SAIS decisions are out, apparently:

[charlotte_asia]

I came across a booklet made by SIPA that contained admit rates for what they deemed were "peer schools" (I think the booklet was for SIPA admin eyes only, though). While these numbers are a bit old, I think they give a rough idea.

SIPA (MPA) [2008]: 51% (336/661)

SIPA (MPA) [2007]: 58% (337/578)

SIPA (MIA) [2008]: 40% (732/1,815)

SIPA (MIA) [2007]: 49% (804/1,626)

HKS (MPP) [2007]: 26.9% (340/1,262)

HKS (MPP) [2006]: 28.7% (386/1,344)

WWS (MPA) [2008]: 15% (116/765)

WWS (MPA) [2007]: 13% (103/792)

Maxwell (MPA) [2008]: 67% (243/361)

Maxwell (MPA) [2007]: 71% (281/394)

SFS (MSFS) [2008]: 29% (268/922)

SFS (MSFS) [2007]: 26.4% (220/834)

SAIS (MAIA) [2008]: 52% (791/1,521)

SAIS (MAIA) [2006]: 39% (640/1,639)

Fletcher (MALD) [2008]: 43% (699/1,620)

Fletcher (MALD) [2007]: 34.1% (558/1,636)

Shoot, this makes me feel a whole lot less special...

[piquant777]

I came across a booklet made by SIPA that contained admit rates for what they deemed were "peer schools" (I think the booklet was for SIPA admin eyes only, though). While these numbers are a bit old, I think they give a rough idea.

SIPA (MPA) [2008]: 51% (336/661)

SIPA (MPA) [2007]: 58% (337/578)

SIPA (MIA) [2008]: 40% (732/1,815)

SIPA (MIA) [2007]: 49% (804/1,626)

HKS (MPP) [2007]: 26.9% (340/1,262)

HKS (MPP) [2006]: 28.7% (386/1,344)

WWS (MPA) [2008]: 15% (116/765)

WWS (MPA) [2007]: 13% (103/792)

Maxwell (MPA) [2008]: 67% (243/361)

Maxwell (MPA) [2007]: 71% (281/394)

SFS (MSFS) [2008]: 29% (268/922)

SFS (MSFS) [2007]: 26.4% (220/834)

SAIS (MAIA) [2008]: 52% (791/1,521)

SAIS (MAIA) [2006]: 39% (640/1,639)

Fletcher (MALD) [2008]: 43% (699/1,620)

Fletcher (MALD) [2007]: 34.1% (558/1,636)

Wow. That is way more specific and interesting an answer than I had ever hoped to receive. How did you get this? This info should be its own thread.

[nouveau.ukiyo]

^^Would somebody on the waiting list count as accepted?

Anyway, those numbers are a little suspicious; who knows where they come from (it's just text in a post, no source, etc.) and why would these schools exchange admission info in the first place. It's also CoverID's first post...

Edited March 14, 2012 by nouveau.ukiyo

[CoverID]

It's not my first post, but I am using a CoverID. Get it? Call me crazy, but I just didn't want to post this under my normal moniker (and possibly out myself). I can assure you the numbers come from an internal annual report booklet put out by SIPA. I am not sure how/why schools would exchange such info, nor do I know if they include individuals on the wait list. If somebody else wants to start a thread with it, that's their call.

[piquant777]

The numbers look very accurate to me and are in line with things I have seen elsewhere. I would guess, according to admissions rate calculation standards and common sense, that the "accepted" numbers would include only those waitlisters that were ultimately accepted.

[IRToni]

Before we start feeling bad, let's think about the self-selection process going on beforehand. Those people applying will have to have put a lot of work (and money) into the applications. They will have to have people that support them (LORs) and think they have a shot at these schools. In addition, everyone will think a lot about applying to a program.

Regarding WWS and HKS, I feel like WWS' funding and HKS general brand name (Harvard) encourage more applicants that don't exactly fit their programs (although they might be strong), so they would have more people applying in relation to the spots available. E.g. I applied to WWS and HKS, even though the programs are not the best fit for me. WWS has the funding that I thought I couldn't turn down and HKS has a specific scholarship by my government that I applied for. Turns out, I'm not the right applicant for them (which is very true) and I got dinged by both. Of course, my profile is not nearly as strong as some of those posting here (no full time WE, straight out of undergrad, no public service work etc.), so I'm grateful I got into my top choice. Now I'll probably just have to rationalize 120 Thousand Dollars in debt when I have other awesome options that wouldn't cost me a cent.

[MYRNIST]

The numbers look very accurate to me and are in line with things I have seen elsewhere. I would guess, according to admissions rate calculation standards and common sense, that the "accepted" numbers would include only those waitlisters that were ultimately accepted.

