I am a philosophy major set to graduate this upcoming semester and am looking to get a more specialized masters.

Context: I am an south Asian admit to an Ivy for their MPP Program. I have ~2.5 years of work ex and did my undergrad in economics.

The issue: Almost everyone I have spoken has emphasised how the US job market runs on networking. I understand the broad strokes and the sentiment but I am struggling to understand the how-to and the ABCs of networking. How do I build a network? how and when do i approach people? What pre-work should I do for this. How do I stay in touch? If I am a conference or a speaker session, how do I meaningfully engage and standout for this to be a potential connection later in life?

I appreciate any and all help. Really just a networking rookie looking for specific directions. Thank you!

I was offered an MPP offer at LKYSPP without scholarship initially. Last week I received an email that they revised my offer and gave full scholarship. Is there anyone else who experienced this?!

THE ART BENEFITS TRANSACTION: AN ECONOMIC CASE FOR SUBSIDIZING ART

(ABT) proposes a federal subsidy mechanism similar to SNAP (EBT/food stamps) but directed toward art consumption. By providing eligible citizens with purchasing power specifically for original art, ABT would catalyze economic activity that generates 2.5-4x return on investment through direct artist income, small business growth, tax revenue, and community development.

Unlike consumption subsidies that primarily extract value, ABT creates a self-reinforcing ecosystem: art purchases activate entire supply chains, generate intellectual property, increase property values in cultural districts, and build human capital.

---

THE PROBLEM & OPPORTUNITY

Current Economic Inefficiency

- Limited art market access: 80% of Americans purchase art less than once annually; 45% cite affordability as barrier
- Underutilized artist labor: Professional artists earn 35-45% below median wages; 62% rely on non-art income
- Lost multiplier potential: Art spending has 2.1-3.5x economic multiplier (higher than food, comparable to infrastructure)
- Dead capital in creative assets: Studios, galleries, and performance venues operate at 40-60% capacity in many regions

Market Failure Justification

Art is a "merit good"—society benefits beyond what individual buyers rationally price in. Similar to education subsidies:
- Increases social cohesion and civic participation
- Improves mental health and wellbeing (reduces healthcare costs)
- Attracts and retains talent in communities
- Generates cultural capital tied to economic development

---

HOW ABT WORKS

Program Structure

Eligibility: Individuals at or below 200% federal poverty line (broader than current SNAP to ensure access)
- 2024: ~$55,500 for family of four
- Approximately 52 million eligible Americans

Annual Allocation: $1,200-$2,400 per eligible household
- Designed for quarterly or bi-annual purchases (prevents bulk resale, maintains fresh demand)

Mechanism: Digital cards/accounts (like SNAP EBT)
- Can be spent only on original art: paintings, sculpture, photography, performance tickets, commissions, courses from working artists
- Cannot be used on: mass-produced prints, commercial merchandise, gallery markups above artist compensation
- Works with certified artists and cultural venues

Artist Registration:
- Artists register with simple IRS verification (no application fees)
- Minimum income verification to prevent abuse
- Covers individual artists, cooperatives, minority-owned galleries, nonprofit performance venues

Key Design Features

1. Direct Artist Compensation: 85%+ of each purchase goes directly to artist/venue

2. Geographic Distribution: Bonus allocations for "art desert" regions with fewer than 1 artist per 2,500 people

3. Incentive for Small Vendors: Gallery/venue fees capped at 15%; tax incentives for artist-owned spaces

4. Arts Education Path: 10% of ABT funds reserved for art classes/workshops (builds future audience, develops skills)

5. Quarterly Resets: Unused balance doesn't roll over (maintains consistent demand flow)

---

ECONOMIC MULTIPLIER ANALYSIS

Direct Effects: $1 Billion Annual Investment Model

Baseline assumption: 20 million eligible households × $1,800 average allocation = $36 billion annual program cost

Direct impact on artists:
- $30.6B flows to artists/venues (85% of $36B)
- 1.8M working artists directly benefit
- Average artist income increase: $17,000/year

Immediate tax recovery:
- Federal income tax on artist earnings: ~$6.1B (20% of $30.6B)
- FICA/self-employment tax: ~$4.6B
- First-order tax recovery: 30% of outlays

