HKS and the Mountain Of Debt

[SkyStrike]

Confused about something...

 

I've read that the most a graduate student can take out in federal loans per semester is $10,250. Yet some people here are talking about $120,000? How do you take out that much in federal loans for graduate school?

[flyingjellyfish]

SkyStrike- the $20,500 per year limit is for a Direct Unsubsidized loan (6.8% interest rate).  Students then cover additional costs through a PLUS loan (7.9% interest rate).  More info here: http://studentaid.ed.gov/types/loans 

[AUSAJAG]

Why is it the hands down best public policy school? There are so many claims of this, but no one really explains.

 

1. Look at the alumni network. No other school is even in the same league here, even Princeton.

 

2. Look at the faculty. The faculty is far and away the best - SIPA and WWS have fantastic faculty, but even theirs are a noticeable notch below HKS'

 

3. Look at the students. The process is so well rounded. I believe with exception to WWS, HKS probably attracts the students with the most potential.

 

4. Harvard goes on your resume. Enough said. While not actually a substantive reason for being the best, it is practically speaking how Kennedy is perceived because of the institution to which it belongs

[avocado9]

Might have missed this, but when do financial aid notifications come out?  I deferred last year, so haven't received any info lately except for how to log into email.

[sherpa07]

They've said "the first week in April."  I'm assuming before the Open House.  Last year was around April 1.

[SkyStrike]

The link is down..though after browsing, I didn't see an answer on there to an additional question, which is - can you use graduate plus loans to pay rent/living costs?

 

SkyStrike- the $20,500 per year limit is for a Direct Unsubsidized loan (6.8% interest rate).  Students then cover additional costs through a PLUS loan (7.9% interest rate).  More info here: http://studentaid.ed.gov/types/loans 

[flyingjellyfish]

The link is down..though after browsing, I didn't see an answer on there to an additional question, which is - can you use graduate plus loans to pay rent/living costs?

 

 

Yes, you absolutely can.  Sorry about the link, it was supposed to take you to the page on loans, but looks like the link didn't copy properly.  You can use loans to cover the full "Cost of Attendance".  From the studentaid website (see page on "how aid is calculated"):

 

"What does cost of attendance (COA) mean?

Your COA is the amount it will cost you to go to school. Most two-year and four-year colleges will calculate your COA to show your total cost for the school year (for instance, for the fall semester plus the spring semester). Schools with programs that last a different period of time (for instance, an 18-month certificate program) might give you a COA that covers a time period other than a year.

If you're attending at least half-time, your COA is the estimate of

• tuition and fees;
• the cost of room and board (or living expenses for students who do not contract with the school for room and board); 
• the cost of books, supplies, transportation, loan fees, and miscellaneous expenses (including a reasonable amount for the documented cost of a personal computer);
• an allowance for child care or other dependent care;
• costs related to a disability; and/or
• reasonable costs for eligible study-abroad programs."

[SkyStrike]

Ahh, missed that...sorry for making you fish that out. Thanks for the info.

Edited March 20, 2013 by SkyStrike

[Revolution]

Do you have to take out loans through gradplus to pay for whatever is not covered by fellowship or financial aid? I heard that sallie mae offers loans for students at a much lower interest rate but not sure if that's just for MBAs or open to other grad programs as well.

[flyingjellyfish]

No, it's not required that you take out a PLUS loan.  You can choose to pay for grad school in whatever way makes sense to you.  Like many students, I plan to pay for grad school through a mix of grants, loans, and personal savings.  

 

I'm not too familiar with other student loan providers, though I will say that many former big lenders closed down over the past few years (due to the recession??).  I recently consolidated my undergrad loans so that they are all managed directly by the Dept. of Ed. rather than different lending entities- consolidation is definitely the way to go! 

 

And remember, international students can't receive loans through the U.S. government, so either have to go through a lender in their home country or from a standard private lender. 

 

There are many options to pay for school. It's obviously important to research them carefully before signing that Master Promissory Note!

 

Finally, for U.S. students remember that the U.S. Government allows you to deduct student loan interest off your taxes (has made a big difference for me!) and over the past couple years via ARRA has offered the American Opportunity Tax Credit that allows students to get up to $2,000 of their tuition amount back on their tax returns.  So, make sure to always look out for opportunities to get some of your money (especially interest!) back at tax time. 

