Safeties, solids, and reaches for MPP--did I classify correctly?

[MTJ]

I am currently entering the second semester of my junior year of undergrad, and have been researching MPP programs for quite some time. I've narrowed my choices down to nine programs (I'll probably try to get it down to six or seven before I apply), which I've classified as safeties, solids, and reaches. In light of the stats I've listed below, do you think I've classified the schools accurately, or am I being too optimistic (or pessimistic) about my chances at any of them?

Undergraduate major: Economics (including courses in Introductory Statistics and Econometrics); I have close relationships with several professors who will write strong recommendations

Undergraduate GPA: 4.0 (thus far, but I'm fairly confident that I'll be able to graduate with a 4.0 or something very close)

GRE: 166 quant (94th percentile, equivalent to 800 on old scale), 170 verbal (99th percentile, equivalent to 800 on old scale); haven't gotten AW score yet (I just took it yesterday)

Work experience: thus far, summer internships at the Department of Energy and a DC-area think tank; I would like to go straight into the MPP from undergraduate, so I wouldn't have any full-time work experience (which I took into account when choosing and classifying programs)

Misc: study abroad at the University of Oxford (a very research- and writing-intensive program) and the University of Cape Town (mainly advanced econ electives for both programs--in other words, I wasn't just taking joke classes and bumming around); national leadership positions in a student-run human rights advocacy organization

Here are the programs I'm looking at, and their classifications:

Reach--Georgetown PPI, UChicago Harris, UMichigan Ford

Solid--George Washington Trachtenberg, UT Austin LBJ, Cornell CIPA, Carnegie Mellon Heinz (I realize Heinz is normally considered a reach, but my GRE scores are well in excess of their averages, and, more importantly, they seem more open to applicants with little full-time work experience--41% of enrollees in the most recent class had less than 1 year--so I see it as a "high solid")

Safety--American University School of Public Affairs, University of Maryland (College Park) School of Public Policy

Obviously, the big weakness in my application is going to be a lack of full-time work experience; that's why I ultimately decided not to apply to Harvard KS, Princeton WWS, or other programs that seem to pretty heavily discourage applicants straight out of undergrad (I would have taken Chicago off the list as well, but one of my Econ professors taught there for a while so I figured her recommendation might help me).

So, in light of this information, have I estimated my chances at these programs correctly? Are there any other programs that I should consider? I should mention that I'm not married to the idea of going straight to an MPP after undergrad, but I'd like to keep my options open.

Many thanks!

Edited January 15, 2012 by MTJ

[Learn619]

Hi there ‘MTJ’,

Your stats (GRE, GPA, etc.) appear to be phenomenal. I’m no expert on admissions, but I’ve researched quite a few of the programs that you intend to apply to and your ‘classifications’ of each program look to be quite accurate. Schools that are “quant heavy” such as Harris will probably appreciate your sound understanding of Econ, making you an ever more competitive applicant.

A major factor in the decision process will surely be your (future) statements of purpose that you compose for these programs. This is especially true for individuals who want to prove that they are ready to take on an MPP program directly out of undergrad.

As an overall applicant, for the “safeties, solids, & reach” schools, you appear to be quite qualified for all of them, and should be a very competitive candidate for admissions.

Congratulations on your academic excellence thus far!

[MTJ]

Thanks!

[wasistdas]

pretty damn well thought out. one thing I would recommend thinking about, however, is the difference between getting in to a program and being able to afford to go. would it not be better to take a few years to gain work experience (while earning money) to make yourself a better candidate for scholarships and non-loan financial aid?

Taking out $50-60k per year to pay for a degree and then try to find a job competing with those with many more years of work experience and the same degree while at the same time being restricted by those student loan payments and unable to take a risk on a potentially life-changing job will not be ideal. Working a few years to upgrade your resume (I am a big believer that gre and gpa are more used as disqualifies than qualifiers) will significantly increase your financial aide chances.

if you can independently fund your degree, more power to you, but I still believe that you would be graduating with too little work experience to land the job the graduate degree would normally provide.

finally, a few years away from the academic/college environment will, without question, help you make sure this is exactly what you want to do.