MPP/MPA as prep for political science PhD?

[sherpa07]

The title pretty much explains my question.. I'm finding there's a dearth of decent political science Masters programs, and some political science departments even explicitly say "we don't have a Masters, but enjoy our MPP!" (see bottom: http://politicalscience.stanford.edu/graduate-program/prospective-students/faq#Master01).

Would an MPP or MPA lend itself well to applying to a PhD in political science (NOT public policy)? My undergraduate degree was in history, so I feel the need to increase my PhD chances with a Masters first, but there are so few programs!

[saltlakecity2012]

A lot of people start out with the MIA from Columbia and then go on to do the PhD in political science - I don't know as much about the MPA or MPP, but I think a fair number of people do that at the Harvard Kennedy School (MPA/MPP to PhD). I think the utility of the master's degree varies according to your research interests and your other experiences. You could also do Chicago's CIR or MAPSS, or Columbia's QMSS. All master's level programs that funnel people into poli sci PhDs.

Obviously a master's is expensive, though, so be thorough in considering all the other ways to get into a PhD program. People come in from different undergrad focuses fairly often, so I wouldn't rule yourself out of the running just because your degree is in history. If you have some interesting work after undergrad and can put together a convincing statement demonstrating that you know what poli sci is, you should be fine.

Good luck!

[Helix]

The short answer to this question is almost always "no." Here's why: MPPs/MPAs/other forms of policy degrees tend to be sequestered in different schools or departments from their political science programs both practically/bureaucratically and methodologically/culturally. On the practical side, many schools that offer MPPs limit the amount of coursework that you can or should take in a political science department and instead expect you to take most of your courses with faculty for that policy school or program. Many of these faculty and the program itself are targeted toward master's students, which means that the faculty are not necessarily connected to more academic career lines (they themselves might be, but often in policy programs the professors are practitioners with teacher qualifications moreso than strict academics focused exclusively on the sorts of questions that a political science department would find universally acceptable). Not being able to take those classes or work with those professors limits you in the amount of help you can get in transitioning from the MPP to a PhD in something other than policy. It also means that their expertise is not really in getting people into PhD programs--it's in getting them jobs in policy careers (one hopes). Therefore you're not in a position to expect much from the career services end, necessarily.

On the more methodological/cultural side, I would say two things: policy programs can be hostile to academic language and deeper inquiry. This isn't meant to be insulting at all--if I am a policymaker, I *don't* just want to know how something might work in theory and spend a lot of time considering variously small degrees of measurement error or whether this use of IV is valid. My time is better spent thinking about how one might implement a program, and what the costs or benefits are, and what management challenges might arise, because sometimes you need to act *right now* and usually I can hire a PhD to interpret these kinds of technical materials if I need to. This situation, coupled with the fairly large course-sizes in professional master's programs, means that you won't necessarily be able to be socialized into political science language and academic inquiry. An additional issue arises in that the research being done in policy is somewhat different from that in political science--experimental design is all the rage in policy (coming from econ) and is of interest, but much newer to many political science departments, so depending on the program, you might not be getting material that will allow you to say with confidence in an SoP that so and so's foundational work on x raises interesting questions that have yet to be addressed by the literature on y, which you intend to address in z ways...

Having done a policy degree, what I will say is, think *very* carefully about this before you do it. The other practical factor is cost, since professional degrees are generally not cheap ventures. Then I would really consider what options you have, reasonably. If you decided you really wanted to do the policy master's route, my vote would be to strongly consider WWS (because it's prestigious and a free ride, and you get good interdisciplinary and methodological training) and SIPA (it's a good program with slightly fewer strict requirements, so you can take courses more easily in your department of interest).

If you know already that you want a polisci PhD, though, I would actually strongly second the previous suggestion and advise looking into MAPSS at the University of Chicago, some of the MSc's at LSE, and possibly the Columbia QMSS program instead. MAPSS is great and does give funding to some students. Both MAPSS and QMSS have been successful in placing students into PhD programs. And all of these are only 1 year--not great from a timing perspective, but better from the funding angle.

