Share Your Decision Dilemmas Here!

[solareclipse]

Hi everyone! I've seen a few "which program should I choose" posts popping up now that acceptances/rejections have come out, so I thought I'd start up a thread to put all of them in one place. I've put mine below in case anyone has any input or advice they'd like to share. Thanks in advance!

 

I’m currently weighing my options between two programs. After receiving acceptances/rejections and beginning to narrow down my offers to my top two, I’ve gotten stuck. I’ve been admitted to the UW-Madison La Follette School of Public Affairs Master of International Public Affairs program (25k/yr) and the Tufts Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy Master of International Business program (35k/yr after receiving my aid package).

 

As an overview of my interests/goals, I am interested in focusing on Latin America and the energy sector, particularly as it relates to developing countries and the transition to renewable energy. Careers of interest would include working in consulting (in roles involving the above areas of interest), working in the private sector at utilities or renewable energy companies, or positions in the Department of Energy, for example. Given the intersection between the public and private sectors in the energy sector, I am looking for an interdisciplinary education that gives me a deeper understanding of both sides. Below are the draws and cons of each program. Additionally, while I am interested in Latin America and would ideally be able to do work focusing on the region, I don’t necessarily want to live in Latin America for a large portion of my life, and therefore am willing to do more domestically focused work for at least a portion of my career.

 

Wisconsin - La Follette:

Pros: 

-MIPA program has an international dimension, and provides many of the basic skills I would need to use in future jobs.

-Pipeline to consulting firms (Close relationship with Grant Thornton, many grads go directly into public sector consulting roles)

-Opportunity to work with the Wisconsin Energy Institute, as well as the Wisconsin School of Business (via Energy Analysis and Policy certificate and Business, Environment, and Sustainability certificate programs). These certificates add more of an interdisciplinary aspect to my degree.

-Multiple professors with focus on the transition to renewable energy

-Cheapest option. While I did not receive any scholarship aid, my understanding is that many students get graduate assistantships in their second year as well, which would widen the funding gap even further

-Lower cost of living in Madison (very livable city as well)

-My partner is a UW grad and her family lives outside of Madison, making the move and adjustment to a new city far easier.

-State Capitol location grants a lot of hands-on project opportunities.

 

Cons: 

-Madison is not as large as Boston, and would not have the same quantity/quality of opportunities. 

-Limited name recognition of the La Follette program outside of the midwest (though I would be interested in living in Chicago, as a mitigating point)

-Many classmates focused on social policy and domestic policy. -More limited cohort of MIPA students vs. MPA students

-Large portion of graduates work in state governments, meaning a more limited alumni/classmate base going into similar fields with me. Therefore, less networking ability within the La Follette School.

Tufts - Fletcher:

Pros:

-MIB program bridges the public/private sector gap.

-Career outcomes of graduates match up well with my career goals

-Multiple research centers fitting my interests (Climate Policy Lab, Institute for Business in the Global Context, Center for Emerging Market Enterprise)

-More prestigious/well-known program in the field than La Follette.

-Multiple professors with focus on the transition to renewable energy

-Proximity to Boston

-“Fletcher Mafia” - super tight alumni network

-Ability to focus on both of my areas of interest (energy/Latin America)

-MIB degree ~may~ provide higher earning potential than MIPA.

-Hands-on project opportunities in the Boston area

 

Cons:

-More expensive tuition

-Higher cost of living

-Not actually in Boston. Coming from a neighborhood in the middle of San Francisco and seeing friends living in outlying cities come it into the city far less than they had anticipated, this is a worry of mine.

- While the Fletcher name is extremely well known within the international affairs community, I am unsure of how well it is known outside of it. (Any clarity there would be helpful)

 

I'm sure I've missed a couple pros/cons, but I've tried to get as many important pieces of information in there as possible. Let me know what you all think!

