Take the Money or the Reputation - SIS vs. SIPA and SAIS

[JMO]

A friend of mine recently applied to all three, (I think Elliot as well).  He got into SIS, full scholarship etc, but did not get any funding from SAIS and minimal from SIPA.  

I don't know how to advise him, but when do you think that taking the money is worth it.  In either program he is going to be well over 100K in debt, considering living expenses in NYC and DC.  He is currently leaning towards SIS, but the reputation is lacking compared to SAIS and SIPA.  

Just wondering what the general consensus is, money or the reputation.  I told him that in this economy, especially seeing other MA students struggle to get jobs even after graduating from SAIS and Gtown, he may want to go for the money.  

[JFactor]

I'm pretty much exactly in the same situation. It's SIS vs SAIS for me. SAIS gave me some money and SIS gave me a full ride. I'm going to focus on international trade (and int'l political economy to a lesser extent) with the goal of either working as a policy analyst for one of the multilateral organizations (including the EU) or working as a risk/trade analyst at a private consulting firm (preference in that order).

 

I know SAIS is more rigorous academically and has better career placement. SIS is known to be strong in international development and peace and conflict resolution but not in international economic policy or quant classes. So the question really is whether SAIS is worth the extra $65k. (Also, my relationship situation means that going to SAIS Bologna would be quite stressful with the whole long distance ordeal).

 

I would also be interested to hear what others think.

[JMO]

Oh man, that is even a tougher situation than my buddy.  It's always a tough one, when you have to leave your significant other for a year.  The biggest worry for him is giving up on the reputation of SAIS to attend SIS.  I know he wants DC, just because location is half the placement battle and he is originally from Bowie.  I really would not want to be stuck in both your shoes, it's always a tough question and then if something goes wrong in the future, you will ask yourself...what if. 

[cptdelorean]

IMO, if you're going to take that much debt out, wait a year, study for the LSATs, and go to law school.

 

SIS or bust.

 

A lot of people on this forum are seemingly short-sighted and don't fully grasp the long-term implications and consequences of taking on a lot of debt for a policy degree.

Edited March 21, 2013 by cptdelorean

[JMO]

IMO, if you're going to take that much debt out, wait a year, study for the LSATs, and go to law school.

 

SIS or bust.

 

LSAT is for lawyers.  HE doesn't want to become a lawyer, and let's be serious, with how saturated the legal economy is and the difficulty of getting into a top 10 school, I think this is an illogical post. 

[cptdelorean]

LSAT is for lawyers.  HE doesn't want to become a lawyer, and let's be serious, with how saturated the legal economy is and the difficulty of getting into a top 10 school, I think this is an illogical post. 

 

I know LSAT is for lawyers. That's why I said take it and go to law school.

 

My point wasn't necessarily go to law school - it was that taking out that much in loans for a professional degree which will not give you a sufficient income to pay it is unwise and economically a terrible idea. At least with law school he could potentially make "big money". He will never do that with an MPA, so why the hell would you take out that debt?

 

Not taking out debt that you won't be able to pay back in a viable fashion is logic 101.

[JMO]

I know LSAT is for lawyers. That's why I said take it and go to law school.

 

My point wasn't necessarily go to law school - it was that taking out that much in loans for a professional degree which will not give you a sufficient income to pay it is unwise and economically a terrible idea. At least with law school he could potentially make "big money". He will never do that with an MPA, so why the hell would you take out that debt?

 

Not taking out debt that you won't be able to pay back in a viable fashion is logic 101.

 

He is getting an MA, and to a certain extent I agree with you, but I do know people that got out of SAIS making 80 to 90K, which is quite good if you are 100K in debt.   It is a risk, but the fact is that he is more likely to get a well paying consulting gig out of SAIS than SIS, but it is not guaranteed and if he ends up struggling then it will be quite problematic.  OVerall, I would also advise people to go for the money, but prestige is the reason why we apply to all these ritzy schools.  

[flyingjellyfish]

I've been comparing American to SAIS too.... I've been offered full tuition at American and a very generous amount of money at SAIS resulting in a $20k difference between the two.  I feel that going to SAIS for $20k more is worth it.  Any less from SAIS and I'd be going to American.  Honestly, I was floored that I got so much from SAIS... it's made me seriously reconsider my options!

