<p>papatango,</p>
<p>Define "much better." What can Brown offer that Berkeley cannot? </p>
<p>Oh, and Cal isn't an acronym. It's an abbreviation of "California."</p>
<p>Here is a quote from Papatango from another thread:
[quote]
If you're a tree hugher, a neo-hippie or a radical left-wing and like a lot of utopia, go to CAL, otherwise anywhere else would be better.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wouldn't exactly say that's a balanced view, and is actually ridiculously off-target regarding Cal's current political make-up. Anyway, Cal is certainly better than Brown in terms of the resources of its poli sci department; Brown, arguably, would be a better undergraduate experience.</p>
<p>Good luck.</p>
<p>i think it all depends on the person.</p>
<p>I typically hear that a 4.0 at cal is harder than a 4.0 at stanford.</p>
<p>Both schools are incredible academically, but cal just kinda throws u in as one of the crowd, and its up to you if you are going to flourish or die.</p>
<p>and as for reputation between cal and brown
ide say cal wins.</p>
<p>hey papatango</p>
<p>why do flame berkeley all the time?
and
ill let you know that, even though u might hate berkeley,
it is ranked number 8 in the Time Higher Education Supplement
and brown is ranked somewhere in the 40s or 50s maybe (they rank all schools in the world)</p>
<p>BIGTWIX,</p>
<p>Those rankings are relatively meaningless for a number of reasons. One is that it doesn't tell you the quality of education. For example, while Brown may not be as strong academically as Berkeley in terms of its research, it arguably offers a superior undergraduate education.</p>
<p>HAHA...UCLAri!!!!! ;)</p>
<p>Hello all, </p>
<p>I just discovered this forum, and wish I had done so quite a bit sooner. It would have been very helpful during the application process. </p>
<p>I'm currently a full-time employee at the Dept. of State and have been accepted to the SSP program as well as GWU's IA program. I plan on attending part-time while working and have not received any financial aid from either place. </p>
<p>What are some of your thoughts on the pros/cons of each school in comparison to each other?</p>
<p>Also, my interests lie in the study of conflict resolution and intelligence analysis. My eventual career goals are to either work in one of the alphabet-soup Fed. agencies or a NGO focused on Middle Eastern or African affairs. </p>
<p>Thanks for your help!</p>
<p>I was under the impression that the LSE had one of the finest undergraduate IR programs in the world. I understand this is a US-centric board but could someone tell me whether i'm completely wrong or not. With leading academics like Barry Buzan, and as a pioneering university in the subject, surely it should be held in higher regard than it seems to be in this thread...</p>
<p>franzfan,</p>
<p>There are a number of reasons, but the biggest negatives I argue are the lack of quantitative coursework, small number of classes, and high costs.</p>
<p>ubgood,</p>
<p>Do you like either one any better as of right now, or are you indifferent so far?</p>
<p>@UCLAri - Right now I'm leaning towards Georgetown as I got a good feeling from their open house, However, I'm curious as to the general views of the quality of the SSP program versus a more general IA program at GWU.</p>
<p>I think that they have a fantastic program. They definitely have some of the best names in your area of interest. </p>
<p>How much is the Dept. picking up?</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I didn't get any merit scholarships from either school, and because I'm not already in a policy career, the Dept. won't fund the education either. So this is all loans for me, at least initially. That said, the director of the SSP program did state that they keep some funds in reserve in order to offer fellowships to outstanding students midway through the first year.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I was under the impression that the LSE had one of the finest undergraduate IR programs in the world. I understand this is a US-centric board but could someone tell me whether i'm completely wrong or not. With leading academics like Barry Buzan, and as a pioneering university in the subject, surely it should be held in higher regard than it seems to be in this thread...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I too was under this impression for the undergrad program at LSE. Certainly, of those whom I have known the caliber of those going there is extremely high. But I think you hit it on the head: this is an American-centric board; frankly most people have heard pretty much of Oxford and Cambridge when it comes to European universities and understanding their reps. Thus, I wouldn't view most opinions here with a lot of credence (though UCLAri is certainly one of the more informed). I don't mean to cause offense here.</p>
<p>Well, I did consider LSE after admission to their program, but there were a lot of things I saw wrong with it. I imagine, however, that the name alone could carry you pretty far.</p>
<p>well
this is sorta off topic
but, since i can never find acceptance rates to schools outside of the US (unless u dig forever on their websites)
does anyone know what the acceptance rates are for LSE.
