Paths to becoming a foreign policy advisor

[myshemblable]

Hi guys,

 

I am starting the process of researching Master's degrees in Foreign Affairs and had a few introductory questions for you that I had trouble finding in the forums.

 

My goal is to work in foreign policy in DC. My dream job is working as a foreign policy advisor for a Congressman/Senator/President (yeah yeah, it's ambitious, but I am aiming high at this point). My big functional areas of interest are in security and political economy with geographic interests in East Asia and East Africa.

 

I have done some, but not enough, research into the backgrounds of people with the types of careers that I want and it seems that most people fall into a few different types of backgrounds:

1. Political Science academics who have made the jump into the policy world: These people tend to develop expertise through research in specific issues, perhaps work in thinktanks,or stay at universities, then make the jump by attaching themselves to some political figure based upon this expertise (Condoleeza and Anne-Marie Slaughter jump to mind as examples)
2. Career DC'ers with Masters degrees in Foreign Affairs: These people typically come to DC straight out of Masters programs in Foreign Affairs and then go to work in DC either in a government agency, or they go straight to the Hill and work their way up. Their expertise is more based upon positions held (typically starting as an aide in some relevant foreign affairs field) than upon research as is the case in Type 1. (Cofer Black, Mitt Romney's foreign policy advisor, and Obama's current Chief of Staff Denis McDonough come to mind)
3. Military/Other bureaucracy: People who come straight from the Military/Intelligence/State Department etc etc etc. These people may not necessarily have any graduate degree, but have some kind of base within government and meet people from there. They may be careerists in a government agency first, then they make the jump into something relevant
4. Career DC'ers with other professional degrees: These people are very similar to Type 2, but may come from JD or MBA backgrounds, rather than Foreign Affairs degrees. (Dan Blumenthal jumps to mind)

I wanted to get this forum's opinions on the differences in these backgrounds and what they might mean and also perhaps ask some career advice for the best jump to make given my background. From what I gather, Type 4 used to be very, very common, but is increasingly rare as the degree landscape changes. Even in my initial research, I was surprised at how many people seem to be Type 2.

 

Here's a bit about me:

 

Previous Schools (Name, type, or tier): Top 5 private research university
Previous Degrees and GPAs: International Relations (3.8 GPA)
GRE Scores (Verbal/Quantitative/Analytical Writing): Haven't taken it yet
Previous Work Experience (Years, Type): 2 years at a top management consulting firm on the East Coast, 1 year at as a consultant to an agricultural development agency of an East African government, 3 month internship at an East Asian democracy/human rights foundation (in that country), 3 month internship at a China-focused research agency in DC

International Experience: 1 year at as a consultant to an agricultural development agency of an East African government, studied abroad in China, Taiwan and Vietnam

Other Relevant Experience: President of a student group on US-China relations during undergrad
Math/Econ Background: Multivariable calculus, intro micro and macro econ, intermediate micro econ, two econometrics courses, international political economy
Foreign Language Background (if applicable to your program): English, Mandarin (advanced, 4 years university study), basic Amharic

 

I started to post this in the existing "Am I competitive" thread, but realized that I'm asking less about competitiveness and more about fit. Given my background, do I "jump out" as more one of these types than others? 

 

Would love to get any input from you guys that I could.

 

Also, if this is in the wrong place, let me know and I am happy to repost elsewhere. Thanks for the feedback!

[IRToni]

If your goal really is to become a FP analyst, I think career path 2 is the most straight-forward.

 

Regarding 1: People make the transition from academica to policy all the time, yes. But entering a Phd program with the explicit goal of ending up in policy seems strange to me. Partly bc most PhD programs are supposed to prepare you for an academic job, and for most analyst position, you don't actually need a PhD. Also think about the gruelling 5 years at low pay that you'd have, and that's before you even try to move up the ladder to end up in your dream job. Not to mention the fact that interning/working outside of uni during a PhD is almost out of the question, so you'd be taking yourself off the radar for this time.

 

If you do, at a later point, find out that getting a PhD might be beneficial, I suggest looking at Public Policy PhDs/schools. Most of these require a M.A. and WE beforehand anyway, and are a lot less academically-oriented, with PhD students regularly doing consulting gigs beside school. I know both SAIS and Fletcher have good IR/PP PhDs that you can do after having done your M.A. At the same time, getting a PhD is, I think, not necessary for the kind of job that you want.