[CreamTea]

If it's 19K/year, then it's at least a $38K difference, not to mention the fact you can likely procure second year funding at Fletcher making the second year completely free. Since you can take HKS classes as a Fletcher student and will largely be in the same social circles/have the same opportunities for local internships, etc., I just don't see why you would put yourself in so much debt simply for the HKS name, particularly bc Fletcher is a top tier IR school itself.

What kind on second year funding is available? i am still trying to decide on fletcher's offer...

[JFactor]

What kind on second year funding is available? i am still trying to decide on fletcher's offer...

 

I would like to know this as well.

[DaniCM]

What kind on second year funding is available? i am still trying to decide on fletcher's offer...

After receiving my offer, I asked my contact in the admissions office whether or not I would be eligible to apply for second year funding opportunities, such as TA and RA positions. She told me they have a process in place for second years to apply for additional funding, wherein you work with the fin aid office to identify opportunities for funding. I was given this link: http://fletcher.tufts.edu/admissions/financial-aid/additionalresources. In addition to the TA and RA positions, there's a fellowship program specifically for second years, as well as other named scholarships/fellowships which you must individually apply to.

 

And, I'm not sure if you're aware, Fletcher has a loan repayment assistance program (different than the government one). Info here: http://fletcher.tufts.edu/Admissions/Financial-Aid/Loan-Repayment-Assistance-Program

[Pinkman]

That said, to me, HKS is far and away the best public policy school in the world. There's no close second.

 

What are you talking about? You criticize HKS and then commend it as the best policy school around. It IS NOT the best policy school around. WWS, Maxwell, Georgetown, Duke, GSPP are all very good schools and in some areas better then Harvard. The only thing Harvard has that has no close second, is name recognition. There's a difference between what you're saying and the actual truth.

 

There is SO much disservice being done to future applicants. I loved reading through these forums at the beginning of my application cycle and a lot of it was absolutely crucial in my decisions. I would hate some applicant to read this and then mortgage their immediate future for a name, Its irresponsible to write stuff like this.

[Pinkman]

1. Look at the alumni network. No other school is even in the same league here, even Princeton.

 

2. Look at the faculty. The faculty is far and away the best - SIPA and WWS have fantastic faculty, but even theirs are a noticeable notch below HKS'

 

3. Look at the students. The process is so well rounded. I believe with exception to WWS, HKS probably attracts the students with the most potential.

 

4. Harvard goes on your resume. Enough said. While not actually a substantive reason for being the best, it is practically speaking how Kennedy is perceived because of the institution to which it belongs

 

1. Alumni network at other schools are just as strong, it really depends on the area you want to focus on. You want to work in domestic issues in the US, then yeah, I would say HKS has a strong alumni. But if you want to work on international issues, Fletcher, SFS, SAIS are all better/just as good.

 

2. The faculty is impressive. You know where else its impressive? Every top policy school in the country!

 

3. This is a complete insult to everyone else who has worked hard to get to whatever school they're at now.

 

4. You get the Harvard name on your resume through the extension school too. Perhaps people should spend $$$ on that too.

[Revolution]

1. Alumni network at other schools are just as strong, it really depends on the area you want to focus on. You want to work in domestic issues in the US, then yeah, I would say HKS has a strong alumni. But if you want to work on international issues, Fletcher, SFS, SAIS are all better/just as good.

 

2. The faculty is impressive. You know where else its impressive? Every top policy school in the country!

 

3. This is a complete insult to everyone else who has worked hard to get to whatever school they're at now.

 

4. You get the Harvard name on your resume through the extension school too. Perhaps people should spend $$$ on that too.

 

 

I agree with pinkman on his critiques of points 1 and 2. With 3, i mean, i think it's clear that WWS and HKS are the most selective policy programs, so it's reasonable to assume that the student body as a whole is more qualified than other schools. I think he could have phrased that statement better. With respect to 4, I do think it's risky to go to HKS without funding just because of the Harvard name brand and the resources available at Harvard University as a whole. I do think though it's a bit extreme to compare HKS to the extension school, which basically accepts everyone.

[Pinkman]

I agree with pinkman on his critiques of points 1 and 2. With 3, i mean, i think it's clear that WWS and HKS are the most selective policy programs, so it's reasonable to assume that the student body as a whole is more qualified than other schools. I think he could have phrased that statement better. With respect to 4, I do think it's risky to go to HKS without funding just because of the Harvard name brand and the resources available at Harvard University as a whole. I do think though it's a bit extreme to compare HKS to the extension school, which basically accepts everyone.