[GradSchoolGrad]

I think you are going after the wrong degree. If you really want to do what you say you are doing without living abroad, you should get an MBA and focus on Oil and Gas industry and/or energy talent (trust me they will murder for talent, and they working on transitioning to green - even if half heartedly sometimes). Alternatively, you can work in energy space. It will be easier to go into consulting and even energy management government side with an MBA than any MIPA degree. 

Also, the MIB from Fletcher is basically a money grab (since they don't have an MBA program, nor do they have the means to start one) to expand their graduate school offerings (grad students are a profit center to make up for the financial losses from undergrads). Basically, it isn't as good as you think it is in terms of academic quality. There is a Fletcher mafia, but it won't be that strong in the energy space. If you going State dept or non-profit space, yes there is one, but not energy. 

[policywhale]

Hi all!

I am a public school educator turned non-profit impact evaluator pursuing an MPP. My interests have always been in supporting initiatives at the intersection of K-12 education and immigration (launched a food security program for high schoolers through work at an NGO; taught math to immigrants to the country).

I took several data analytics in R courses to transition into my current job (evaluating the impact & managing the data systems of an education non-profit focused on career access). My hope is for the MPP to further sharpen my analytical skills (particularly in applied data analytics) and support my pivot into a public sector role where I can support initiatives more aligned to my policy interests.

Currently, I am deciding between Goldman (in-state tuition with some $) and HKS (no $), though I have 11k from AmeriCorps that would apply to both. Overall, it would be the difference between coming out of school with savings intact (Goldman) or with about 20-30k in debt (HKS) after depleting savings.

While my heart and mind say Goldman, the allure of the HKS degree and experience is appealing, and is making the decision difficult. Also currently living in the Bay Area, just 15 mins from Berkeley, and have been for the past 6 years.

What are y'all's thoughts? Thanks so much!

Edited March 30, 2022 by policywhale

[GradSchoolGrad]

27 minutes ago, policywhale said:

Hi all!

I am a public school educator turned non-profit impact evaluator pursuing an MPP. My interests have always been in supporting initiatives at the intersection of K-12 education and immigration (launched a food security program for high schoolers through work at an NGO; taught math to immigrants to the country).

I took several data analytics in R courses to transition into my current job (evaluating the impact & managing the data systems of an education non-profit focused on career access). My hope is for the MPP to further sharpen my analytical skills (particularly in applied data analytics) and support my pivot into a public sector role where I can support initiatives more aligned to my policy interests.

Currently, I am deciding between Goldman (in-state tuition with some $) and HKS (no $), though I have 11k from AmeriCorps that would apply to both. Overall, it would be the difference between coming out of school with savings intact (Goldman) or with about 20-30k in debt (HKS) after depleting savings.

While my heart and mind say Goldman, the allure of the HKS degree and experience is appealing, and is making the decision difficult. Also currently living in the Bay Area, just 15 mins from Berkeley, and have been for the past 6 years.

What are y'all's thoughts? Thanks so much!

Bottom line is that do you have a desire to return to the Bay Area/Stay in the Bay Area. If the answer is strong yes, Goldman makes sense because your network and things you learn will actually be most applicable. I will even argue that Goldman teaches analytical skills better than HKS. In fact, poor/inconsistent data analysis teaching quality is the only frequent compliant I have heard about HKS. HKS also won't really benefit for your return to California, and actually can work against you because California dynamics are so different than east coast ones. 

[policywhale]

29 minutes ago, GradSchoolGrad said:

Bottom line is that do you have a desire to return to the Bay Area/Stay in the Bay Area. If the answer is strong yes, Goldman makes sense because your network and things you learn will actually be most applicable. I will even argue that Goldman teaches analytical skills better than HKS. In fact, poor/inconsistent data analysis teaching quality is the only frequent compliant I have heard about HKS. HKS also won't really benefit for your return to California, and actually can work against you because California dynamics are so different than east coast ones. 

First of all, thank you for your help! Your depth of knowledge about these programs is impressive.