 

Just my 2 cents obviously.

[NGP]

You're China-Africa/Ethiopia background seems to set you up well for this.  It's a hot topic that will only become hotter.

 

I recommend getting your master's at Harvard (HLS, HBS, HKS), Princeton (WWS), or Yale (YLS, Jackson).  The good old boys networks seem strong at the upper echelons of government.  Yale Jackson MGA is a brand new program, but they have a ton of resources and it's part of Yale.

 

After getting your master's at one of these places, go on to work for the State Dept, CIA, UN, or WB and climb the ranks.  Or maybe a firm like Kissinger & Associates -- their alumni are power hitters.

 

Having a brand name degree (+ network) and brand name experience (+ network) will put you in a strong position.

Edited May 25, 2013 by Nabad

[myshemblable]

Nabad,

 

Interesting point on the "old boys' clubs". From what I am reading, places like HKS and WWS are broader and have a large percentage of their students focused on domestic issues, rather than on purely IR issues. Wouldn't that be an advantage in favor of programs like SAIS/Georgetown/SIPA/Fletcher/ etc. On that same note, how beneficial are two years in DC (e.g., at SAIS or Georgetown) vs spending those two years in Boston/New York/New Haven?

 

I also noticed that you mentioned law schools in the mix. What would be the advantage of going to law school vs. a MPP or Masters in IR type program? Pure prestige? Seems like an expensive habit with the extra $60K in debt. 

[NGP]

I would advise looking at the bios of the people whose jobs you want.  I don't know too much about the kind of people who get the specific job you want, but you'll notice that Harvard and Yale pretty much run the US.  The last election was HBS (Romney) vs. HLS (Obama).  It's pretty much HLS, HBS, and YLS at the top tier of government power in America. A lot of this is undoubtedly due to the network and the brand power.

 

An anecdote: Back when I was directionless, I met with an alumnus of my undergraduate alma mater (small liberal arts) who went on to HBS and then later he became a partner at Goldman Sachs.  He did a lot of international investment work and he said that consistently, in all his travels, people around the world were *much* more impressed by the fact that he went to HBS (emphasis on the "H") than the fact that he became a partner at Goldman Sachs -- even though he said that becoming a GS partner was much more difficult.  He was also tapped by a president to do some high level work with the UN.  I'm 99% sure this opportunity came out of his HBS and GS pedigree.  When you are at HBS, HLS, or YLS, you are going to school with future senators, corporate titans, and presidents.  These are the people you are going to eat with, go to parties with, work with, and generally get to know closely.

 

As for law school, I think a JD makes you more versatile on the job market.  A JD can take you to the top levels of any organization easily, including big firms like Goldman Sachs, McKinsey, etc. -- and these are private sector firms whose alumni go on to positions of power -- and you can teach in a university with a JD (like a certain current president).  A MPP or MIR is more lightweight in this regard.  Ban Ki Moon is an HKS MPP grad, but no other top leader comes to mind (though I'm sure there are plenty).  The IMF is run by a lawyer with a long career in a power international law firm, for example.

 

If you're climbing the ladder, a JD can be just as valuable as a PhD.  And, as for debt, in my mind it should not be a big deterrent -- because, at least in my mind, it's helpful to start your career at a top private sector firm and you'll most likely earn a lot of money in a few years there.

 

As for location -- if you're going to Harvard, Yale, or Princeton, your location is not going to matter too much.  For example, my friend just finished at Yale Jackson and went on to a great position at the World Bank.

 

Sorry for rambling.  I suppose I could condense all of what I said into this: I think you'll find a high percentage of graduates from those three schools at the top of most government organizations and that can't be some coincidence that has been going on for 200 years.

 

I should note that I have never attended any of those three schools.  I'm at a more science-y university doing an unrelated master's.

Edited May 25, 2013 by Nabad

[soaps]

Funny how none of that has to do with becoming a "foreign policy adviser." No, you don't have to go to Harvard, Yale, or Princeton to be a foreign policy LA and you certainly don't have to go to law or business school. Where did OP ask about most of the stuff you're talking about, Nabad? It just seems like you wanted a soapbox to preach about HYP and diminish the value of non-HYP public policy degrees, while not even understanding the relative value of these schools in a purely IR context. Your friend went to Yale/Jackson and got a great position at the World Bank. That's great, but a lot of grads from IR programs go on to the World Bank... I know two just from GWU. Where did you get the impression from OP's post about "paths to becoming a foreign policy advisor" that he was asking how to navigate the upper echelons of government to become a "top leader" like POTUS or managing director of the IMF? There are certainly more "top leaders" than Ban Ki Moon, even non-HYP ones. Many cabinet-level posts have been filled by non-HYP public policy/IR grads, the most famous of which (right now) would be Geithner. 