 

Not comparing the schools but the Harvard name applies to both. Each could help someone with their career if the circumstances were right.

 

WWS yes but the selectivity of HKS has been debated ad nauseum so I'm not getting into that again. I just wanted to rid of the misconception that its good to go to Harvard with $120k bill despite because 1) its Harvard and 2) the brilliance of being selected by a school thats selective over a program like Elliott with a great aid package. Its insanity. 

Edited March 21, 2013 by Pinkman

[AUSAJAG]

What are you talking about? You criticize HKS and then commend it as the best policy school around. It IS NOT the best policy school around. WWS, Maxwell, Georgetown, Duke, GSPP are all very good schools and in some areas better then Harvard. The only thing Harvard has that has no close second, is name recognition. There's a difference between what you're saying and the actual truth.

 

There is SO much disservice being done to future applicants. I loved reading through these forums at the beginning of my application cycle and a lot of it was absolutely crucial in my decisions. I would hate some applicant to read this and then mortgage their immediate future for a name, Its irresponsible to write stuff like this.

 

Your criticism of my post is unfounded. First, you'll note I said HKS is not worth sticker. That should alleviate any fears you have about my perspective causing some poor soul to mortgage his future just to go to Harvard. Second, your criticisms either misrepresent my point or are unpersuasive. 

 

Michael Jordan is routinely believed to be the best basketball player ever. There have been more prolific scorers (i.e., Wilt, Kobe, Kareem), better rebounders (Rodman, Howard, Olajuwon), more efficient players (Lebron, Duncan). Still most people who follow the game believe Jordan is the best and it isn't even close. It is because he didn't have any weaknesses. There were no downsides to his game. Conceding for a moment that WWS, GSPP, Maxwell and others do somethings better than HKS does not even remotely undermine my argument that HKS is the best public policy school overall.

 

I gave four reasons (not exhaustive) for why I thought it was the best school. You've attacked each one. I'll briefly reaffirm my perspective and go deeper into why I believe each point. 

 

First, you might as well concede that the alumni network at HKS outpaces the alumni network at other schools. I think most reasonable people would concede this point. This is not to say that other schools do not have strong alumni bases in particular area. But top to bottom, HKS alum are influencing policy on every level in every industry imaginable in every region imaginable. This is not hyperbole, this is fact. Not only is the alumni base deep and powerful, they are also actively helping grads secure positions and move up the chain. So the alumni network is useful. As a practical matter, there are more HKS grads than just about any other school further creating the powerful alumni association.

 

Second, I think reasonable people can disagree on quality of faculty. I encourage all applicants to do their research and compare the strength of faculty at their respective schools. Certainly, one should not choose HKS because of their overall strong faculty if the student has a strong interest in a particular area where another school might be a better match. I simply commented on why when HKS is placed against the field, I believe it is a better policy school. Each applicant must be nuanced and make the appropriate decision for their specific interests. Debating the quality of faculty would take up a tremendous amount of time - so I'll just say it - other schools have great faculties too. I'll just clarify to say that HKS' faculty is pretty strong in just about every area relevant to contemporary issues.

 

Third, I did not insult anyone who works hard to get where they are. I was not, in my third point, referring only to students who were ADMITTED to Kennedy, but to the students who applied. What makes Kennedy so great is not the group of amazing students who got in. I believe that if you look at kids at the other top IR schools or public policy schools, they are basically interchangeable with HKS kids (though the HKS kids might have marginally better academic preparation). What strikes me is that so many kids with the potential to change the world in public policy applied to Kennedy and want to be a part of that community (Whether they have a realistic shot to actually get in or not). That's what I mean by saying it attracts the kids with the most potential.

 

Fourth, someone could get their Harvard name by going to the extension school.  And I bet lay people are impressed when the extension kids tell them they went to Harvard further proving my point. I would point out, however, that you used a straw man because I never said HKS was worth 120k much less that much for the extention school. Still, no one can deny the appeal of the Harvard brand.

 

I hope this clears up your concerns with my post.

Edited March 22, 2013 by AUSAJAG

[Putnam]

While most of the threads on this board start out as informative they tend to devolve into arguments about prestige, which would be better suited to the 20 year old undergraduate wannabe bankers on Wall Street Oasis. 