[brent09]

I would agree with Helix, and would only add this:

It's not entirely clear from your original post that you need any additional training in political science. Plenty of people are accepted into good programs without having majored in political science. As long as you can show that you (a.) understand what political science is and (b.) that you would be capable of doing political science research, you don't need an advanced degree in political science to get into a Ph.D. program.

Of course, you might be at a disadvantage if you don't have any letter writers in political science who could vouch for your research abilities. In that case, one close relationship as a research assistant to a political scientist, or a good independent research project / writing sample, can help quite a bit. I would suggest reaching out to a political scientist at your school to discuss shaping a project, or getting an RAship, to sharpen your application.

If you're still certain that you need more political science coursework, I would suggest two other options. First, consider augmenting your profile by getting a job in a tangential field -- think tanks, polling firms, political campaigns, or some other political organization. That earns you money instead of losing you money. Second, just apply to Ph.D. programs, choose the best that accepts you, and transfer out after three terms if you wish. This option should also be free (or nearly free).

Here's the summary: MPP or MPA is an expensive option that won't really show your ability to do political science (i.e., theory-driven) research. I don't think you need a Masters at all -- you should be fine with a BA in History. But if you wish to augment your profile, consider getting an RAship, doing a polisci research project, or getting work experience in politics/research. That would be a far less expensive option. (Remember, debt is your enemy if you want to eventually get a Ph.D.)

Edited May 18, 2012 by brent09

[Bdeniso]

As someone who is leaving a public policy type program and now going for my PhD, I actually disagree with some of the above posts. While agree that taking on debt is a poor decision (I did have good funding for mine), I would have had no chance of getting into a decent program from my undergrad as I didnt really understand what good research was, and more importantly I would not have been ready. Now I understand everyone has different situations, but if you did not do much research with professors, or write a thesis in undergrad, then getting a master's would help in my opinion. Also public policy schools are increasingly hiring pretty big names in Poli Sci (at least IR) and in my field (security studies) it seems like there is a high % working in public policy schools. In addition, many times if you talk to the professors they will help you on your path. For me, after I told my advisor I was interested in PhD, I had tons of oppourtunities and he helped me immensly with the process. If you feel that you need more prep or time to go to PhD school and can find a good program with your interest and not take on debt, then it can help.

p.s. I did serve on a search committee this year at my university, and it seems that there is an increasing number of (at least IR people) are going to a master's policy type school before PhD, and I believe that good scholarly work should impact how policy is made in the long run I think it would be good to be exposed to.

[sherpa07]

Thanks for all the great responses! I have a few more questions, but first, some background on my particular situation:

I'm not currently in school, having graduated last June. I went to a top three liberal arts college, but only graduated with a GPA of about 3.5. I didn't complete a senior thesis, and my GRE school was good but not stellar. I took some political science classes, but they were early in my college career when my grades weren't so hot. I really do feel I need some sort of intermediate degree before applying straight to PhD's to increase my chances of getting into a good program.

Is this a realistic assumption? I know PhD admissions are much more complicated that stats, but I really do think I can improve my profile with a Master's.

Back to the MPP issue:

First, funding: though I've looked into programs like QMSS and MAPSS, they seem to provide less funding than MPP/MPA programs. I know they're only a year, but if I received better funding for an MPP, that option may be cheaper..

Secondly, almost all public policy programs are made up of faculty members who studied political science and economics, not public policy. In fact, almost no faculty members studied public policy. Is this a significant factor at all?

Thanks!

[midwest513]

As someone who is leaving a public policy type program and now going for my PhD, I actually disagree with some of the above posts. While agree that taking on debt is a poor decision (I did have good funding for mine), I would have had no chance of getting into a decent program from my undergrad as I didnt really understand what good research was, and more importantly I would not have been ready. Now I understand everyone has different situations, but if you did not do much research with professors, or write a thesis in undergrad, then getting a master's would help in my opinion. Also public policy schools are increasingly hiring pretty big names in Poli Sci (at least IR) and in my field (security studies) it seems like there is a high % working in public policy schools. In addition, many times if you talk to the professors they will help you on your path. For me, after I told my advisor I was interested in PhD, I had tons of oppourtunities and he helped me immensly with the process. If you feel that you need more prep or time to go to PhD school and can find a good program with your interest and not take on debt, then it can help.

p.s. I did serve on a search committee this year at my university, and it seems that there is an increasing number of (at least IR people) are going to a master's policy type school before PhD, and I believe that good scholarly work should impact how policy is made in the long run I think it would be good to be exposed to.