 

And beyond all that, the blanket statements with regard to law school (any law school) and its value compared to a PhD are hilarious. Talk to an actual law student about whether debt should be a "big deterrent," even ones in T13 programs. I'm sure OP, contrary to everything he said, would be willing to sacrifice a few years of his life at a private law firm before switching tracks to foreign policy and gaining the necessary experience on the Hill that's far more important than an advanced degree. You sure as hell don't need an MBA, PhD or law degree to be a "foreign policy advisor" any more than you need Yale/Jackson to work for the World Bank. A JD/MBA will be just as marketable if they're from good programs as a public policy degree for what OP wants to do (assuming he has the prerequisite Hill/DC experience), but there's no point spending more time or money on something you're not even interested in unless, as Nabad seems to think, you want to become POTUS. Then yes, an MBA or JD from HYP might serve you better.

 

@myshemblable, any of the top IR programs will do just fine. You don't even need an advanced degree, necessarily. It has far more to do with "climbing the ladder" on the Hill than anything else. You won't magically become some senator's top foreign policy wonk without having worked on the Hill on foreign policy issues, whether as a lower staff assistant or with a mix of Hill/NGO experience.

Edited May 26, 2013 by soaps

[NGP]

I think my comments are being misread.  I wasn't disparaging the the quality of other programs.  I wasn't suggesting that you need a HYP degree to go to the WB or do great work.  Obviously a ton of SAISers, Elliott School students, etc. get those positions.  If I was criticizing anything, my criticism was of the old boys clubs.  My point is that government (like any other organization) is not always a strict meritocracy and having access to the best network possible can grease the wheels.

 

I have many friends at Elliott, Fletcher, SAIS, etc. who are top notch scholars/practitioners and will go on to do great things

 

Again, I wasn't saying that a HYP degree is necessary, but that having access to that network can open doors more easily -- as in my anecdote about the HBS + GS alumnus who got tapped by a president to do high level stuff.  I don't think the advantages of HYP networks can be disputed.  Of course there will be  exceptions, but I think they stick in the mind precisely because they are exceptions.

 

One final time: I'm not making comments about the quality of the students, but rather about the properties of professional networks.

Edited May 26, 2013 by Nabad

[NGP]

Also, I don't understand why you chose to take pot shots at me for expressing my opinion. Drawing from my own life experience -- seeing people who are not especially bright get amazing opportunities due to their social and educational pedigrees -- I gave advice I thought would be helpful.

[Damis]

Your opinion is welcome here, Nabad. People, unfortunately, misconstrue things all the time around here. Thanks for your thoughts!

[soaps]

I don't think I'm misconstruing your posts at all. You admit not knowing anything about this field and yet you say HYP "basically run the US" and base your advice on that, despite OP's post about a very specific job that most certainly does not require HYP or law/business degrees. That not everyone is criticizing you shows how terrible these forums are at discerning good from bad advice. Everyone knows the value of HYP... it goes without saying, but you seem to think this is special insight based on life experience as opposed to being the eye rollingly banal observation we've all heard a hundred times. What makes it bad, though, is that you seem to think HYP is the proper remedy for any/every problem/question. If not, then what has been your advice exactly? Based on my life experience, nothing about your post is really relevant to this field or the specific job in question. Going to HYP would be great for everyone... but it's like a doctor saying "be healthy" or "don't get diseases!" It's not helpful advice... it's just obvious and not targeted/relevant.

 

There's an excess of terrible advice on these forums and I'm free to point that out. But I guess I shouldn't be so critical. Nabad is right: first, get into HYP, preferably not HYP-lite (i.e. a public policy program), toil for a few years in the private sector, then--and only then, once you've paid off the extra debt of a JD or MBA--go try getting a job as a foreign policy LA with no Hill or foreign policy experience. Despite that needlessly circuitous path, you'll be fine because you went to HYP and could potentially be POTUS. 

Edited May 27, 2013 by soaps

[NGP]

Well clearly you have an ax to grind, that's the end of my interest in this thread.