 

Because of Harvard's huge endowment they poach talented faculty from other schools, which is fine of course, but arguments about faculty hierarchy probably should be made in the context that Harvard can outbid any other institution. 

 

In regards to the Harvard Extension School, it seems that most people misunderstand that institution. Also it seems that the posters on this board are unaware of types of selection. The posts above denigrate the Extension School admission policy, but do not seem to be aware that there is a difference between their degree programs and the larger mission of the school to provide educational access to the community. I am aware that the Extension School graduates a fraction of the Harvard College class. In the case of the Extension School, selection comes at the end, through attrition. Additionally, Extension students hold down full-time jobs and many have families. Harvard Law School also had similar a similar admission policy until the 1960's, they had a high attrition rate and low morale. Pre-selection is a more recent development, it is (or should be) more efficient, and is less likely to lead to the brutal competition that used to characterize Harvard Law. I have read comments of students and anonymous individuals also denigrate programs for non-traditional students at other selective institutions, like Columbia and UPenn. There seems to be strong interest for traditional students to denigrate the achievements of non-traditional students in order to protect their status. This can be seen in the debate about MOOCs as well. Ultimately it looks like a sort of academic rent-seeking, where students seek to protect their pedigree and prestige they gain by proxy on entry to a selective institution. I have seen proponents of HBS (usually potential students who wish to apply) denigrate HKS. Proponents of HBS and HLS denigrate all the other schools at Harvard. Proponents of Harvard College denigrate Harvard Extension, Columbia College > Columbia School of General Studies, HYPS b-school> the rest of the M7, M7 > non M7, non M7, but still top 10 > rest of the b-schools. However, this all assumes that the selection process is meritocratic. 

 

It has already been well documented that Harvard's holistic admissions process was instigated to decrease the enrollment of Jews starting in the 1920's. Currently the argument being made is that Asian Americans are the new Jews, the victims of admissions quotas. I assume most people on this board will take some statistics in grad school, and you will realize that these quotas are quite real. Ivy League holistic admissions also admit legacies, faculty children and athletes (in white privileged sports like crew) at a much higher rate than the typical candidate despite having lesser academic credentials on average. The last year Harvard was willing to publish the legacy admissions rate was 2003, it was 40%. It has been calculated that being legacy is equal to perhaps 120~130 points on the SAT, this is still much smaller than the boost given to minorities, but in the context of admissions legacies are given credit for being below average whereas minorities are given credit for being above average (relative to their respective socio-economic backgrounds). Unfortunately the boost goes away for legacies who apply for financial aid (1991). Which brings us the problem of alumni donations as a recruiting tool. This issue has also been heavily scrutinized. While not quid pro quo (well we would not know anyway), it is understood wealthy legacies will donate if their children are accepted. There is dispute whether if this practice was discontinued alumni would refuse to donate. Still it is questionable that tax payers should subsidize tax free donations when they are used to leverage admission for wealthy alumni children into elite institutions. Finally, when you take into account the spots taken up by legacies, athletes, and faculty children, the actual rate of admission for the spots left over is much, much smaller than the one published, one many times smaller than the admission rate offered to legacies, privileged athletes, and faculty children. I have not even included developmental admits. Maybe we can do away with the assumption that the U.S. system of higher education at elite universities is a meritocracy, and we can stop having this debate about the potential of hypothetical student bodies. While this deals with Ivy League admissions at the undergraduate level, holistic admissions and the same set of factors operate at the graduate level as well. 

 

Should prestige be an overriding concern? Maybe, since some HR department personnel at elite investment banks seem to be obsessed by it as evidenced by a study by Rivera. In that study HR personnel used Ivy League credentials as a proxy for brain power, however only if those Ivy League School happened to be Harvard, Princeton, or Yale. Rivera’s study has been disputed as being an extreme example, but it is still interesting. Interesting because considering holistic admissions, the goal is not simply horsepower. And in the case of legacies, athletes, and developmental admits it obviously is not. Harvard College likes to state that they reject many candidates with perfect SAT scores and perfect grades, though it has been surmised that many of these candidates are Asian Americans. They won’t release this information. The SAT may not be the perfect tool to measure talent and ability. However it does have a high correlation with g (general intelligence). The problem these days is that intensive parenting, tutoring, private schools, and test prep have gamed the system. At least in the case of minorities holistic admissions recognizes that SAT performance should be taken into context. A high SAT score from someone without all the trappings of privilege may be a strong indicator of ability. For the most part the value judgments of the HR personnel in Rivera’s study seem self-serving