[JFactor]

Oh man, that is even a tougher situation than my buddy.  It's always a tough one, when you have to leave your significant other for a year.  The biggest worry for him is giving up on the reputation of SAIS to attend SIS.  I know he wants DC, just because location is half the placement battle and he is originally from Bowie.  I really would not want to be stuck in both your shoes, it's always a tough question and then if something goes wrong in the future, you will ask yourself...what if. 

 

Yeah, the what ifs are the worst.

 

Also, I think we are all aware of the importance of money. But some programs are clearly better than others and might be worth the extra debt, hence the debate. For example, I would definitely say that SAIS is worth an extra $20k compared to SIS (although if you're int dev then that's debatable because AU's program is very good and well connected as well). But $65k? Debatable. And it obviously depends on how risk averse you are.

[JMO]

To be honest, I think my friend should take his.  I am surprised he even got money and/or got in to most of these programs.  HIs undergrad GPA was a 3.0 in Politics, then got a Msc in Finance and had a 2.9 GPA.  He is Iraqi though and grew in Baghdad until 2002, when him and his family relocated to Beirut.  Perhaps his colorful background is what got him in.  DOn't know his GRE scores, but I think he did well.  He speaks a bunch of languages, but had no experience in IR, worked in Finance till now (he is 29).  

 

Sometimes I wonder how they hand out money, but I was pretty happy for him and think he should go ahead and accept SIS.  Good program for DC, and he doesn't have to spend any money.  

[JFactor]

To be honest, I think my friend should take his.  I am surprised he even got money and/or got in to most of these programs.  HIs undergrad GPA was a 3.0 in Politics, then got a Msc in Finance and had a 2.9 GPA.  He is Iraqi though and grew in Baghdad until 2002, when him and his family relocated to Beirut.  Perhaps his colorful background is what got him in.  DOn't know his GRE scores, but I think he did well.  He speaks a bunch of languages, but had no experience in IR, worked in Finance till now (he is 29).  

 

Sometimes I wonder how they hand out money, but I was pretty happy for him and think he should go ahead and accept SIS.  Good program for DC, and he doesn't have to spend any money.  

 

Yeah, hearing his background I think he should go to SIS as well. It seems schools really value your background if it's "exotic" so they can use that when promoting their program.

[JMO]

Yeah, hearing his background I think he should go to SIS as well. It seems schools really value your background if it's "exotic" so they can use that when promoting their program.

 

Ha, are his stats that bad.  I do wonder what he got in his GRE.  

Schools are strange in how they give out money.  Like why did Elliot give you 15K and SAIS 20K, considering one is clearly better than the other.  You continue to see that in his board too, like someone gets a full ride to SAIS but doesn't get anything from SIS or Gtown, and you are thinking...what is going on. 

[JFactor]

Ha, are his stats that bad.  I do wonder what he got in his GRE.  

Schools are strange in how they give out money.  Like why did Elliot give you 15K and SAIS 20K, considering one is clearly better than the other.  You continue to see that in his board too, like someone gets a full ride to SAIS but doesn't get anything from SIS or Gtown, and you are thinking...what is going on. 

 

Yeah, I think there are two factors in play. First, some schools simply don't have much money to give compared to others. For example, in my case, I believe SAIS Bologna gives funding to most incoming international students but Elliott has much less resources. Second, "the fit" matters too - I knew I was a pretty good fit for SAIS and my interviewer said so clearly as well so perhaps that's why they were willing to give me more. But other schools stress other factors more, e.g. work experience (SIPA, HKS, Gtown etc.) and base their funding decisions alongside admission decisions on these factors. I think these two explain most of the variance. And then of course it just comes down to the fact that in the end the selection process is fundamentally subjective and different people will read your resume/personal statement in different ways.

 

But a scenario like SIS rejects you but you get into SIPA or Gtown? That would be quite absurd no matter what.