UCLAri (if u were saying u got into their grad program...maybe u would know how tough it is to get into their undergrad)</p>
<p>thanks</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, I did consider LSE after admission to their program, but there were a lot of things I saw wrong with it. I imagine, however, that the name alone could carry you pretty far.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>UCLAri, I don't know which you were admitted to, but I had the strong feeling that undergrad at LSE is actually more prestigious across the board than is the grad program. That the grad program is very good in economics and pretty good to great in the other areas, depending. I think the undergrad program is amazing across the spectrum, at least as I said, in terms of the people it graduates (based on the small sample I saw). These are vague impressions. But the bottom line is that the undergrad may actually supercede the grad at least across the board.</p>
<p>Everyone keeps saying that Columbia has a great IR program, but it doesn't even have that major. For grad school, it's awesome. For undergrad, unless you're in the 5 year program- and don't count on it because it's SO competitive- it's not very impressive.</p>
<p>Right now, I'm trying to decide between Tufts and GW (honors). Tufts is more impressive overall, but GW's in DC- and maybe the honors program counts for something? I also got in Barnard, which is part of Columbia, but I don't think I'll consider it because I've found the IR opportunities very lacking, since there are so few courses and the school overall doens't seem to have an international focus. NYC would have great internships though...</p>
<p>BIGTWIX,</p>
<p>Sorry, I have no clue. I don't even know if UK schools publish that data...</p>
<p>Sharone,</p>
<p>You don't need to be in an IR major to study IR. You can always just study it in a political science department.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sharone,</p>
<p>You don't need to be in an IR major to study IR. You can always just study it in a political science department.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly. And I would amplify furthermore that you don't necessarily want to study it in the way you do in grad schools which are more focused and professionally oriented anyway. As UCLAri noted, IR is a subset of Poli Sci. If you want to pursue IR, major in poli sci and preferably economics or economics primarily even. Columbia/Barnard is great for these, and personally if you've written Columbia off on this basis alone, I would question that decision on the basis of what I've said and UCLAri said. Talk to current students if you can. Talk to recent graduates if you can.</p>
<p>Tufts and GW are great choices. If you think you might want Capitol Hill experience, GW would be good. My bias would prefer Tufts. I perceive it to be a better school.</p>
<p>I think between these schools you should focus on being where you feel most comfortable and which one seems the most exciting choice to you.</p>
<p>And you should develop an overall gameplan too: if you want to pursue a career in IR, get some basics including economics, IR understanding, poli sci, and maybe a language and year abroad. Experience in the private sector always helps, by the way, no matter what they say. New York would be great for this.</p>
<p>In DC, you are going to have many opportunities, but you should look into whether there are ingrained preferences toward some schools vs. others in terms of undergrad internships. I don't want to be negative, but its possible that G'Town undergrads get more opps or that even Columbia U. ones do for summer positions.</p>
<p>If you are in an exploratory mindset (eg, "I have no idea what I really want to do, but IR sounds cool."), I would work on the basics of IR above as I said try out internships in many different kinds of things to see what you really like and then go from there. In my experience, you'll be better off going from private sector to public if that's a direction you take than vice versa.</p>
<p>Study econ, more econ, and even more econ! I cannot stress this enough. All of the best political scientists are also good at thinking with economic tools. </p>
<p>There's nothing that Tufts will offer that Columbia can't meet or exceed. Remember that tastes and interests change, and Columbia will offer a good deal more well-rounded options in the long run than Tufts or GW (though they are excellent schools.)</p>
<p>hm... you both make some good points. But honestly, I can't remember ever wanting to study ANYTHING other than IR. In fact, my top choice was Gtown SFS, where my classes would've been almost exclusively IR-related. So basically what I'm saying is, I know that I will probably get a more well-rounded education at Barnard/Columbia... but I much prefer to have a very focused education.</p>
<p>So, the ultimate question for me is: based on IR alone, which school is best: GW, Tufts or Columbia?</p>