 

I cringed at the mba comparison in the SAIS thread, which did not take into account self-selection and adverse selection. One of the posters seems to be obsessed with selectivity, but assuming overlap, and the degree of it, is difficult. Fundamentally selectivity comes down to how many applicants there are relative to the how many can be enrolled. MBA programs also get a lot of applications from Indians in IT with monster GMATs (at least in the Quant section). Also not enough attention is given to pedigree. I would hypothesize a lot of people without the required pedigree also apply in large numbers to elite mba programs. They dream of becoming associates at a bulge bracket. M7 mba programs are dominated by former analysts at Goldman and consultants at McKinsey. They tend to be white and male, and Ivy League graduates. They are a large plurality at these programs, so large that there is intense intra-group competition. The cycle is self-reinforcing and self-perpetuated, privilege and pedigree will get you into a top Ivy, it will then get you into an elite Investment bank and/or consultancy, which will then get you into the M7. Admissions into selective universities may really be selection for wealth and privilege rather than academic potential, which is unfortunate because studies indicate those with the most to gain from elite institutions are those from minority and/or poor socio-economic backgrounds; those least likely to be admitted.

 

One last issue that brought up in a few threads was the difference quantitative skills learned in elite policy programs and mba programs. Really, this is no big deal. The truly genius level quant giants are in pure math and theoretical physics. Neither the GMAT nor GRE has a high enough ceiling to challenge these individuals. Sometimes a theoretical physics phd will become a quant at a bank, where they can get paid big money for second rate (third rate?) quant work. Proponents of the GMAT (those who apply to mba programs) do denigrate the GRE, arguing that its quant section is too easy, that you are competing against humanities majors. Furthermore, they argue that the gotcha questions on the GMAT are indicative if superior intelligence. However for the GRE quant the competition are individuals applying to doctorate programs in engineering, math, and physics; therefore percentile rank is important. It is apparent from the top percentile that the ceiling is too low. But perhaps more importantly the assertion that somehow the GMAT quant is superior is self-serving when you consider how much, much, much harder the problems are in physics. The type of quantitative abilities that are needed for finance are run of the mill, there really is not any need for these individuals to pat themselves on the back. Finance benefits from massive rents that distort the entire economy and misallocation of talent; those quants (quants, not bankers) could do more beneficial work, except that the finance sector can provide massive salaries through its rent seeking and most discoveries in the hard sciences won’t be monetized.       

[Revolution]

Putnam, I actually read your entire post, which reeks of inaccuracies and self-righteousness.

 

1. This is a minor point, but when you refer to HYPS b-school>rest of M7, I laughed. First, Princeton does not have a business school. Second Yale's b-school is top 15, not M7. It's not that great of a program.

 

2. The reason why harvard extension or columbia general studies are denigrated is because pretty much anyone with a pulse can get in. And they are in the same classes as regular students, and that obviously pisses them off.

 

3. I do agree with you that ivy league admissions discriminates against asian-americans. You will get no argument from me on that front. But you overstate the presence of rich whites at both ivy undergrad and elite MBA programs.  Most students at ivies are on financial aid; i believe the figure at harvard college is around 70%. And most students come from public high schools, not exclusive boarding schools such as andover or exeter. As for the mba population, about 30% of top U.S. schools are now international. And a lot of the Americans are people who went to good colleges, did well, and got jobs at top firms. Are some of them rich white legacies with connections? Sure. But they are by no means a sizable portion of the class at top b-schools. This isn't 1970 when HBS was filled with George W. Bush types.

 

4. I do not think there is any doubt that top MBA programs are more selective and attract a higher caliber of students than policy programs. If you really doubt this, then you need to get out more. The median student at any top 10 b-school is of higher caliber than the median at any policy program.

