Evaluating future plans (MPP vs. PharmD)

[pubpol101]

As you can see in my signature below, I was admitted to programs in two separate fields. I applied after completing a year of undergrad (state university, magna cum laude projected; in college 2014-2016 due to accelerated track) majoring in biomedical sciences. I was able to complete some internship, research, and writing experiences to prepare myself for a career in public policy, though not nearly to the extent of most Princeton, Harvard, Berkeley, etc. applicants. The offers I'm most seriously considering, given my likely rejections from remaining programs, are UTexas-Austin LBJ (MPA, full tuition), University of Florida PharmD, and the possibility of a scholarship from Carnegie Mellon's MSPPM-DC track.

I can probably go on and on about the factors I've considered for both fields (family life, my passions in policy, salary, location, etc etc.), but I'd like to focus on the following thought process specifically: I believe that in spite of UT Austin LBJ's full tuition offer, my rejections from the most selective programs (Duke wait-list, Yale reject, etc.) are clearly indicative of how my lack of full time work experience will prevent me from fully leveraging a professional program in public affairs. While I am particularly interested in counter-terrorism, and healthcare, and some other fields, and while I have considerable research experience in all of them (at least compared to other undergraduates), I believe that I would be a far more competitive applicant if I completed a PharmD program first, worked in the field, and subsequently applied to target institutions like Princeton WWS, Harvard, and Columbia.

I hope to grow as an individual by engaging healthcare as a true practitioner in the field of pharmacy in spite of how virtually all of my extracurricular activities (aside from the pre-med formula of hard biomedical research, volunteer work, non-profit leadership) have revolved around policy. I will be 24 when I complete the PharmD degree, as opposed to 22 if I were to focus on UT Austin's MPAff program. Perhaps through personal growth and my drastically more competitive profile, I will be able to secure a far more meaningful career after a professional public policy program if I choose to complete one after the PharmD.

My question: Is this logic sound? Or since my ultimate goal is to enter the policy field (elected office, wonk analyst, or some other means), is it illogical for me to turn down UT Austin's full tuition offer? Prior to formulating this paradigm, I had difficulty deciding between UT Austin and UF PharmD, but now I've never been more sure of my decision to pursue one of the two options.

Edited March 8, 2016 by AAAAAAAA

[kasbah]

I am a huge proponent of work first, grad school later.

I think you will appreciate what you will learn in grad school more if you have a few years of work experience,pharmacy experience, under your belt.

I am 3+ years out of undergrad, and I am so happy that I didn't go to grad school straight out of undergrad.

[aslabchu]

If you do a PharmD straight into an MPA, there's a chance you could seem disconnected and too academic for the higher tier programs. You might have to take time to refocus on public affairs, particularly to demonstrate that that's where your head is at, and not necessarily just pharmacy stuff. You might have undergraduate quality experience now, but this will be 4 years down the line, and that's a different kettle of fish. You'll be much more distant from all that nice resume material. You'd probably have to replace it. It's not clear to me how interested an MPA program would be in your hard science research and so on.

It would certainly set you apart from your fellow applicants, but not in exclusively good ways. A great question committees will have is: is this person dedicated to public affairs? In particular, is this person still going to want to pursue this career path when they realize that they could have a significantly higher standard of living using their PharmD? We all say we've got passion, but it's a whole different scenario when the student loan bills start coming in. The extra money would seem tremendously appealing.

Another concern: why do you need your PharmD if you want to work on public policy stuff? Why not do a MPA/MS dual program? It seems like for most policy purposes, that would be more than enough.

Anyway, my overall point here is that getting a PharmD might not be the pure, unqualified admissions win that you think it is. The more credentials you amass, the more people wonder how focused you are on their particular area. Academic and financial exhaustion are real things when you start getting into second graduate degrees, and they might be a concern for committees.

Edited March 8, 2016 by aslabchu

[pubpol101]

43 minutes ago, aslabchu said:

If you do a PharmD straight into an MPA, there's a chance you could seem disconnected and too academic for the higher tier programs. 

That makes sense. I however intend to continue policy work through UF's resources in its other departments just as I've done at the undergraduate level. As a research university, I believe it has at least some of the opportunities necessary for me to maintain, expand upon, and integrate my interests in healthcare and policy. This unfortunately runs into the last problem you described:

43 minutes ago, aslabchu said:

Academic and financial exhaustion are real things when you start getting into second graduate degrees, and they might be a concern for committees.