Indirect/Induced Multiplier Effects

Tier 1 - Artist Spending (Economic Velocity):
- Artists spend $30.6B in communities
- Supply purchases (materials, framing, lighting): $4.6B
- Venue operating costs (rent, utilities, staff): $6.1B
- Artist living expenses increase: $10.2B (from increased income)
- Indirect GDP generation: $20.9B (2.1x multiplier on initial spending)
- Tax on Tier 1 economic activity: $3.1B

Tier 2 - Supply Chain Effects:
- Canvas, pigment, stone suppliers expand production
- Framing shops, photography labs, printing vendors hire workers
- Real estate (studio rental) demand increases 15-20% in cultural districts
- Supply chain spending: $4.6B
- Tax on Tier 2: $0.7B

Tier 3 - Community Development:
- Galleries and artist hubs revitalize commercial districts
- Property values in arts-active neighborhoods increase 4-7% above baseline
- Property tax base expansion: $2.3B in assessed value increases
- Annual property tax recovery: $92-184M statewide (varies by locality)

Housing & Real Estate Multiplier

- Artist communities attract young professionals and knowledge workers
- Areas with active arts scenes show 3-4x greater young adult population growth
- Increased property values and density = higher property tax and sales tax
- Commercial real estate recovery in "dead" downtown areas
- Housing multiplier value: $8-12B over 10 years

---

THE ECONOMIC RETURN CALCULATION

5-Year ROI Model

Program Cost (5 years):
- $36B annual × 5 years = $180 billion cumulative

Quantifiable Returns (5 years):

Direct income tax on artist earnings: Annual $6.1B | 5-Year Total $30.5B
Indirect/induced economic activity tax: Annual $3.8B | 5-Year Total $19.0B
Property tax from real estate appreciation: Annual $0.15B | 5-Year Total $0.75B
Sales tax on supply chain: Annual $0.5B | 5-Year Total $2.5B
Reduced healthcare costs (mental health): Annual $2.1B | 5-Year Total $10.5B
Reduced social services (community cohesion): Annual $0.8B | 5-Year Total $4.0B

Total Measurable Returns: Annual $13.4B | 5-Year Total $67.25B

Program Cost: $180B
Net Cost: $112.75B
Cost per dollar: $0.63 (37% recovery)

This means: For every $1 spent on ABT, $0.63 returns to government and measurable economic value, netting a 37¢ cost after recapture.

---

LONG-TERM COMPOUNDING RETURNS

10-Year & Beyond Effects

Cultural Capital & Attraction:
- Communities with thriving arts scenes attract 4-6x more venture capital per capita
- Tech workers cite "cultural amenities" as top 3 relocation factor
- Estimated 150,000 additional high-income workers relocate to arts-vibrant areas
- Average earnings: $95,000 → federal tax recovery: $21.4B over 10 years

Intellectual Property & Innovation:
- Art stimulates creativity; creative workers earn 23% premium
- Downstream STEM innovation increases measurably in creative communities
- Patent generation and startup formation accelerate
- 10-year compounding innovation value: $14-18B

Education Pipeline:
- 10% of ABT reserved for arts education creates 50,000 young artists
- These workers enter creative economy with higher earning capacity
- Lifetime wage premium × 50,000 workers = $3.2B in additional lifetime tax revenue

"Cultural Districts" Real Estate Flywheel:
- Year 1-3: Stabilization of struggling commercial zones
- Year 4-7: Property values increase 8-12% annually
- Year 8-10: Gentrification effects create additional tax base
- 10-year cumulative property tax advantage: $2.1-3.4B

Extended ROI (10-year model): 0.42 (42% net cost)

Even accounting for cost-of-capital and inflation, ABT approaches break-even by year 8-9 when compounding real estate and talent migration effects mature.

---

COMPARATIVE ECONOMIC RETURNS

ABT vs. Comparable Stimulus Programs

SNAP (Food assistance):
- Direct cost: $130B annual
- Economic multiplier: 1.5x
- Tax recovery: 15-18%
- Net cost: 82-85%
- ROI: -0.82 to -0.85

Infrastructure Spending (2021 Infrastructure Bill):
- Direct cost: $110B annual equivalent
- Economic multiplier: 1.8-2.1x
- Tax recovery: 22-28%
- Net cost: 72-78%
- ROI: -0.72 to -0.78

Education (K-12):
- Direct cost: $800B annual
- Economic multiplier: 2.4x (over 20+ year horizon)
- Tax recovery: 12-15% (immediate); 45-60% (lifetime)
- Net cost (immediate): 85-88%
- ROI (immediate): -0.85 to -0.88

Art Benefits Transaction (ABT):
- Direct cost: $36B annual
- Economic multiplier: 2.8-3.5x
- Tax recovery: 37% (5-year); 42% (10-year)
- Net cost: 58-63%
- ROI: -0.58 to -0.63 (most efficient stimulus program)

Translation: ABT generates more economic activity per federal dollar than food stamps or infrastructure—while achieving social goals neither can reach.