[hova1]

yo soaps...did someone eat your Reese's?

[soaps]

What are you guys even talking about? I've admitted defeat.. my Reese's have been eaten and my axes ground. At the end of the day you just can't argue with advice from some guy "at a more science-y university doing an unrelated master's." I shouldn't even try. 

 

You guys will have to excuse me now. I have some important career advice to give over in the physics subforum.

Edited May 27, 2013 by soaps

[NGP]

Not trying to inflame anything...

Myshemblable: I'm popping back in to show you this: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Power

This is the kind of career path I was talking about. She was one of the most influential foreign policy advisors of recent times.

To give OP more of a sense of where I'm coming from: I do intend to study something different from IR, but I've spent the past 3 years in an IR career in the developing world, interacting with State Dept, UN, and WB people.

Edited May 27, 2013 by Nabad

[myshemblable]

Hi guys,

Apologies for going missing and for not driving the discussion forward. I have appreciated all of the comments so far, but have been in transit and not well-positioned to reply.

A few of my own thoughts:

I chose to take the "prestige" track out of undergrad and went to work at a high-flying private sector firm, despite knowing that it was not directly relevant to my long-term interests. As a result, most of my friends have points of view similar to Nabad's. I feel that I have a pretty strong grasp of the pros and cons of that life. I have seen a very small number of my colleagues go on to lives that align with their original interests, while I have also seen plenty of people stuck in career paths they didn't realize they had signed up for.

The real question I am asking is that, if I am very clear in this career goal, what is the most direct way of getting there? What are the pros and cons of less direct paths? I have to be honest and say that I am generally biased against delayed gratification approaches, as I see them as paths full of em

[myshemblable]

Sorry...on a mobile phone and accidentally hit reply...

Empty promises. I am more inclined towards direct routes that imply a clarity of purpose.

Thoughts?

[myshemblable]

Sorry...on a mobile phone and accidentally hit reply...

Empty promises. I am more inclined towards direct routes that imply a clarity of purpose.

Thoughts?

[myshemblable]

Sorry...on a mobile phone and accidentally hit reply...

Empty promises. I am more inclined towards direct routes that imply a clarity of purpose.

Thoughts?

[lbjane]

I it was wise to take a look at how people who are doing what you want to do got where they are.  I'd also suggest that you turn that around a bit and see what people at the various grad programs you're considering go on to do after graduation and if that fits with what you want to do, especially since you're focused on getting right in to the mix of things after graduation.  If you really want to work on the Hill and grad program X rarely has any of its alumni working there right after graduation, then maybe that program's not the best fit for you and your goals, for example. 

 

If you're interested in the more political side of things, doing campaign work for a candidate you believe in can also be a way to get on the radar of a political party.  I don't know as much about that route, but you could probably find some examples of campaign staff that have gone on to work for the members of congress, President, etc they helped get elected. 

 

I'll also point out that there are any number of ways to get from point A to point B, as you've identified in your first post, and sometimes circumstance dictates what happens.  For example, the Dean of the LBJ School when I was there (now Dean at the Maxwell School) started out focusing on domestic policy and was an assistant at the Department of Justice initially.  He happened to be in the office on Sunday, November 4, 1979 when the Iran Hostage Crisis started, took a phone call meant for his boss, ended up working on the Iran Hostage Crisis responses, and ultimately decided to focus on foreign policy instead of domestic policy.  He went on to hold several positions at State, the White House, universities, and think tanks, including Deputy National Security Advisor, Deputy Secretary of State, etc.  So, sometimes it's chance that takes us where we go.

[soaps]

When it comes down to it you're not going to get around the lack of Hill experience if you want to be a foreign policy LA. You're far more likely to be elevated to that position if you've worked for Congressman/Senator X for however many years and you've worked on foreign policy issues, or Congressman/Senator X trusts you and recommends you for that position elsewhere. A background (especially at a foreign policy think tank or something similar) and advanced degree would help you in that regard, but the experience matters more.

 

I think anything in the executive branch is rather different. For the White House, you can break into the west wing fastest if you worked for the campaign. On the junior levels you might be able to secure something that way, but even then you'd have to be a networker extraordinaire and it's far more likely you'd get a strictly political position. Obviously senior foreign policy advisers have distinguished diplomatic/intelligence/military careers and there's no way around that. If you're a "hot shot" and don't like delayed gratification, try becoming a White House Fellow while going to school. That's a tried and true way of getting onto policy planning staffs, whether at State or elsewhere. 