I disagree.

None of those numbers reflect applicants who applied after the economic crisis (Fall 2008 admits would have been applying in late 2007). There is a mass of evidence to show a major increase in graduate school applications since then - the old "wait out the bad economy" trick.

GW Elliott received over 2000 applications this year (that number is straight from their acceptance letter) and will admit 640-700 students. That's about a 30-35% admissions rate. What do you think it is for historically more selective schools like WWS? HKS? SAIS? Georgetown? I'm guessing single digits to teens, max twenties.

The demand for grad school is extremely elastic. It does not take much effort or time (comparatively) to submit an application. If lots of people all of a sudden decide they want to apply for grad school, they can, with almost no delay.

Supply is relatively inelastic. If a school only has institutional capacity to support 400 students, and all of a sudden is bursting with applicants, it can't just admit 600 of them. New buildings, extra faculty recruitment, alumni fundraising and grant applications to pay for all of this, etc. run on a much slower development cycle. Think 5 year plans, not months. Plus most of these schools' finances probably took a major haircut from the crisis. Endowments are typically held in investments, not cash, so they likely got majorly exposed to the downturn (Harvard and Yale lost 30% of their money in 2009). Alumni giving almost certainly decreased. How would they fund major institutional overhaul?

Schools are still getting flooded with post-crisis applicants, but don't have the capacity to take a ton of them. Especially since they might have judged the spike in applications to be temporary, and are have just now re-built their war chests to a degree where they can expand. If they are, you probably won't see the effects for a couple years.

Bottom line: I think the actual admission numbers for the Fall 2012 cycle are considerably lower than those reported in the SIPA document.

Edited March 14, 2012 by MYRNIST

[hgd12]

MYRNIST, your take on current admit rates seems pretty sound, but it still doesn't necessarily disprove the ostensible accuracy for the years specified (2006-08).

[piquant777]

Bottom line: I think the actual admission numbers for the Fall 2012 cycle are considerably lower than those reported in the SIPA document.

All that is very well-reasoned, but still stands that I think these numbers are real (as the years in which they were taken were all specified, all 4-5 years back and before the effects of the crisis, as you aptly mentioned). That is, vis a vis the claim that they were just made up.

Agree that if schools release the number of total applications, it becomes easier to conjecture their real selectivity today assuming their total capacity and yield have stayed similar since 2007-8. If apps have gone way up, then obviously so has selectivity.

[piquant777]

MYRNIST, your take on current admit rates seems pretty sound, but it still doesn't necessarily disprove the ostensible accuracy for the years specified (2006-08).

You beat me to it

[MYRNIST]

I'm not disputing they are legit numbers, I'm arguing against their relevance to the current admissions cycle. Which I assumed was the point of bringing them up?

[msal]

myrnist which school are you choosing?

[hgd12]

Word. Nonetheless extremely interesting. For me, anyway.

[MYRNIST]

myrnist which school are you choosing?

I'm still waiting on an admissions result, and fin-aid results for all but one school, so right now I don't know.

[yo_yo86]

I agree the stats paint a very limited picture (as MYRNIST has pointed out); however, I think they are relevant when viewing the selectivity of each school against the others (i.e., SAIS accepts a much higher % than SFS and even Fletcher on occasion). Maybe it has since changed, but it very well could be similar today, with only the overall % accepted being lower for each school now. It's also true that it's a bit more of an ego boost to imagine ourselves beating out 90% of the applicants, rather than 60%.

I also found it interesting that GW and AU weren't included as peer schools. I wonder if that has since changed.

[OregonGal]

Update on the waitlist process:

I called the SAIS admissions office this morning to try and get a clearer timeline of the process. Those who are waitlisted have until May 1 to tell SAIS if they want to stay in the waitlist pool. This pool is unranked, and after May 1 the admissions committee reconvenes to determine who will be given a late offer, once they know how many open slots there are for the fall class. Waitlist offers do not include any merit-based financial aid. The reason that the confirmation page says that the decisions could go out as late as June or July is presumably because you might be in a second wave of waitlist admits, or because of the timing of when the ad-com reconvenes--the admin I talked to on the phone said they start the process "after spring" which might mean after the end of spring term (i.e. mid to late May).

[Bolognese]

I applied to do my first year in Bologna and my second in DC. What's the word on the street about the Bologna campus, anyone know?

Bologna's meant to be great! I know quite a lot of SAIS folks who did their first year there and they all rave about the atmosphere and the strength of the network. You made the right decision, I reckon.

I applied directly to the Bologna Center, so I hope to be there with you come fall. Unfortunately, one of the drawbacks of applying directly is that you don't hear admissions decisions until early April. It's going to be a tough few weeks for me!