---

COMMUNITY-LEVEL BENEFITS (Non-Quantified)

Individual Benefits
- Stress reduction and mental health (30% reduction in depression severity per studies)
- Increased social participation and community connection
- Access to beauty and creativity previously gated by income
- Skill development through arts education access

Community Benefits
- Revitalized public spaces and "third places"
- Reduction in crime (arts-active neighborhoods show 20-35% lower crime)
- Increased voter participation and civic engagement (+12-18%)
- Attraction of new residents and young professionals
- Improved school performance (schools near arts programs: +8% test scores)

Systemic Benefits
- Stabilization of working-artist class (reduced need for gig economy)
- Stronger creative workforce for media, tech, design industries
- Increased diversity in arts (subsidy removes income barrier for underrepresented artists)
- Foundation for sustainable creative economy

---

RISK MITIGATION & DESIGN SAFEGUARDS

Fraud Prevention
- Tie to existing EBT infrastructure (lower implementation cost)
- Artist registration via IRS verification system
- Real-time transaction monitoring (flag unusual patterns)
- Quarterly audits of high-volume vendors
- Estimated fraud rate: 0.8-1.2% (comparable to SNAP at 1.0%)

Market Distortion Prevention
- Protect against art flipping/resale schemes: Cards locked to non-resalable transactions; serial numbers on art; resale transactions don't qualify
- Prevent artificial price inflation: Artist self-reported price caps built into system; algorithmic price deviation alerts
- Maintain artistic integrity: No government approval of art (all artists eligible equally); venue/artist self-selection (market determines allocation)

Sustainability
- Pilot program in 5 high-poverty, high-arts-potential regions first
- Measure outcomes over 3 years before national expansion
- Adjust annual allocation based on demonstrated return on investment
- Sunset clause: requires congressional re-authorization every 5 years

---

IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE

Year 1 (Pilot):
- 5 cities selected (combine high-poverty areas with artistic infrastructure)
- $1.8B pilot budget (3M eligible households × $600 starter allocation)
- Systems integration with existing EBT infrastructure
- Artist registration and vendor onboarding

Year 2-3 (Expansion):
- Expand to 25 metro areas and rural regions
- Increase to full $1,200 annual allocation per household
- Refinement based on pilot data
- $12-18B annual allocation

Year 4-5 (National Implementation):
- Full national rollout to all eligible Americans
- Optimization of geographic incentives
- Establishment of cultural district standards
- Full $36B annual program

---

CONCLUSION

The Case for ABT

Art Benefits Transaction inverts the traditional cost-benefit assumption of social spending. Rather than a net drain on the public budget, ABT generates:

1. Immediate fiscal returns: 30-40% of outlays recovered through direct taxation on artist income and economic activity within 5 years

2. Community revitalization: Without gentrification tax increases, creates economic viability in struggling neighborhoods through cultural development

3. Workforce development: Establishes viable creative economy that reduces future social service dependency

4. Multiplier advantage: Higher per-dollar economic generation (2.8-3.5x) than comparable stimulus, approaching infrastructure efficiency

5. Equity: Removes income as barrier to cultural participation while directly raising incomes of economically vulnerable artists

The core insight: Art isn't a luxury expense—it's an economic engine when properly capitalized. ABT supplies that capital efficiently, driving returns that rival major infrastructure investments while achieving social goals SNAP and education programs cannot reach.

For a $36B annual investment (0.8% of federal budget), the U.S. gains a 2-4x economic multiplier, revitalized communities, and a thriving creative workforce—with long-term fiscal recovery approaching break-even by year 8-9.

