Ivory Tower Rankings vs APSIA

[wolfie53]

Going into international affairs, I noticed these two criteria are what often influence stronger students in the field for applying to universities.

 

Ivory Tower Rankings: Done by professors, professional and practitioners in the field to determine what school is most beneficial for students in international affairs.

 

APSIA: Full member schools must meet certain criteria to be acknowledged as a top independent program that provides a quality masters degree in the field.

 

Going in students usually base where they send applications based off the rankings, APSIA status or a combination of both. Almost all schools on the rankings are full APSIA members but not all APSIA members are ranked.

 

In all honestly, from what I have witnessed in my short time here, I think too many people take the whole "school name" thing too seriously. Whether you would go to X (ranked higher) vs Y (Good but not as well known as X) I think students often forget to see what program fits their needs.

 

When it comes down to it, you should base your decision off of what you see in the program, its professors and its network. No one is going to hire someone based off the fact they went to a top school alone. Sure the top ranked schools often have a decent network to go along with their prestige but with that said, I think students often overlook the fact that pretty much all APSIA schools have decent networks that just requires you to be active and productive with the faculty.

 

Long story short, I think students sometimes put too much weight on the ranking and prestige of a school. If its APSIA odds are it can benefit your career goals, especially if you are a solid student who can work well with faculty. To me, aspects such as financial aid, the fittingness of the program and the network of the faculty should always take precedence over the whole perception of rank and prestige.

Edited April 2, 2014 by wolfie53