While I am relatively location-agnostic in the 1-2 years following school as long as I find an interesting and impactful opportunity, I want to move back to Texas. (I know that LBJ would have really supported this, but I found the programs and the experiences of both Goldman and HKS so much more interesting, given that I did my undergrad at UT Austin!).

I've spoken to students at both schools and, like I said my heart and mind are keeping me in the Bay Area. However, as a thought experiment from a more objective party, what (if anything) would HKS offer that Berkeley wouldn't given my interests and career goals?

[GradSchoolGrad]

5 minutes ago, policywhale said:

First of all, thank you for your help! Your depth of knowledge about these programs is impressive.

While I am relatively location-agnostic in the 1-2 years following school as long as I find an interesting and impactful opportunity, I want to move back to Texas. (I know that LBJ would have really supported this, but I found the programs and the experiences of both Goldman and HKS so much more interesting, given that I did my undergrad at UT Austin!).

I've spoken to students at both schools and, like I said my heart and mind are keeping me in the Bay Area. However, as a thought experiment from a more objective party, what (if anything) would HKS offer that Berkeley wouldn't given my interests and career goals?

I don't want to sound crass and dismissive of your interests, but the reality is that about 60% or so of the people I seen come into policy school changed their career/policy focus interests at least moderately, so I want to speak to what HKS can provide broadly that Goldman can't do as well to give you a bigger picture.

1. Give you access to International perspectives (from an academic perspective) between having a broadly more multi-diverse peer group and direct academic exposure to international topics (if you choose to engage). HKS is one of the few MPP schools that can dig into non-iDEV IR. 

2. HKS has more collaboration opportunities if you wanted to engage in with the MBA, Public Health, or Engineering

3. Even though Berkeley is in Bay Area, I only really hear of policy related start ups coming from HKS folks (maybe because I'm from the east coast - but I have done time in the Bay Area). 

4. TRIPS TRIPS TRIPS - HKS has loads and loads of international trips (hypothetically policy learning related) 

5. If for some reason you want to do MBB consulting - HKS is a pipeline, Goldman is not really.

6. If you want to the most competitive DC jobs, HKS can definitely help you get there (that being said, Ed Policy DC jobs might be competitive, but they tend to be lower pay and impact is not always the best). 

Those are a few starting off the top of my head. 

[policywhale]

8 minutes ago, GradSchoolGrad said:

I don't want to sound crass and dismissive of your interests, but the reality is that about 60% or so of the people I seen come into policy school changed their career/policy focus interests at least moderately, so I want to speak to what HKS can provide broadly that Goldman can't do as well to give you a bigger picture.

1. Give you access to International perspectives (from an academic perspective) between having a broadly more multi-diverse peer group and direct academic exposure to international topics (if you choose to engage). HKS is one of the few MPP schools that can dig into non-iDEV IR. 

2. HKS has more collaboration opportunities if you wanted to engage in with the MBA, Public Health, or Engineering

3. Even though Berkeley is in Bay Area, I only really hear of policy related start ups coming from HKS folks (maybe because I'm from the east coast - but I have done time in the Bay Area). 

4. TRIPS TRIPS TRIPS - HKS has loads and loads of international trips (hypothetically policy learning related) 

5. If for some reason you want to do MBB consulting - HKS is a pipeline, Goldman is not really.

6. If you want to the most competitive DC jobs, HKS can definitely help you get there (that being said, Ed Policy DC jobs might be competitive, but they tend to be lower pay and impact is not always the best). 

Those are a few starting off the top of my head. 

Thank you so much! You didn't sound crass or dismissive at all.
Let me know if you think of anything else — I will make sure to chat with students & ask them questions with all of these points in mind.

[Gradstnd]

Hi 

Thanks for sharing this thread. This is really helpful.

I am planning to start my master's this fall, focusing on public/global affairs -- I am an international student. I have received offers from Fletcher MALD, Georgetown GHD, and Columbia SIPA (MPA DP). 

My goal is to pursue a global career, especially in international development. Also, I want to keep my options open in terms of working with the government, private sector in consulting and international aid agencies. Considering this context, would be really helpful to hear from people in this platform on which school would be best fit for me. 