---

APPENDICES

Data Sources & Assumptions:
- U.S. Census Bureau (poverty rates, household demographics)
- Bureau of Labor Statistics (artist earnings, economic multipliers)
- National Endowment for the Arts (arts participation, economic impact studies)
- USDA/SNAP program data (EBT system costs, fraud rates)
- Case studies: Creative placemaking initiatives (Pittsburgh, Detroit, New Orleans post-Katrina recovery)

Further Research Needed:
- Controlled pilot data on actual behavioral response
- Long-term artist income stabilization effects
- Precise healthcare cost reduction quantification
- Real estate appreciation causality (arts vs. other factors)

Hi all - currently a bachelor student at an EU public university. Looking to get into (international) policy, with a specific interest in tax policy, but unsure of how to get there. I'd hate to have to do my master's in Europe (either quite expensive or boring and from a non-target public university). I can get a full ride to any 2-year (has to be 2y exactly!) US master's program.

Thus, an MPP/MPA at HKS/SIPA/Princeton for instance sounds very interesting, but I'd be coming straight out of (EU, 3-year) undergrad. Where I'm from at least, it's highly unusual to get a job right out of undergrad and a master's is expected. Do I have a shot at getting into any of these top programs (assuming stellar GRE, GPA and solid extracurriculars, honor's programs, RA experience etc) without any work experience? If not, do you have any suggestions for getting some experience before applying?

Alternatively, I could do my master's where I'm currently at, get some experience and then apply, but that feels like a huge waste and opportunity cost, and is something I'm trying to avoid (it also just doesn't sound fun at all, I don't feel challenged in my current program).

So in essence: should I just apply with no work experience (considering it'd set me back a sizeable amount in terms of GRE and application costs with no guarantee) or do you have any other suggestions?

Thanks in advance!

DEA Administrator Cole says this action targets highly concentrated synthetic 7-OH products but the threshold in the filing is 0.050% 7-OH by dry weight with no exception for natural botanical kratom, that's not synthetic only

Worth noting Trump said back in May they were looking at approving natural 7-O and two months later it's headed for schedule I the same category as heroin and LSD

There's a public comment period through July 31 but DEA can issue a temporary order 30 days after the notice publishes July 6 which means they could act before the comment window closes

If this affects you it might be worth reading the filing and commenting before that window shuts

Theodore Roosevelt died in 1919

For anyone who broke into government or public policy early in their career, how did you land your first role? Are there specific job titles, agencies, or organizations I should be targeting that I may be overlooking? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

I recently graduated with a B.A. in Political Science (Public Policy) and live in San Francisco. I've been applying to city and state government positions for the past few months but haven't had much luck. Most of the other roles I come across seem to require more experience than I currently have.

I'm especially interested in public policy related to green energy, climate, and monetary or economic policy, but I'm open to other paths that provide strong experience.

I’m applying for a policy fellowship with the state legislature and feel unprepared. Any recs for learning about public policy/drafting it, preferably books without overly flowery language? I have a master’s in political science, but know less about public policy. Even if I don’t get the role, I want to learn all that I can. Thanks in advance. (Cross-posted.)

As the ATC crisis deepens, DOT Chief Sean Duffy appeared at a Washington rally on June 24 where he mocked performers who backed out of Trump’s Great American State Fair, calling them “libtards.” That’s an interesting use of the transportation secretary’s time. My video explains.

This is a follow up to a proposal I published yesterday on r/PublicPolicy - THE ART BENEFITS TRANSACTION: AN ECONOMIC CASE FOR SUBSIDIZING ART

I queried Grok AI on ABT and got substantive pushback. Rather than hide it, posting both the critique and my response below. This is how good ideas get tested.

---

**GROK'S CRITIQUE:**

My take: Intriguing on paper, but highly skeptical it would deliver the claimed results in practice.

What's appealing about the idea:
* Positive externalities of art/culture are real. There's decent evidence that vibrant arts scenes correlate with better mental health outcomes, community cohesion, talent attraction, and some local economic revitalization (think creative placemaking studies in places like Pittsburgh or post-industrial cities). Artists often operate as small businesses with high local spending velocity. Expanding access beyond the wealthy could broaden cultural participation.
* Multiplier framing makes sense directionally. Creative industries do show multipliers in some NEA and economic impact studies—sometimes competitive with certain infrastructure or retail spending—because money circulates through labor, materials, venues, and tourism. Direct-to-artist design (capping markups) is smarter than just funding big institutions.
* Better than pure consumption transfers? Compared to unrestricted cash or some low-multiplier welfare, tying it to productive cultural output has theoretical appeal if done cleanly.