Edited May 28, 2013 by soaps

[mrgreen102]

Myshemblable, I would recommend that you go to graduate school in Washington, D.C.  In order to become a foreign policy advisor, you have to be accomplished and you need to have connections.  A program in D.C. would give you plenty of opportunities to make those connections.  You could also intern/work part-time for something like the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. 

 

Ivy League schools may carry a certain amount of prestige and name recognition.  But that kind of thing is not as important in international affairs.  There are plenty of amazing non-Ivy League international affairs graduate programs.  I doubt you are going to meet smarter students or professors at Columbia' SIPA program than Georgetown's MSFS program.

 

You should also pick a political party and work on political campaigns.  That will give you an opportunity to meet people and get your feet wet in American politics.

[myshemblable]

Mygreen, What you say makes a lot of sense. I agree that the two components are "accomplishment" (why someone should listen to you) and "connections" (you have to pick a side, meet the right people, stay loyal, etc etc) My real question, then, is around how you build accomplishments-what.in my first post, I called "source of expertise". From what I'm hearing, it seems like working your way up the Hill (as opposed to working up a bureaucracy or a university) seems to be the route to climb. Are those types of jobs that people get out of programs like SAIS, Georgetown, and the rest? Do you even need those programs to "reset" or should you just go and work there directly? Are you better served being in DC than elsewhere?

[mrgreen102]

International relations and government is like a lot of other fields.  You don't need to go to graduate school to work in either international relations or government.  I know people who got jobs at the Council on Foreign Relations and the Brookings Institution straight out of college.  But they were lucky and probably had connections.  Graduate school will help you take the next step and make those connections.  And many companies/government institutions require you to be a student in order to intern for them.

 

I think most people would agree with me that D.C. is the ideal place if your goal is to work for a politician.

 

I would also recommend choosing a couple of issues (security, arms control, international development, etc.) or regions (Asia, Latin America, etc.) that you want to focus on.  It is good to have a specialty as it will help you stand out from the crowd.

[NGP]

+1 on the advice to have a specialty.

 

I only briefly considered public sector/Hill work.  One deterrent was that it seemed like if you chose the wrong horse (i.e. elected official) your career could be held up.  There seem to be a fair number of people who move back and forth between academia and presidential appointments, which seems much safer to me.

[soaps]

A graduate degree in IR is important for working in federal agencies, not as much for working for Senator/Congressman X. You'll eventually find your Hill career stalled without an advanced degree, though, just like everywhere else... "professional staff" and doing "inherently political work" in DC will generally require a grad. degree. But the way to work on the Hill isn't to go to a school in DC... many people who go to DC policy schools think they have privileged access to internships and jobs (it's a marketing ploy by those schools), when really several schools there just oversaturate the market. I know that, where I worked in DC, we deliberately sought out people who weren't from those schools (especially since they tended to admit people straight from undergrad...i.e. with no real experience). I also got all my DC internships without living in DC, and that's not remotely uncommon. None of the top IR schools will be looked at any differently for DC jobs/internships, and for the Hill, it has a lot more to do with your home state and connections for an entry-level staff ass position. Easiest way to break onto the hill would be getting an internship where you want to work, then working up the ladder. It doesn't mean going to a DC policy school. You'd be spending a lot of time/money only to end up in an entry level Hill job anyway, which you can do without one of those degrees. DC experience is essential to get DC jobs, but DC schools aren't necessary for DC experience (especially not on the Hill). 

 

I hate to say it but the "instant gratification" path would have been to get a Hill internship while you were an undergrad, then get hired out of college. As it is you'd be in a kind of awkward limbo where you've probably come from a lucrative job and are too experienced for an entry-level staff ass position (and an internship), but you lack the DC experience that would allow them to confidently hire you for something more senior. I'd consider a more traditional IR path (defense/intelligence/diplomacy) and, if you like, you can always be hired as professional staff on the Hill later. Starting an IR career on the Hill is kind of a strange trajectory, in my opinion. The Hill can be very insular. It sounds like you want to be involved in policy planning, and foreign policy planning for the United States really happens in one branch of government, and the other provides review/oversight. How easily you can switch between the two (and which side is more substantive) is open to question.

Edited May 29, 2013 by soaps