (or competing organizations) to hire from Yale Jackson, it would be very difficult to do so. This is because we focus on pipelines. We have established pipelines with graduate programs that consistently yield matriculants that a. sustain high performance, b. receive support and coaching from their alumni and c. have a history of staying in our company for at least a few years or so (basically not a flight risk). It simply doesn't make sense for us to divert recruiting resources to build a recruiting pipeline to a new school with no history of performance and no alumni base to provide support. Also, since Yale Jackson has such a small alumni base, its not like any alumni is in the position to build a coalition to lobby their employer to hire from Yale Jackson (I mean for some super small orgs maybe). 

So even if Yale Jackson had a good curriculum and overall University strong reputation it doesn't matter to major employers. From an employer perspective it is not worth the risk. Also, I will say that

a. curriculum doesn't matter because every graduate student has the ability to customize their curriculum to some extent. 

b. overall University strong reputation doesn't matter either. People generally help their alumni from the same program and not their University at large (some minor exceptions). What really matters is the school. This is why no one cares about Stanford MPP or the Harvard Graduate Theater program (that went defunct due to per alumni performance). 

If you look at the Yale Jackson employment reporting, it is very clear they don't have consistent pipelines to employers as there is no consistency across the years (except for Fox Fellowship and Military Officers going to graduate school). I am also not bullish on Yale Jackson with career outcomes. They are beefing up their faculty by hiring their friends from academia, but they do not seem to be developing experential learning programs or hooking on a consistent roster of employers. The latter two is what makes a strong graduate school program for employment. Like I said. No non-academic employers care about what professor you had (this isn't law school or a PhD program). Instead, employers like myself care about risk profile. 

Thanks for your comprehensive reply. 

Is it at all possible that what you are describing is specific to your industry/company/organization (e.g., government agency or international nonprofit, or whatever)? I'm not saying this has to be the case; just asking.

Secondly, do you find that HKS suffers from these things too? I have friends there now (and I took a class there last semester; nothing impressive), and it really doesn't seem like there is any sort of direct mentoring or pipelines into government or nonprofits apart from the usual career services/fairs, etc. Also, any professor who is even mildly famous or who students think can help 

Finally, I think there are several categories of people attending, and their choice of school will likely be determined by their personal career trajectories (e.g., international government officials would likely care A LOT more about overall university prestige and reputation; those competing for US government and/or think tank-type roles would likely want, as I think you're describing, the most robust pipeline directly into government or quasi-government service). 

None of this applies to me (as I'm going to be heading back to my own country to consult/advise), but I'm curious. I look forward to your thoughts!

[GradSchoolGrad]

12 hours ago, natsecguy said:

Thanks for your comprehensive reply. 

Is it at all possible that what you are describing is specific to your industry/company/organization (e.g., government agency or international nonprofit, or whatever)? I'm not saying this has to be the case; just asking.

Secondly, do you find that HKS suffers from these things too? I have friends there now (and I took a class there last semester; nothing impressive), and it really doesn't seem like there is any sort of direct mentoring or pipelines into government or nonprofits apart from the usual career services/fairs, etc. Also, any professor who is even mildly famous or who students think can help 

Finally, I think there are several categories of people attending, and their choice of school will likely be determined by their personal career trajectories (e.g., international government officials would likely care A LOT more about overall university prestige and reputation; those competing for US government and/or think tank-type roles would likely want, as I think you're describing, the most robust pipeline directly into government or quasi-government service). 

None of this applies to me (as I'm going to be heading back to my own country to consult/advise), but I'm curious. I look forward to your thoughts!

To answer your question:

1. What I am describing is more specific to all major employers I have encountered (obviously with some variations for execution and considerations for diversity). I can also apply to high paying/high prestige medium and small employers who have a strong preference for alumni pipelines (one of the reasons why Tufts Fletcher hits above its weight class for employment despite its comparatively limited span of pipeline reach). 

2. HKS is an interesting beast different than any other policy school. That being said, HKS does not suffer from a pipeline issue. If anything, it suffers from a wealth of pipeline issue in that there are so many pipelines, students have to strategize which to shoot for that there are major issues with FOMO. Now it isn't like all the pipelines will just come to you with job offers in hand. HKS students still have to network. This is where I find HKS students excel by in large - as highly professionally minded go get get them networkers who can speak the professional language. 

Also, what you call as the usual career services/fairs is done at a level at HKS that exceeds that of many other policy schools (definitely way more than mine). You can argue that schools like Chicago Harris might have better individualized attention with more focused career coaching. However, HKS career services as a whole is decently robust between the accessible alumni and simply the organizations posting to hire directly via HKS. 

Now I will say that HKS can be described to have certain issues. Ones I have heard about is overly large cohort, not the best professors/instructors for quant, it being too professionally focused, and some professors are not accessible. That being said, every HKS student/graduate I know has been able to overcome that to smartly manage their career prospects by leveraging alumni, pipelines, and access empowered by HKS + their own smart networking to get where they wanted to be.

I also want to highlight, that taking a class one semester is not the same thing as being a full-time university student. Classes are a baseline for academic familiarization and exploration. What makes or breaks the graduate experience are the people met + self-discovery + extracurricular involvement opportunities.

3. I think you do have a minor point of people selecting their schools based upon their personal career trajectories. WIthout a doubt, some people go to specialized programs like Middlebury Monterey Institute or Tufts Fletcher over more "prestigious schools" due to unique program niches, working relationship with professors, or even school culture. However, a lot of policy schools (not all) that have better non-major employer career opportunities also tend to be the ones great major employer opportunities. HKS is a great example. Thinking holistically (regardless of policy focus), there are people from HKS who do go into start up, non-profit innovation, go to boutiques, or strike it out on their own. I attribute this to how the overall cultural emphasis on networking and professionalism (compared to other policy schools) benefits seeking big employers as well as smaller employers. Also, like I said, there are lots of small employers that have personal bias for certain schools based upon alumni experiences and etc. 