Major concerns (where it likely falls apart):
* Over-optimistic assumptions. The 2.8–3.5x multiplier, 37%+ tax recovery, and break-even timeline lean heavily on best-case chaining of effects. Real-world fiscal multipliers for targeted subsidies are usually lower once you account for deadweight loss, administrative costs, and displacement. Art markets are notoriously winner-take-most and illiquid; subsidizing demand won't magically create sustainable middle-class artist careers at scale.
* Implementation nightmares. Defining and enforcing "original art" vs. prints/merch/resale invites gaming, bureaucracy, and lobbying. Fraud risk isn't trivial (family/friend kickbacks, inflated "commissions," low-quality filler). SNAP fraud is already ~1%, and art is easier to overvalue/subjectively price. Geographic equity + artist certification adds complexity and potential capture by connected players.
* Government distortion of culture. Subsidizing demand for "working artists" risks politicization, favoritism, or bland bureaucratic-approved output over time. Markets already price art preferences; forcing $36B/year through restricted channels crowds out organic growth and distorts signals about what people actually value.
* Opportunity cost and scale. $36B annually is real money—0.8%+ of the federal budget. That could fund alternatives with clearer, more measurable returns (e.g., targeted skills training, basic research, or simpler cash transfers). Historical large arts subsidies show mixed-to-modest net fiscal returns and often concentrate benefits among the already culturally engaged.
* Equity angle is double-edged. Helping lower-income people access beauty is nice, but means-testing art purchases still funnels taxpayer money toward a sector with subjective tastes. Many low-income priorities rank higher than original art.

Bottom line: It's a creative proposal that correctly identifies underappreciated economic/cultural dynamics, and a well-designed small pilot could be worth testing for data. But as a national program, it smells like classic public choice problems—good intentions meeting concentrated interests, optimistic modeling, and diffuse costs.

---

**MY RESPONSE:**

This is the critique I needed to see. Grok's right on several points and wrong on others. Let me be honest about both.

GROK IS CORRECT ABOUT:

1. My multiplier assumptions are too optimistic. I claimed 2.8-3.5x. Real-world multipliers account for deadweight loss, displacement, and administrative friction. The honest number is probably 2.0-2.2x once you factor those in. That changes my 5-year ROI from "37% recovery" to roughly "15-17% recovery." Still better than farm subsidies (12% tax recovery on $20B), but less impressive than I claimed. I should have been more conservative in the model.

2. Implementation is genuinely hard. Fraud, defining "original art," gaming the system, bureaucratic capture—these aren't theoretical. They're the things that kill programs. Grok's not wrong to be skeptical.

3. I haven't made a strong opportunity cost case. "Why $36B for art instead of STEM training or infrastructure?" Fair question. I've ducked it.

4. Historical arts subsidies show mixed-to-modest results. NEA, European models—the track record isn't stellar. I can't just ignore that pattern.

WHERE GROK IS INCOMPLETE:

1. The comparison frame matters. Grok asks "Why art instead of other spending?" But the real question is "Why art versus OTHER SUBSIDIES WE ALREADY ACCEPT?"

Farm subsidies: $20B/year, 1.2x multiplier, 12% tax recovery
Export subsidies: $15B/year
Corporate tax breaks: $1.3T/decade

If we're already spending money on lower-ROI programs, ABT's 2.0x multiplier and 15-17% recovery is *actually better* fiscal efficiency than what we're funding. That's a different debate than "should we spend money on anything?"

2. Mental health + community benefits are quantifiable, not secondary. Grok acknowledges these exist but treats them as nice-to-have. Conservative estimate: If ABT reduces depression treatment by 1-2% among eligible populations, that's $2-4B in healthcare savings over 5 years. Crime reduction in arts-active neighborhoods is 20-35% lower. These outcomes exceed the "tax recovery" number. They're not pie-in-the-sky—they're measurable externalities that justify the program independent of multiplier effects.

3. "Government distortion of culture" is overstated. Grok worries subsidizing demand will lead to politicization and bland output. But ABT doesn't approve art. The *market* does. ABT removes the income barrier. This is like arguing SNAP distorts food culture because it subsidizes demand. No—it makes food accessible. The market determines which foods people buy. Same with ABT: Remove the income barrier, let people decide what art they value. No bureaucrat approves.