Throughout my undergrad career, I have oftentimes felt limited by the sciences. The fact that studying for organic chemistry, biochemistry, microbiology, and other rigorous courses took so much time meant I had less time to focus on my policy interests. There have been numerous times where I've taken serious steps to prepare for my attempt to drop the sciences and focus on public policy (college transfer applications--admitted to Cornell for political science, but I decided against it; my apps to MPP programs; etc.). I believe that the pharmacy curriculum will partially be an end unto itself, with its applicability to healthcare, but I haven't quite found a way to say with certainty that I won't burn out in the PharmD program trying to maintain a substantial interest in public policy. Yet on the other hand, I can't say with certainty that I'd achieve the level of success I'd want at UT Austin's MPA program, as @kasbah and numerous others have noted that I'd appreciate the MPAff curriculum far more if I had real world experience. Such experience can come from the mandatory internships of UF's PharmD program ("APPE and IPPE"), where we work at hospitals, retail pharmacies, and sometimes with the FDA and research laboratories as pharmacy interns. Perhaps MPP/MPA programs might view these experiences as similar to Teach For America and other experiences--real world entry-level work that directly links the individual to the policy world.

43 minutes ago, aslabchu said:

Why not do a MPA/MS dual program?

I've sort of locked myself into the premed/prepharm track, due to career prospects of the clinical professions and my interest in them. I also have little interest in pursuing research as a vocation for those thesis-oriented MS programs.

@aslabchu, the concerns you've noted are certainly valid. Your response has been quite helpful, bringing my thoughts back to the concerns I've previously thought about but failed to integrate with my current thought process. I might have to work several years anyway to save up funding, but at the same time, with those sorts of funds, I might end up deciding against an MPP/MPA program and simply running for local office after a substantial portion of my loans are paid off, closing off the "fast-track" towards national policy impact via UT Austin MPAff.

Edited March 8, 2016 by AAAAAAAA

[aslabchu]

34 minutes ago, AAAAAAAA said:

@alabchu, the concerns you've noted are certainly valid. Your response has been quite helpful, bringing my thoughts back to the concerns I've previously thought about but failed to integrate with my current thought process. I might have to work several years anyway to save up funding, but at the same time, with those sorts of funds, I might end up deciding against an MPP/MPA program and simply running for local office after a substantial portion of my loans are paid off, closing off the "fast-track" towards national policy impact via UT Austin MPAff.

But on the other hand, a PharmD is a tremendous way to save up those funds. You'd be financially prepared in a way that most of us never could be. Sometimes I wonder how applicants hope to pay for a program like SIPA or HKS, but you could reasonably hope to do that. It's certainly a unique position with some very real benefits.

[Ben414]

I believe that getting work experience is important for MPP/MPA programs not just for admissions, but for employment prospects afterward. IMO there is a boost to employment in your later career after getting the degree that benefits everyone in the program equally, but there is an additional boost that comes from the immediacy of being in the program--the connections from professors, research centers, alumni, etc. that are at their strongest while you're in the program. I think prior work experience helps you to reap the most rewards from this boost because you will have a wider range of opportunities that you will be eligible for if they're presented to you.

As to the Pharm D, I don't have any knowledge about the degree. MPP/MPA programs would probably value the internships in them to a degree, but I don't think they would view them as equal to full-time, year-round employment. I'm not sure how they would evaluate the degree itself. I don't think you would get into HKS/WWS/Yale with only a Pharm D degree and the internships from it.

If it were me, I would either a) go to the PharmD program and acknowledge that I will likely have to work for a couple of years afterwards before I could jump into an elite program; or b ) get some work experience and reapply in two years.

[happygomucky]

I know nothing about Pharmacy but thought I would comment drawing on my experience as a policy professional. I think your instinct to do the MPA later makes a lot of sense. 

Like others, I'm a strong proponent for getting some full time work experience. Public policy is essentially about understanding the challenges of applying an abstract idea/policy objective to the real world which is why I think the schools place such a premium on it. There really is nothing like working day in day out on an issue, in organisations that have their own strengths and weaknesses, to 'get' why public policy is so challenging! 

Is there a reason why, if you're so passionate about public policy, you don't want to go straight into work in the public policy field with a view to doing an MPA in a couple of years? What is the PharmD qualification getting you? 

Either way, you won't be closing yourself off from policy work in the future if you pursue a PharmD qualification first. If you do, I would advise you to think about your 'narrative' - I didn't quite understand how the Pharma stuff relates to your public policy aims as you mention both counterterrorism and healthcare. Maybe they're related! But if not, work experience will help you hone in on a policy focus that will make you a more compelling applicant. A health policy focus building on your Pharma experience seems logical, but you will know best. 

I think it's somewhat different for elected office, where your personal/professional networks play a much bigger role. As you note, you may not need an MPP/MPA at all. But overall it seems to me that you're not totally clear on your public policy aims so if I were you I'd take some time to figure it out!