[policyapp2022]

Hi everyone!

I was accepted to USC's MPP, UW's MPA, and waitlisted to Berkeley's MPP.

My financial situation is a little complex to explain:

• USC: 25% Dean's Merit Scholarship, plus outside funding equating to $45k/year in tuition assistance and a $3.5k/month stipend 
• UW: No direct funding, but outside funding equating to $12k/year in tuition assistance and a $2.5k/month stipend 

I also have about $12k total education awards from AmeriCorps 

My background is all over the place - federal government service, local government service, progressive political campaigns, etc. Right now I work in environmental and social policy - that's where my strong suits are. I grew up in Seattle, went to school in New York City, and have lived in California (bay area) for almost 3 years now. My family is in Seattle and my partner's family is in the bay area. 

My real passion is in sustainable and ethical fashion policy - a very small and niche interest at the intersection of consumption/waste/human rights/supply-chain regulation where most opportunities are in LA, NYC, or SF, with a few opportunities in the Seattle area. I anticipate living in LA or SF long-term and wouldn't return to the East Coast unless it was an amazing opportunity. 

If I got off the waitlist at Goldman I would probably choose to go there - I have three years worth of connections in the bay, alongside support from my partner's family, plus outside funding equating to full in-state tuition and a $3.5k/month stipend.

My dilemma now is between USC Price (MPP) and UW Evans (MPA). Rankings-wise Price and Evans are similar for Public Affairs, while lower in Public Policy analysis. Evans is well known for Environmental Policy, which would give me a good background for my future career and wider options for continuing in my current field. Staying in California would be better for my partner, and would probably provide better opportunities for connections in California. Plus, I hate the rain, I really do. 

[ocula]

Someone please tell me if I'm making a huge mistake!

I am an international student whose interests lie in cultural policy and its intersections with social policy globally, but particularly in Southeast Asia. My current goals are to work within cultural policy in the US for a few years after graduation before moving back home. 

I've been really lucky this cycle and have been admitted to some great programs:

UChicago Harris MPP ($), Duke Sanford MPP ($$$), Berkeley Goldman MPP (0), Columbia SIPA MIA (0), Yale Jackson MPP ($$$$)

At present, given the generous funding, I am leaning heavily towards Yale Jackson. I am currently negotiating funding packages with Harris and Sanford, but it's unlikely that they'll be able to match the full funding Yale is offering. Other reasons why I'm leaning towards Jackson include:

• Focus on global public policy and there's also the Council of Southeast Asia Studies at Yale 
• Access to classes at SOM which would be great for me to learn about non-profit management and to apply that to the cultural sector (Jackson students are apparently also very successful in applying for the concurrent MBA degree with SOM at the end of their first year)
• Smaller class size; tons of funding and opportunities for projects and programs at Jackson especially since it's just been launched as a new professional school 
• Fantastic World Fellows and Senior Fellows attached to the program

All that being said, there are some things that concern me about the program and I'm wondering if these are big enough issues for me to reject full funding from Yale in favour of one of my other options?:

• Jackson doesn't have the robust policy analysis core of other MPPs
• It's a relatively new and untested program
• Limited Jackson alumni network and career development support, particularly compared to programs like Harris 

I'd love to hear any constructive feedback! Please also let me know if there are other pros/cons that I should take note of.

 

 

 

[GradSchoolGrad]

On 4/2/2022 at 10:24 PM, ocula said:

Someone please tell me if I'm making a huge mistake!

I am an international student whose interests lie in cultural policy and its intersections with social policy globally, but particularly in Southeast Asia. My current goals are to work within cultural policy in the US for a few years after graduation before moving back home. 