[jm08]

@JFactor - I think you're very spot on with your assessment. The admissions committee can sometimes seem like a bizarre roulette wheel, but I do believe AdCom is very interested in "fit" as well as your ability to clearly demonstrate your understanding of the program, how it fits your career goals, and how you will contribute to their community. A good framework to keep in mind is that AdCom is building a "portfolio" of people, and "diversity" (in a broad sense) is a guiding maxim for them. So, they need to balance the class across geographies, industries, goals, demographics, and so on. Most schools tend to use grades and scores as a quasi-first filter, but I have never heard of a program that blatantly "cuts" students off. I would like to think everyone gets a fair shot.

 

So, if you can put yourself in the shoes of an admissions committee member and speak their language (e.g., clearly show your "fit and value") I think for people on the borderline it can make a huge difference in who gets accepted. Funding is mainly a recruitment tool. In fact, SAIS's director described it in those exact words. It's targeted at people who either have a unique skill or background they feel they are missing, or ultra-competitive candidates they want who are likely to be lured to competing programs. 

 

And then -- on top of that, you have the human factor. Who knows if the person was having a bad day and/or if you are coming from an over-represented group. Generally, you compete against people who "look like you". I am curious about some of the outliers though, you'd think top candidates would get in everywhere IF they put together a strong application...but hell, who knows. I'd like to think there is some logic behind their decision-making...

Edited March 21, 2013 by jm08

[soaps]

IMO, if you're going to take that much debt out, wait a year, study for the LSATs, and go to law school.

 

SIS or bust.

 

A lot of people on this forum are seemingly short-sighted and don't fully grasp the long-term implications and consequences of taking on a lot of debt for a policy degree.

 

Yes because the obvious answer for someone who doesn't want a load of debt is to forget that, wait a year, apply for top law programs that are vastly more competitive with absolutely no guarantee of getting in, all just to have higher tuition for three years instead of 1 or 2, and despite having shown no prior interest in law. What excellent advice. 

 

Honestly, the stuff I read on these forums sometimes...   Why would someone interested in public policy programs be suddenly OK with taking on more debt and (by extension) taking on a lucrative and punishing law career (in the most ideal scenario) just to pay off that debt when his actual interest is public policy? Christ almighty.

Edited March 21, 2013 by soapwater

[123seekay123]

And then -- on top of that, you have the human factor. Who knows if the person was having a bad day and/or if you are coming from an over-represented group. Generally, you compete against people who "look like you". I am curious about some of the outliers though, you'd think top candidates would get in everywhere IF they put together a strong application...but hell, who knows. I'd like to think there is some logic behind their decision-making...

I wonder that too. Like maybe for some schools my essay/"story" was interesting and/or impressive, or other places they argued about me

 

I'm super happy to get in to SIPA or SAIS but would gladly trade SIPA admission for any scholarship to SAIS. And some got money to SAIS but didn't get into SIPA, or something like that. Weird process.

[soaps]

To be honest, I think my friend should take his.  I am surprised he even got money and/or got in to most of these programs.  HIs undergrad GPA was a 3.0 in Politics, then got a Msc in Finance and had a 2.9 GPA.  He is Iraqi though and grew in Baghdad until 2002, when him and his family relocated to Beirut.  Perhaps his colorful background is what got him in.  DOn't know his GRE scores, but I think he did well.  He speaks a bunch of languages, but had no experience in IR, worked in Finance till now (he is 29).  

 

Sometimes I wonder how they hand out money, but I was pretty happy for him and think he should go ahead and accept SIS.  Good program for DC, and he doesn't have to spend any money.  

 

If SIPA funded him, they must really want him. How much did they offer? He shouldn't forget that so long as he maintains a 3.4 GPA, 70% of second-year students get partially funded with an average fellowship award between 15-20k. If his first-year award exceeds the tuition difference between SAIS and SIPA, he could end up in less debt going to SIPA. His background also makes him more likely to receive external fellowships, university-wide fellowships, etc. SIPA has a very holistic admissions process and seems to love international students.

Full tuition at SIS isn't trivial either. It just depends what he wants to do... SAIS/SIPA offer more career possibilities, I think.

Edited March 21, 2013 by soapwater

[123seekay123]

Yes because the obvious answer for someone who doesn't want a load of debt is to forget that, wait a year, apply for top law programs that are vastly more competitive with absolutely no guarantee of getting in, all just to have higher tuition for three years instead of 1 or 2, and despite having shown no prior interest in law. What excellent advice. 