While everyone is right, I think what previous posters were saying is that a masters if you haven't done a poli sci undergrad is a sufficient but not necessary condition for admittance to good PhD programs. While every situation is certainly unique, one can still be competitive in the application process without it.

[Max Power]

As far if your profile needs strengthening, read the profiles thread and look at what types of profiles people had and where they got offers from. Find profiles of people who got into schools you want to go to and what types of schools people with a similar profile to you got into. Decide on your need for a masters degree that way.

As far as doing an MPA/MPP, my gut reaction is that this is probably not the most effective degree you can do. The modal MPA/MPP student is not planning to apply to PhD programs. You will be getting a professional degree in administration or policy. This is not to say that there won't be some overlapping skills, but you will have to do a lot on your own.

I went onto the Kennedy School's site and looked up the requirements for the MPP. The core of it is required classes in: economics, quantitative analysis, politics and advocacy, financial management, strategic management, ethics and leadership. These are fantastic skills for someone who wants to go work in or around government, but only the first two or three on that list are going to be skills that will really bolster your application. When I was at QMSS, I did 12 classes and the one I took that was the least applicable to my applications was actually a class in SIPA about campaign management. Everything else was either a methods class (stats, survey methods, GIS, research design) or a substantive class in the political science department.

[brent09]

1. You'll have to do what your finances allow. If your UG GPA wasn't great, I would assume that your funding offers from MPP programs wouldn't be too generous. My girlfriend had a 3.9 GPA from a top liberal arts school, a 700+ GRE and two years experience with TFA. She got a fully funded offer from UGA and $25k from Duke (which would still mean ~30k in debt), and far less from Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn State, Harvard, Vanderbilt (and several others). Point is: she got in everywhere she applied, was a top-notch applicant, but still didn't get tons of funding offers. Professional programs are just plain expensive.

2. No, the faculty isn't too important. MPP/MPA provides training for policy, not theory-based research. An MPP/MPA would help if you rocked it -- no one here argues with that! -- but we tend to think it's too expensive for the benefit it confers. A Masters in political science, or a few terms in a lower-ranked program and then transfer, would likely be more beneficial and probably cheaper.

[puddle]

I will never understand why people on this board are so US-centric when it comes to MA degrees. I did my undergraduate in the US and my masters back home in Canada. The advantage was that I got the extra skills that an MA affords (as well as close relationships with letter writers etc.) without the debt. My MA was fully funded for 2 years of study and the tuition fees are much lower up here in the great white north. Lots of great professors came to visit/speak at my school, the professors are all graduates of top programmes, and it has yielded the best results that I could hope for - admission to a top 10 PhD programme. Also... I have no debt. If you are Canadian, this is the clear choice (especially because doing an MA in Canada frees you up to apply for SSHRC funding) but if you are an America, the Canadian MA system should not be taken off the table - indeed, it should be considered as one of your best options if you intend to pursue a PhD. Of the 18 people in my MA year, 5 are now in law school in Canada, 5 are working for governments or NGOs (in a variety of capacities), 3 (myself included) have gained admission to top US programmes - Michigan, Yale, and Chicago, and the rest are either at Canadian schools studying for their PhD or continuing on at this school.

The bottom line... Funded Canadian MA > Un-Funded MA > Un-Funded/Partially Funded MPP if you want to go on to study at a top US PhD programme. Really... look at those stats... of the 3 people from my class who applied to PhDs, all 3 were admitted at desirable/top schools. That is a darn fine rate of return.

Good luck!