I've been really lucky this cycle and have been admitted to some great programs:

UChicago Harris MPP ($), Duke Sanford MPP ($$$), Berkeley Goldman MPP (0), Columbia SIPA MIA (0), Yale Jackson MPP ($$$$)

At present, given the generous funding, I am leaning heavily towards Yale Jackson. I am currently negotiating funding packages with Harris and Sanford, but it's unlikely that they'll be able to match the full funding Yale is offering. Other reasons why I'm leaning towards Jackson include:

• Focus on global public policy and there's also the Council of Southeast Asia Studies at Yale 
• Access to classes at SOM which would be great for me to learn about non-profit management and to apply that to the cultural sector (Jackson students are apparently also very successful in applying for the concurrent MBA degree with SOM at the end of their first year)
• Smaller class size; tons of funding and opportunities for projects and programs at Jackson especially since it's just been launched as a new professional school 
• Fantastic World Fellows and Senior Fellows attached to the program

All that being said, there are some things that concern me about the program and I'm wondering if these are big enough issues for me to reject full funding from Yale in favour of one of my other options?:

• Jackson doesn't have the robust policy analysis core of other MPPs
• It's a relatively new and untested program
• Limited Jackson alumni network and career development support, particularly compared to programs like Harris 

I'd love to hear any constructive feedback! Please also let me know if there are other pros/cons that I should take note of.

 

 

 

Go to Yale Jackson and here is the reason why. Culture policy does not exist in the United States. We do not have a minister of Sport and Culture like many countries do. So there is essentially nothing to really study from a US domestic perspective. None of the other programs are exactly known for an international perspective (and I think IDEV counts). Yale Jackson is the only program geared towards truly global sensibilities. If you don't really care about your professed focus area, that is another story. However if you do care, then Yale Jackson makes sense. 

[ocula]

On 4/4/2022 at 12:26 PM, GradSchoolGrad said:

Go to Yale Jackson and here is the reason why. Culture policy does not exist in the United States. We do not have a minister of Sport and Culture like many countries do. So there is essentially nothing to really study from a US domestic perspective. None of the other programs are exactly known for an international perspective (and I think IDEV counts). Yale Jackson is the only program geared towards truly global sensibilities. If you don't really care about your professed focus area, that is another story. However if you do care, then Yale Jackson makes sense. 

Great, thank you for that perspective! 

[OdileM]

On 4/3/2022 at 4:24 AM, ocula said:

Someone please tell me if I'm making a huge mistake!

I am an international student whose interests lie in cultural policy and its intersections with social policy globally, but particularly in Southeast Asia. My current goals are to work within cultural policy in the US for a few years after graduation before moving back home. 

I've been really lucky this cycle and have been admitted to some great programs:

UChicago Harris MPP ($), Duke Sanford MPP ($$$), Berkeley Goldman MPP (0), Columbia SIPA MIA (0), Yale Jackson MPP ($$$$)

At present, given the generous funding, I am leaning heavily towards Yale Jackson. I am currently negotiating funding packages with Harris and Sanford, but it's unlikely that they'll be able to match the full funding Yale is offering. Other reasons why I'm leaning towards Jackson include:

• Focus on global public policy and there's also the Council of Southeast Asia Studies at Yale 
• Access to classes at SOM which would be great for me to learn about non-profit management and to apply that to the cultural sector (Jackson students are apparently also very successful in applying for the concurrent MBA degree with SOM at the end of their first year)
• Smaller class size; tons of funding and opportunities for projects and programs at Jackson especially since it's just been launched as a new professional school 
• Fantastic World Fellows and Senior Fellows attached to the program

All that being said, there are some things that concern me about the program and I'm wondering if these are big enough issues for me to reject full funding from Yale in favour of one of my other options?:

• Jackson doesn't have the robust policy analysis core of other MPPs
• It's a relatively new and untested program
• Limited Jackson alumni network and career development support, particularly compared to programs like Harris 

I'd love to hear any constructive feedback! Please also let me know if there are other pros/cons that I should take note of.

 

 

 

I am almost in the same situation except that I am interested in economic development, international development/program evaluation and public-private sector partnerships! I received full funding from both Yale’s Jackson and McCourt at Georgetown. I don’t know which one to go for???