I want to clarify, I do not think HKS is the end all and be all or right for everyone (especially given the cost of attendance). However, it serves as a great comparison point.

 

[theory_philosophy]

46 minutes ago, GradSchoolGrad said:

To answer your question:

1. What I am describing is more specific to all major employers I have encountered (obviously with some variations for execution and considerations for diversity). I can also apply to high paying/high prestige medium and small employers who have a strong preference for alumni pipelines (one of the reasons why Tufts Fletcher hits above its weight class for employment despite its comparatively limited span of pipeline reach). 

2. HKS is an interesting beast different than any other policy school. That being said, HKS does not suffer from a pipeline issue. If anything, it suffers from a wealth of pipeline issue in that there are so many pipelines, students have to strategize which to shoot for that there are major issues with FOMO. Now it isn't like all the pipelines will just come to you with job offers in hand. HKS students still have to network. This is where I find HKS students excel by in large - as highly professionally minded go get get them networkers who can speak the professional language. 

Also, what you call as the usual career services/fairs is done at a level at HKS that exceeds that of many other policy schools (definitely way more than mine). You can argue that schools like Chicago Harris might have better individualized attention with more focused career coaching. However, HKS career services as a whole is decently robust between the accessible alumni and simply the organizations posting to hire directly via HKS. 

Now I will say that HKS can be described to have certain issues. Ones I have heard about is overly large cohort, not the best professors/instructors for quant, it being too professionally focused, and some professors are not accessible. That being said, every HKS student/graduate I know has been able to overcome that to smartly manage their career prospects by leveraging alumni, pipelines, and access empowered by HKS + their own smart networking to get where they wanted to be.

I also want to highlight, that taking a class one semester is not the same thing as being a full-time university student. Classes are a baseline for academic familiarization and exploration. What makes or breaks the graduate experience are the people met + self-discovery + extracurricular involvement opportunities.

3. I think you do have a minor point of people selecting their schools based upon their personal career trajectories. WIthout a doubt, some people go to specialized programs like Middlebury Monterey Institute or Tufts Fletcher over more "prestigious schools" due to unique program niches, working relationship with professors, or even school culture. However, a lot of policy schools (not all) that have better non-major employer career opportunities also tend to be the ones great major employer opportunities. HKS is a great example. Thinking holistically (regardless of policy focus), there are people from HKS who do go into start up, non-profit innovation, go to boutiques, or strike it out on their own. I attribute this to how the overall cultural emphasis on networking and professionalism (compared to other policy schools) benefits seeking big employers as well as smaller employers. Also, like I said, there are lots of small employers that have personal bias for certain schools based upon alumni experiences and etc. 

I want to clarify, I do not think HKS is the end all and be all or right for everyone (especially given the cost of attendance). However, it serves as a great comparison point.

 

Thank you so much for taking the time out to provide a comprehensive reply! 

HKS is definitely very unique and taking 1-2 classes there certainly doesn't give me a good idea of the proper 'cohort experience.' My friends in various programs at HKS do seem to be happy overall, though some of them do wish they had gotten into Princeton, mainly because you can get a bit lost at HKS, with the most famous profs being hounded/essentially impossible to access (Ash Carter, etc.) and the normal class size being 30-70 people. But international students, of which there are hundreds (it seems), seem to be more than happy because of brand name (school and university both).

[MrLucho]

Any news regarding the 2022 admissions to the MAS GA program? In my understanding Jackson emailed MPP candidates recently. I haven't received any notification for the MAS though. 

Edited March 12, 2022 by MrLucho

[OdileM]

I got into Jackson and McCourt for MPP, and I am having a hard time deciding which one to go for with full tuition and stipend from both. I am an international student. Any thoughts?

[GradSchoolGrad]

On 3/12/2022 at 8:43 AM, OdileM said:

I got into Jackson and McCourt for MPP, and I am having a hard time deciding which one to go for with full tuition and stipend from both. I am an international student. Any thoughts?

Go to Yale Jackson period. McCourt struggles to provide career support for international students since they are overwhelmed with international students who struggle to put together a functional resume.

[TTW9999]

The Yale Jackson cheerleaders in here are hilarious. You think a new program with 30 students is superior to HKS, a global center for leaders and an institution that has shaped policy all over the world for almost a century? lol what an absolute joke.

HKS is better than Jackson in every way. Most professors are rockstars of their fields, worked directly with presidents, shaped US policy, were chief economists of IMF World Bank you name it. The network is incredibly strong in virtually every public sector career path and even private sector ones like consulting. You have alums being government leaders all over the world and in some countries even ex-presidents.

For the people who say HKS is not rigorous enough, if you come to a policy school for rigor, you must only have half a brain cell. You come to policy schools to get policy exposure (which obviously are not rigorous like math or the hard sciences), explore and switch career paths, get into the right networks, not do some stats problem sets and go out to become some analyst slave. HKS graduates leaders, not analysts. The losers occupied with math equations will never become world leaders. Show me some top world leaders from Yale Jackson or Princeton SPIA with all that "rigor" lol. For HKS, how about 20 presidents to start?

If HKS were to limit its cohort to 30, those 30 students will be some of the smartest people you'll ever know. Meanwhile Yale's 30-man cohort is only slightly above average. Increase it more than that you'll start getting some real average Joes. Goes to show the Yale Jackson prestige right? lol. Cross-registration with other schools? Harvard wins by a mile. HBS HLS MIT etc, all at your disposal. The list goes on. Jackson doesn't even come close. Sorry cheerleaders.