 

Honestly, the stuff I read on these forums sometimes...   Why would someone interested in public policy programs be suddenly OK with taking on more debt and (by extension) taking on a lucrative and punishing law career (in the most ideal scenario) just to pay off that debt when his actual interest is public policy? Christ almighty.

The job market for lawyers isn't great anyway, so I don't think people should go to law school unless they're actually interested in it.

[soaps]

The job market for lawyers isn't great anyway, so I don't think people should go to law school unless they're actually interested in it.

 

Yeah it's not exactly a cakewalk even for people graduating from T14 law schools. I doubt many of the lower T14 are even finding jobs. It's cutthroat competition and you need to stay at the top of your class even at Harvard/Yale/Stanford... not everyone starts with a six figure salary.

 

Not to mention, his GPA makes it a virtual certainty he would not make it into a top law school even if he aced the LSAT. Worst advice I've ever read.

Edited March 21, 2013 by soapwater

[cunninlynguist]

Yes because the obvious answer for someone who doesn't want a load of debt is to forget that, wait a year, apply for top law programs that are vastly more competitive with absolutely no guarantee of getting in, all just to have higher tuition for three years instead of 1 or 2, and despite having shown no prior interest in law. What excellent advice. 

 

Honestly, the stuff I read on these forums sometimes...   Why would someone interested in public policy programs be suddenly OK with taking on more debt and (by extension) taking on a lucrative and punishing law career (in the most ideal scenario) just to pay off that debt when his actual interest is public policy? Christ almighty.

 

Thank you. What the hell happened to this place (Govt. Affairs)?

 

Seems that so many misguided people perceive an MBA or JD as the magic bullet. This is even more dangerous when the people dispensing this advice don't know the true conditions of the job markets in those fields. Conversely, policy degrees are useful... for people who actually know where their career is headed. An MBA or JD without the genuine interest or desire to work in a capacity directly applicable to what the degree will confer is a reckless choice.

 

I also don't think federal loans are the end of the world. If you are crawling to Sallie Mae to finance a 100K+ education and only want to work in the public sector, your decision isn't the most prudent. However, if you're selecting a rigorous program and need federal loans to pay for 60-70K, it's been done time and time again by students before you. You shouldn't count on IBR or PSLF, but they're around, and it may alleviate some of the financial pressure.

 

So, basically: this isn't a forum for those with goals of MBB and BigLaw. Take it somewhere else, please.

[ValarDohaeris]

I don't think the law school advice was completely serious...it was moreso to make a point that at that level of debt and risk, you might as well be getting a (potentially more lucrative) law degree, even in this employment climate. I'm pretty sure law school was not cptdelorean's serious prescription for this particular case. I don't think anyone is actually advocating going into an unrelated field.

[Clay Made]

I blame Revolution for all of this. Irony in his name

[RedskinsRule]

.

Edited March 21, 2013 by RedskinsRule

[RedskinsRule]

I don't think the law school advice was completely serious...it was moreso to make a point that at that level of debt and risk, you might as well be getting a (potentially more lucrative) law degree, even in this employment climate. I'm pretty sure law school was not cptdelorean's serious prescription for this particular case. I don't think anyone is actually advocating going into an unrelated field.

 

Thank you for being able to actually read Valar.

 

I'm glad someone on this forum can.

[cunninlynguist]

I don't think the law school advice was completely serious...it was moreso to make a point that at that level of debt and risk, you might as well be getting a (potentially more lucrative) law degree, even in this employment climate. I'm pretty sure law school was not cptdelorean's serious prescription for this particular case. I don't think anyone is actually advocating going into an unrelated field.

 

Of course. It was just emblematic of the prevailing consensus that's been passed around here lately: why are you thinking of a policy degree?

 

JDs are not a qualitatively better investment. Talk to people in the field or actually in law school and you will realize that, even as theoretical advice, it's not a strong argument. Further, policy degrees don't preclude you from making good money. There are plenty of opportunities in the private sector for those with advanced policy degrees. It's not top-tier management consulting or bust.