[sherpa07]

I will never understand why people on this board are so US-centric when it comes to MA degrees. I did my undergraduate in the US and my masters back home in Canada. The advantage was that I got the extra skills that an MA affords (as well as close relationships with letter writers etc.) without the debt. My MA was fully funded for 2 years of study and the tuition fees are much lower up here in the great white north. Lots of great professors came to visit/speak at my school, the professors are all graduates of top programmes, and it has yielded the best results that I could hope for - admission to a top 10 PhD programme. Also... I have no debt. If you are Canadian, this is the clear choice (especially because doing an MA in Canada frees you up to apply for SSHRC funding) but if you are an America, the Canadian MA system should not be taken off the table - indeed, it should be considered as one of your best options if you intend to pursue a PhD. Of the 18 people in my MA year, 5 are now in law school in Canada, 5 are working for governments or NGOs (in a variety of capacities), 3 (myself included) have gained admission to top US programmes - Michigan, Yale, and Chicago, and the rest are either at Canadian schools studying for their PhD or continuing on at this school.

The bottom line... Funded Canadian MA > Un-Funded MA > Un-Funded/Partially Funded MPP if you want to go on to study at a top US PhD programme. Really... look at those stats... of the 3 people from my class who applied to PhDs, all 3 were admitted at desirable/top schools. That is a darn fine rate of return.

Good luck!

I'd consider Canada.. probably just the University of Toronto? Where did you go? And I am American, so would I be eligible for funding? How much is tuition normally?

[kaykaykay]

^^ While the advice is good - usual cautions apply... Some of the Canadian MA programs are one year long and you do not get to work closely with the faculty..Also some of the programs are very qualitatively oriented so they may not help to prove that you can do the math side of political science if you are interested in that. As with any other MA programs- research thoroughly where the students ended up and if you would like to go there yourself.

[Bdeniso]

I will never understand why people on this board are so US-centric when it comes to MA degrees. I did my undergraduate in the US and my masters back home in Canada. The advantage was that I got the extra skills that an MA affords (as well as close relationships with letter writers etc.) without the debt. My MA was fully funded for 2 years of study and the tuition fees are much lower up here in the great white north. Lots of great professors came to visit/speak at my school, the professors are all graduates of top programmes, and it has yielded the best results that I could hope for - admission to a top 10 PhD programme. Also... I have no debt. If you are Canadian, this is the clear choice (especially because doing an MA in Canada frees you up to apply for SSHRC funding) but if you are an America, the Canadian MA system should not be taken off the table - indeed, it should be considered as one of your best options if you intend to pursue a PhD. Of the 18 people in my MA year, 5 are now in law school in Canada, 5 are working for governments or NGOs (in a variety of capacities), 3 (myself included) have gained admission to top US programmes - Michigan, Yale, and Chicago, and the rest are either at Canadian schools studying for their PhD or continuing on at this school.

The bottom line... Funded Canadian MA > Un-Funded MA > Un-Funded/Partially Funded MPP if you want to go on to study at a top US PhD programme. Really... look at those stats... of the 3 people from my class who applied to PhDs, all 3 were admitted at desirable/top schools. That is a darn fine rate of return.

Good luck!

There are some fully funder MPP/MIA programs in the US as well just a thought.

[RWBG]

^^ While the advice is good - usual cautions apply... Some of the Canadian MA programs are one year long and you do not get to work closely with the faculty..Also some of the programs are very qualitatively oriented so they may not help to prove that you can do the math side of political science if you are interested in that. As with any other MA programs- research thoroughly where the students ended up and if you would like to go there yourself.

MA programs can be what you make of them. I did a one-year MA at a Canadian school, spent 3/8 of my degree in the econ department, and applied as an IR formal theory/methods applicant; things went fine for me. I can think of at least one other formal theory/methods type who applied from a Canadian MA program and did well (McGill I think it was). In general, I see a number of people getting into great Ph.D programs in the U.S. from UBC, Toronto, and McGill MA programs. Also, I've gotten the impression that Canadian MAs are on average more "academic" than US MA programs, probably because most Canadians do an MA before their Ph.D; it's a relatively small subset of U.S. MA programs that seem academically (not professionally) focused (e.g. Chicago's CIR and MAPSS programs).

[sherpa07]

I know this is probably a many-time-discussed topic, but how about Masters programs at LSE?

How hard is it to get in? With so many different programs, I can't imagine it's THAT competitive. If I take a Masters in a political science field from there, and decide I don't want a PhD for whatever reason, will I be employable in the US?

How about other programs - Columbia QMSS, Chicago MAPSS, Brandeis MA polysci - if I stop after these degrees, am I doomed, or will I find employment?