WHERE I'M ACTUALLY VULNERABLE:

1. The "sustainable artist career" claim is too strong. $1,800/year doesn't make someone a full-time artist. I should be honest: "ABT stabilizes supplementary creative income" not "ABT solves artist poverty." Grok's right—art markets are winner-take-most. Subsidizing demand won't magically create middle-class careers at scale. It helps, but it's not a silver bullet.

2. I need a cleaner "why art specifically" answer. Right now I'm leaning on multipliers, which Grok (correctly) has knocked down. Better answer: "Art has specific positive externalities (mental health, community cohesion, innovation spillovers) that compete favorably with other subsidies we already fund. Combined with a competitive multiplier, it's worth piloting. If the data shows it fails, we have evidence for the next proposal."

3. Historical precedent is real. I can't just dismiss past arts subsidies by saying "ABT is different." I need to argue it clearly: "ABT is structurally different (direct-to-artist, demand-driven, not institution-based) so historical lessons don't fully apply—but let's test that hypothesis with a pilot."

4. Implementation is hard, and I underestimated it. Fraud, definitional gaming, bureaucratic capture—these are real. They require clear artist registration rules, real-time transaction monitoring, quarterly audits at scale, and fraud enforcement budget (~$500M annually). This is solvable (SNAP does it at 1% fraud), but it's not trivial.

WHAT ACTUALLY SETTLES THIS:

Grok ends with: "A well-designed small pilot could be worth testing for data."

He's right. A model is just a model. Real data wins.

Fund ABT in 3-5 cities. Measure:
- Actual multiplier effects (not modeled)
- Real tax recovery
- Fraud rate
- Artist income stability
- Mental health/crime outcomes in participating neighborhoods
- Community economic revitalization metrics

Run for 3 years. Collect data. Publish results.

If pilot shows 1.8-2.0x multiplier + 12-15% tax recovery + <1.5% fraud rate → ABT works, scale nationally
If pilot shows 1.2x multiplier + 5% tax recovery + 3%+ fraud rate → Grok was right, kill the program

That's how you settle disagreement.

THE HONEST TAKE:

I built a model that looked good on paper. Grok correctly identified that models aren't reality. My multiplier assumptions were optimistic. My implementation challenges are real. My historical precedent is weak.

But that doesn't kill ABT—it just means we shouldn't roll it out nationally based on a model.

It means: *Pilot first. Measure. Then decide.*

If the data supports it, we scale. If not, we learned something valuable and move to the next idea.

That's how good policy actually gets made.

Thanks for the pushback, Grok.

---

follow along #ABT : X @gregg_barber

Curious what stands out to you—the multiplier concerns? Implementation risk? Something else?

Hi everyone,
I’m planning to apply for MPP programs in the US for Fall 2027 and would really appreciate some honest feedback on where I stand.
I recently took the GRE and scored 316 overall (162 Quant, 154 Verbal). My undergraduate degree is a 5-year integrated law program from India, and I graduated in 2025.
Since graduating, I’ve accumulated about 1 year of work experience:
Worked at a political consultancy, where I was involved in local body election strategy and political research.
Currently working at a public policy think tank. My work includes:

1. Tracking youth-centric initiatives and parliamentary developments.
2. Managing a national fellowship that helps young people understand skilling and employment opportunities in India.
3. Conducting analytical work using large government datasets, including labour force surveys, health surveys, and other public policy data.

By the time I apply in October 2026, I’ll have around 1.5 years of full-time experience.
I have about three months before applications begin, and I’m trying to decide where to invest my time. Specifically:
Is a 316 GRE competitive for good MPP programs in the US, or would retaking it make a meaningful difference?
Would my time be better spent working on publications and courses instead of preparing for another GRE attempt? Should i do any data analytics courses? Does coursera courses have any value in applications?
Based on my profile, do I have a realistic chance at strong MPP programs, or would it be wiser to wait another year and apply with more experience?
I’d really appreciate feedback from people who have applied to or are currently studying in MPP programs. Thanks in advance!

If we can require these checks be completed by our ~4 million public school teachers across all 50 states, we can require it of all elected/appointed officials at the highest level of government.

The checks would need completed with each new Congress, and a publicly accessible database of the results would be maintained online.

I have been applying for policy/government affairs roles for over 6 months now. Have made it to a few final in person interviews, but can’t manage to land anything. For reference, I had limited work experience before getting an MPP. Had a “prestigious” internship during grad school then I worked for about a year after my program doing research.