[GradSchoolGrad]

On 4/8/2022 at 2:45 PM, OdileM said:

I am almost in the same situation except that I am interested in economic development, international development/program evaluation and public-private sector partnerships! I received full funding from both Yale’s Jackson and McCourt at Georgetown. I don’t know which one to go for???

McCourt's international development/program evaluation is tied distinctly with Professor Franck Wiebe. You either like his style or don't like his style (and I know people in both camps). I could be wrong, but from what I have been told, it is rather old school. That public-private sector partnership stuff has ballooned of late as a policy innovation, and you would have more freedom at Yale Jackson to research that. However, given the small size of the program, I hope you enjoy taking the initiative to do things on your own rather than having a huge IDEV cohort to help you out. 

[atover]

Okay just about 48 hrs till the decision deadline and I am totally torn between UChicago Harris and Georgetown McCourt. I want to focus on education policy and I’m debating what exactly I want to do after but I know I don’t want a PHD. 
 

Harris Pros

- they have me the best funding (40,000)

- I really liked the school when I went to accepted students day last weekend.

- they seem to have more of a focus on domestic policy and there seem to be a lot of opportunities for education policy.

Harris Con

- I don’t really like Chicago and I’m a little concerned about safety on and around the UChicago Campus. 
 

-Math Camp and Coding: I’m not good at math and don’t have a quant background. I got an A in college stats but that’s the only math I’ve taken since HS. 

- it’s further away from home. 
 

McCourt Pro

- I like that the school seems really plugged into DC. I might want to go into politics one day and I think there might be better internships 

- I’m interested in the DC consortium and being able to take classes at other local schools 

- I was really interested in the presentation from GU politics during admitted students day

- They have a new graduate housing building with a free shuttle and included utilities which is a big perk.

- it’s closer to where I live now (Boston area) and I have some extended family and a friend in town already. Making friends as an adult sucks lol

McCourt Cons

- there didn’t seem to be as much of a focus on education policy there and that is my focus area.

- they gave me less money (19,000 vs 40,000) 

 

I am honestly so torn I’m about to just flip a coin and be done with this. 

[CCZZ]

Hi! I am having trouble deciding between McCourt MPP and SIPA MPA. I am international, interested in health policy, social policy, specifically in implementation of projects, not research. The cost of both programs is similar with the scholarships.

About McCourt: There is a field of public health in the electives. I love the city. Planning to stay the opt year, so I will have several opportunities to find a good internship + job that year. Have family in Virginia. No problem with quants. Few internationals

About SIPA: I prefer this curriculum, more options for specializations, though there is not one of public health. More international network. BUT the cost is too high, I am going with my family. I don't like to pay more only for the brand. Does SIPA worth it?

It's been weeks thinking about it! Already dismissed Chicago because of weather and quants, am I wrong??

 

[GradSchoolGrad]

2 hours ago, CCZZ said:

Hi! I am having trouble deciding between McCourt MPP and SIPA MPA. I am international, interested in health policy, social policy, specifically in implementation of projects, not research. The cost of both programs is similar with the scholarships.

About McCourt: There is a field of public health in the electives. I love the city. Planning to stay the opt year, so I will have several opportunities to find a good internship + job that year. Have family in Virginia. No problem with quants. Few internationals

About SIPA: I prefer this curriculum, more options for specializations, though there is not one of public health. More international network. BUT the cost is too high, I am going with my family. I don't like to pay more only for the brand. Does SIPA worth it?

It's been weeks thinking about it! Already dismissed Chicago because of weather and quants, am I wrong??

 

McCourt might actually be the better program for you, since as an international student, you will want to be quant focused if you want to stay in the US. Non quant jobs are usually attained by US students. New York is crazy expensive with rent sky rocketing right now.