 

5. Last paragraph is just weird. You are making several points here, but they come across as jumbled and not very well-reasoned. First, as someone who took both the GMAT and the GRE and did well on both exams, I can assure you that the GMAT quant is much more challenging than GRE quant. Second, of course physics is harder than GMAT quant. I mean this is a total strawman argument, for no one is arguing that doing well on the GMAT quant is somehow indicative of mathematical genius. It just means that one is reasonably smart and can solve problems quickly and efficiently. It's fine to compare GMAT to GRE since they are both standardized exams with math sections but why the comparison to physics? Finally, you make a normative claim at the end that quants' talents could be better served by not being in finance. That's a personal judgment call. Finance, when harnessed properly, is essential to managing risk and efficiently allocating capital in an uncertain world. To say that these quants who use their talents to work on finance problems and enjoy the monetary benefits, are somehow selling themselves short by not working in science is pretty judgmental and reeks of typical liberal sanctimony. A brilliant quant does not owe the world anything; he is free to do whatever he wants with his skills. 

Edited March 22, 2013 by Revolution

[Putnam]

1. Actually you are correct on point one, I meant to write H/S/W (Harvard, Stanford, Wharton) rather than HSPY. Perhaps that is just reflex. 

 

2. You are incorrect. The School of General Studies has a traditional admissions process, admittance stands at 23% now. The Extension School has an admissions process, which is similar to matriculation in that you must demonstrate you can do the work. This is separate from open enrollment. You have not demonstrated you understand selection from attrition. If indeed Harvard Extension students can do the work and graduate (it seems relatively few graduate) on top of their other responsibilities, they should be attributed the respect they deserve. Unless of course the point of an elite education is not the rigor of the curriculum but simply being selected. 

 

3. Being on financial aid means very little in the context of the Ivy League. Years ago Larry Summers noted that three quarters of students at selective institutions come from the top quartile of the income distribution, and only 9% come from the bottom two quartiles (bottom half). This number today is even more skewed at Harvard (you can look it up). Elite institutions like to refer to these families in the top quartile as upper/middle incomes. These students get significant financial aid. Household incomes above $120,000 may not seem significant to some, but that is significantly above the median. More than a standard deviation, and if you consider these aid packages are going to those with incomes up to $200,000 (depending on the school) that is +3 standard deviation. Do I overstate the representation of privileged whites at Ivy League school? No, I don't see how you make a compelling argument against my statements. Financial aid fails as an argument, because you do not seem to be familiar with the breakdown of family income in elite institutions nor do you seem familiar with their financial aid policies. Finally, you missed the pedigree argument, you are not seeing the bigger picture.  

 

Your statements at points 3 and 4 demonstrate you did not follow the argument, or are suffering from bounded rationality. You should really read more. You don't seem to be familiar with Lauren Rivera's study, "Ivies, Extracurricular and Exclusion: Elite Employers' Use of Educational Credentials." Nor are you familiar with the basic writings of Karabel, Kahlenberg, Golden, Unz. I was not necessarily arguing the caliber of student applying, rather whether this perception is warranted in the context of class and status. 

 

The GMAT/GRE argument is one I have noticed, it was an aside and probably irrelevant to this thread. But seeming as there has been a significant amount of irrelevance in this thread, we can suffer a little bit more. As an aside I do see this argument made GMAT superiority as a proxy for the caliber of quant skills, when really it shouldn't be. 

 

5. You do not demonstrate you are up to speed with the current research on the finance sector and rent-seeking. The misallocation of human capital into finance is not a normative statement, you are just not familiar with the literature. If you did you would not have made you argument of: "Finance, when harnessed properly, is essential to managing risk and efficiently allocating capital in an uncertain world." Rigorous studies on hedge-fund and venture capital performance point towards a tremendous illusion of skill. You could effectively cap compensation and get the same effect, since the gains are not alpha and there is little to no indication performance is better than random. This is a legitimate argument, I don't just make this stuff up. 

 

I don't know where you get "liberal sanctimony," from. I didn't make a value judgement on the physics phd becoming a quant. I just said he/she gets paid well for relatively easy work (for him/her). Money is important, it's nice they have a venue to monetize their abilities. 

 

So for the record, you have stated that my post "reeks of inaccuracies and self-righteousness." There was one typo in point one. You need to do a better job of clarifying "self-righteousness." My statements on the hypothetical physics phd were not value judgments. However, I do find your assertion ironic in the context of your constant denigration of students who choose to attend policy programs. 

[biscuits]

This thread has apparently turned into the gradcafe version of a walk-off. It's been so long since I saw Zoolander...I should rectify that this weekend.