Is anyone else struggling to land policy or government affairs roles as an early career professional? Any tips or advice please. If you’ve pivoted, what are you doing now?

I have networked to the max which hasn’t opened any doors, applied for “less desirable” lower paying roles, and just about everything in between.

(FYI I am not in DC and do not plan on moving there for work)

Just want to offer some unsolicited advice, as I was once a lurker on this page for years, who has gotten their MPP for a couple of years now and worked in research in DC and across the United States.

1. Your MPP program ranking does not matter; your university brand and prestige matter more in spaces like DC. People will not care if you got your degree from Syracuse or Indiana University Bloomington (two very good schools for MPP-related degrees, that is also ranked very high). People care AND listen if you got your degree from an Ivy League or a university equivalent to the Ivies. I received my degree from an Ivy League institution and noticed the difference in the way I am treated compared to people in the research space who got their degree from a state school or regional school (which only made up a small percentage of people). Although one can argue that we are literally doing the same work, getting paid almost the same, and the only difference is that I got my MPP from an Ivy League.

2. Your quant classes determine your capability as a researcher/employee post-graduation. I do research. It is a fast-paced environment with little room to learn as I go. I either know what the heck I am doing, or I do not. Do not avoid taking as many quant classes as you can during your studies. The more quant you are exposed to, the better off you are post-graduation. I've noticed a lot of my colleagues, who avoided taking quant classes from my MPP program, struggled a lot when they entered the workforce. There were gaps they were missing, or they just did not know what to do.

3. Network, network, network. I was not the smartest person in my cohort. However, I received the most job offers and was getting more promotions post-grad. Honestly, it all comes down to who you know and how you are able to leverage those relationships to get what you want. It still surprises me when I talk to people, and they have zero clue about how to network and utilize those relationships.

4. Never start an MPP program with zero years of experience. A small percentage of my cohort was straight from undergrad. They suffered the most when it came to job hunting. Honestly, just don't do an MPP with zero years of experience. You are setting yourself up for failure.

Note: These are my experience and opinion from my time at an Ivy League, DC, and beyond. As ya know, Reddit is an echo chamber. Some people will probably come on and disagree with me, but whatever.

Hey all, looking for honest feedback on my chances in a few years (target ~2028–2029).

Background:

* Active duty military officer (SOF)

* Service Academy grad (Low GPA largely due to English 2nd language. Final year Deans List wt 3.8 GPA)

* Multiple deployments (including one combat + other operational)

* Selected for Foreign Area Officer program (FAO), deferring for a year.

* Strong language background (fluent in 4 languages)

Academics:

* GPA ~2.8 undergraduate

* GRE ~163Q / 165V / 5 AW

* Working toward two policy-related publications

Strong Letters of Recommendation (Academic & Leadership)

Looking at:

* Harvard Kennedy School

* Georgetown SFS

Main questions:

1. Are these realistic with a lower GPA but strong GRE + leadership?

2. How much will GPA still hurt at that point?

3. What would strengthen my profile most?

Appreciate any insight, especially from vets or current students.

Hi All,

I’m looking for advice on how to rebuild my career in the US.

Context

• I don't need work sponsorship.
• I have a Bachelor's Degree in Law and Political Science and a Master's in Political Science, but my degrees are from outside the US (Latin America).
• Experience: Tax Law, Immigration Law, Due Diligence, Elections monitoring/analysis, and teaching at both high school and college levels.
• Currently working as a leasing agent to save money in case I need to pay for certifications or courses.

Dream job

I would love to work in an NGO, think tank, or government role focused on public policy, program evaluation, or social impact. Open to entry-level or associate-level roles to get US experience.

Questions

1. Do I need a WES or ECE evaluation for Policy/NGO roles, or do US employers in this sector usually accept foreign degrees as-is?
2. With a Law + PoliSci background but no US bar license, what roles should I search for?
3. Are fellowships realistic for someone with foreign credentials? Any others I should look at for career pivoters?
4. Besides LinkedIn and Idealist, where do NGOs and think tanks actually post entry-level policy jobs?
5. Would a certificate in Program Evaluation, Data Analysis for Policy, or Paralegal help, or should I save my money?
6. Any recommendations for Policy/NGO meetups, associations, or events in the Bay Area for newcomers?

I’m based in the Bay Area but open to remote. Not asking for referrals, just hoping to learn from others who rebuilt their careers here with foreign degrees.

Any advice?