[jlbeans]

Hi all,

I know I am very, very late to the game but I would love some advice on what my next steps should be. To be quite honest, applying to grad school for me was a crapshoot that I hadn't even fully figured out before I applied, in part due to work reasons. I was in a tough spot due to work where I don't think I adequately prepared for my apps, or even had some serious conversations with people about what I wanted out of a school, all I looked at was the US News and World Report and if I could afford the program. For a little bit of context, I am a current hill staffer (who is trying to pay for grad school on this Federal gov salary) looking to move up/try different fields after having spent my entire post-undergrad career on the hill. I've basically maxed out how much more I can move up in my office and want to learn more skills that would make me a competitive candidate in other fields. I chose to apply to only MPP programs because so many people told me working on the hill was essentially a MPA. Not sure how true that is.

My focus is health policy, and I've been lucky enough to do some really exciting work in this space, something I hope to continue doing after getting my MPP. I'm not opposed to returning to DC or even the hill. I would love to work on Senate HELP or HHS, but I am also interested in the private sector, including lobbying in the healthcare industry, Deloitte, BCG and other private firms. Again, not sure if these firms even have what I am looking for. That being said, the schools which I got into I don't think are completely conducive to what I am looking for, I think. 

I was debating between UCLA Luskin and UC Berkeley Goldman, having applied to these schools because I qualify for in-state tuition and cannot afford most of the programs out in DC. I didn't receive any funding from either of them. From what I hear, both of these schools are pretty focused on California politics, something I'm not interested in doing. I was pretty on the fence about Luskin, because of how good their public health program (MPH, though) is and how many opportunities LA would have for health policy. Having grown up in the Bay Area, I am also not interested in moving back there or living there ever again, so that was one thing stopping me from full on charging towards Goldman. Also not a quant person so that made me very nervous. 

I got rejected from Harvard, in part I think because I wasn't prepared enough on my apps, but after learning more about the HKS program, I think it would be the one I am most interested in, in part due to how well-rounded the cohort is. I also think they would be the best for the health field, since Boston is basically the epicenter of the healthcare industry. Thus, I am debating if I should defer Goldman to try and apply for HKS again next year, having been far more prepared and aware of what I am interested in. Would I have a harder time getting in because I am a repeat rejected applicant? Are there any other schools anyone would recommend I look at for public health? Apologies, if that is a lot to ask, but its really hard to find that much information out there. 

Lastly, I do want to add that I also applied to some schools in the UK, primarily LSE and KCL (MSc in policy and management). I would definitely go to LSE if I got in and to be quite honest, I like the UK schools more because of how quick the program is. Not sure how good it is for job searching, but I figured it would get me back in the job market fast enough and probably able to compete with graduates from HKS. Does anyone have any recommendations on what my next steps should be?

[confusedmastudent]

I have a difficult decision between AU SIS and Georgetown SFS (regional studies). AU gave me 50% tuition, Georgetown gave me nothing. It may be possible to get funding for the second year. I also plan to work at least part time while going to school. My reservations about AU are that so few courses are regionally-focused and are instead very broad IR classes, which are both less appealing to me and prevent me from developing solid regional expertise. Another factors is that at AU, you cannot take languages for credit. At Georgetown it's a required part of the program. 

If money were no object, I'd go to Georgetown 100% of the time, but I'm wary of debt. Georgetown was my top choice, and AU was my last choice. For one reason or another, nothing in-between worked out. I don't want to reapply next year (I'm almost 30 already), so I have to choose one or neither. I hope to work in a job that allows me to use language skills and regional knowledge, but I would be relying on my graduate school's career services to further narrow down my career options. 

I feel like I should be thrilled to have these options (and don't get me wrong, I'm grateful) but I feel like I'll be unhappy either way. Either not happy at SIS because it's not the exactly the type of program I wanted to attend, or overwhelmed with debt at Georgetown. I welcome any advice. 

Edited April 15, 2022 by confusedmastudent

[GradSchoolGradd]

On 4/13/2022 at 9:40 PM, GradSchoolGrad said:

 Non quant jobs are usually attained by US students.

Total horseshit.