[Helix]

I know this is probably a many-time-discussed topic, but how about Masters programs at LSE?

How hard is it to get in? With so many different programs, I can't imagine it's THAT competitive. If I take a Masters in a political science field from there, and decide I don't want a PhD for whatever reason, will I be employable in the US?

How about other programs - Columbia QMSS, Chicago MAPSS, Brandeis MA polysci - if I stop after these degrees, am I doomed, or will I find employment?

I'll defer to someone else on the LSE question, but my sense is that it's a respectable name in the policy field if you ended up doing the degree and wanting to be employed in the US. The best way to figure this out, honestly, is to check out people whose jobs you'd want--see where they did their degrees (either by finding them on the organizations' websites or going through LinkedIn, with that neat feature to see where most employees got their degrees).

As to employ-ability after MAPSS-type degrees, it depends on what you want to do. If it's a job that one could reasonably do with a bachelor's but which has succumbed to educational inflation (the master's is more perfunctory than necessary), then it won't hurt you. What I will say is that you'd want to pretty heavily scrutinize what career resources would be available to you from these kinds of programs. I can't comment on Brandeis or Columbia, but UofC career resources is not among the most developed in the world, and also isn't as well targeted for professional employment vs. academic pursuits just generally speaking. Also, not sure about QMSS, but MAPSS students do a thesis in their 2nd/3rd quarters--that in and of itself is a pretty huge time-suck that will detract from a job search, and the thesis itself may not be a huge selling point depending on what kind of job you're looking for in the end. Just something else to consider.

I think one of the biggest things to remember about these kinds of degree is that they're not giving you a ton of skills necessarily; they're much more about signaling that you're a smart person who can do good work. The second biggest thing to consider about these degrees is that on the job market, they will not make up for a lack of experience. Often master's degree-required job postings will also come with caveats like "2-5 years of experience" or "5-7 years of experience" and without those in addition to the master's, you're in an uphill battle for employment--you've got the educational qualifications, but in some ways these make you more "expensive" to hire than if you only had a bachelors.

Honestly, though, if you aren't certain about the professional vs. academic track, I would say to spend a year or so trying out some ideas--see whether you enjoy working at a think tank or an aid agency, take some time to develop language skills and do field research at a job, etc. Two key reasons for this: (1) It will help you decide whether you really need a PhD to get the kind of career you want, or whether you want to continue on a professional track and could get by with a master's in the near term, and (2) it will make you a stronger candidate for either degree track. Once you've been working for a year or two, the significance of your undergraduate grades fades somewhat; if you then did a master's and really nailed it, those grades are then an even better approximation of your ability. Likewise, if you applied to an (American) MPP/professional master's with a few more years of experience, you are *much* more likely to get funding/get into a better program than if you go in with less.

[jazzrap]

I will never understand why people on this board are so US-centric when it comes to MA degrees. I did my undergraduate in the US and my masters back home in Canada. The advantage was that I got the extra skills that an MA affords (as well as close relationships with letter writers etc.) without the debt. My MA was fully funded for 2 years of study and the tuition fees are much lower up here in the great white north. Lots of great professors came to visit/speak at my school, the professors are all graduates of top programmes, and it has yielded the best results that I could hope for - admission to a top 10 PhD programme. Also... I have no debt. If you are Canadian, this is the clear choice (especially because doing an MA in Canada frees you up to apply for SSHRC funding) but if you are an America, the Canadian MA system should not be taken off the table - indeed, it should be considered as one of your best options if you intend to pursue a PhD. Of the 18 people in my MA year, 5 are now in law school in Canada, 5 are working for governments or NGOs (in a variety of capacities), 3 (myself included) have gained admission to top US programmes - Michigan, Yale, and Chicago, and the rest are either at Canadian schools studying for their PhD or continuing on at this school.

The bottom line... Funded Canadian MA > Un-Funded MA > Un-Funded/Partially Funded MPP if you want to go on to study at a top US PhD programme. Really... look at those stats... of the 3 people from my class who applied to PhDs, all 3 were admitted at desirable/top schools. That is a darn fine rate of return.

Good luck!

Thanks for the advice. Could you please recommend some good academic MA programs?? I have been looking for information for US programs, but did not know much about programs in Canada.