Edited March 14, 2012 by Bolognese

[Clay Made]

I got dinged by SAIS because they wouldnt look at my application, due to some issues with the delay in my GRE score (which was completely the fault of ETS).

Anyone think its worth me reaching out to the admissions director to try and convince them to take a look at my application? I mean considering those on the waitlist will be re-evaluated anyway, is there any harm in being considered then? The downside is the obvious argument that they'll claim I'm seeking preferential treatment, which is what has stopped me thus far. I feel I am and I'm not too, as I sent in my application 1 week prior to the deadline and I have screenshots and the PDF file indicating that they sent the scores to SAIS (and others, who agreed to look at my app) but they refused to see it.

Any help? Am I wasting my time?

[rose1]

I doubt there's anything you can do about it now. You could ask, though. The worst thing that could happen is they say no, and then you'll be in the same boat you're in now.

[igg29]

So it's been 8 hours since I found out I was accepted to SAIS, and I gotta admit, I'm totally drunk off the SAIS kool-aid right now

me toooo!!! but what's the deal with this IDEV concentration cap? anyone know if there's any chance of getting into it once we've started? I wonder why so many admitted students are not accepted to that concentration.... its that much more popular than other concentrations!

[SaraDC]

I agree the stats paint a very limited picture (as MYRNIST has pointed out); however, I think they are relevant when viewing the selectivity of each school against the others (i.e., SAIS accepts a much higher % than SFS and even Fletcher on occasion). Maybe it has since changed, but it very well could be similar today, with only the overall % accepted being lower for each school now. It's also true that it's a bit more of an ego boost to imagine ourselves beating out 90% of the applicants, rather than 60%.

I also found it interesting that GW and AU weren't included as peer schools. I wonder if that has since changed.

I found those #'s a little surprising as well. You'll probably be able to get a better picture of the selectivity of the schools when you visit them on accepted students day.

The important point to keep in mind is that admissions statistics and rankings for "IR Schools" aren't really an effective tool for comparison - at least not as effective as they might be for something like an MBA program. Each of the schools mentioned has a very different comparative advantage and will appeal to students interested in different things. If someone wants to focus on the Middle East, (IMO) Georgetown as one of the top programs. If you want to focus on Finance/Econ - go with SAIS or SIPA. There are positives and negatives to all the programs, I just mentioned those three because those are the schools I considered.

[charlotte_asia]

SarahDC, thanks for making yourself available for our questions. I will be speaking with students more in-depth about their experiences in the coming weeks, but I have a couple of quick questions for you right now if you don't mind:

1. How do you find attending school at SAIS' facilities, which are smaller and lack a more university campus feel?

2. Are students able to work or intern part-time while attending classes?

3. Are students permitted to cross-register at DC consortium schools? If so, for how many classes/semester or year?

Thanks!

[nouveau.ukiyo]

Bologna's meant to be great! I know quite a lot of SAIS folks who did their first year there and they all rave about the atmosphere and the strength of the network. You made the right decision, I reckon.

I applied directly to the Bologna Center, so I hope to be there with you come fall. Unfortunately, one of the drawbacks of applying directly is that you don't hear admissions decisions until early April. It's going to be a tough few weeks for me!

Thanks for your input. I never doubted that it was a good place to be. But here's the kicker: I applied to SAIS and choose the 'Japan Studies' concentration. At the Bologna Center, it seems you can take classes dealing with geographic location in the world except East Asia. I felt like an idiot after sending in my application; I was confident I wouldn't be accepted. Surprise surprise!

Anyway, I'm really taking a good, hard look at the SAIS curriculum now. I'd ultimately like to go a bit further than Japan Studies and go for the International Relations of Asia specialization. I guess I could get the degree's core requirements and international economic requirements out of the way at Bologna and focus on the Asia/IR stuff back in DC.

[hudwa]

nouveau.ukiyo, I applied for Japan Studies at SAIS too. What are you doing in Yokohama now, if you don't mind me asking, and what's your applicant pprofile like? Are you applying as an international student? I lived in Tokyo for a few years working with the Japanese government. I got waitlisted, and I was told that SAIS was desperate for Japan Studies candidates, so I'm just a little surprised that another (seemingly rare) Japan Studies applicant got dinged from attending SAIS in DC, though the Bologna program is nothing to sneeze at either. I have a friend who graduated from SAIS in the 90s and spent a year in Bologna, but pursued Japan Studies and now has a successful career as an analyst in Japan.

[araman]

Anyone else considering SAIS Bologna/DC ?

I am thinking about doing the Latin America/Western Hemisphere Track