Hide table of contents

We created this non-exhaustive List which was inspired and based on Konstantins personal research into Masters programmes. We expanded it with the help of others across the policy community. It was created for the 2023 cohort of fellows of the EU Tech Policy Fellowship hosted by Training for Good and includes a list of Masters in Europe, the UK and the US. 
CLICK HERE for the list. 

Limitations and Epistemic Status 

  • The list is based on personal experience, research, and limited feedback from others in the community. 
  • It is curated from a European perspective. Thus, the numbers and deadlines take European/EEA citizens as a reference point. Furthermore, whilst Masters from Europe, the UK and the US are listed, we have focussed on researching Masters in Europe. The latter lists are currently very incomplete. 
  • It's important to emphasise that this list is not exhaustive and may not represent all options of Masters in this Field. 
  • Additionally, the quality and relevance of each program may vary depending on individual needs, goals, and interests.
  • Therefore, we recommended that individuals interested in pursuing a career in tech policy or policy in general conduct their own research, explore various programs, and consider multiple sources of information before making a decision! Ultimately, the decision to pursue a particular graduate program should be based on a thorough evaluation of individual goals, resources, and circumstances.

What this post is not 

This post does not outline what to study and what to aim for in choosing your Masters Degree. It is supposed to help people who have already decided that they want to pursue a Masters in Tech Policy, Security Studies or Public Policy but does not mean to imply that these are your only or even best options if you want to enter the Tech Policy field. A possibly safer and more classical approach of entering EU policy is to study basic law and economics subjects as they still hold a high standing across departments and fields in policy (See this article on “Joining the EU bubble”). This would also give you more flexible career capital than tech policy degrees. 

To elaborate on these different paths a detailed post (such this one) outlining what to aim for in your studies if you want to contribute to tech policy, would be incredibly valuable and we encourage you to write this up and share your perspective if you have spent some time thinking about this! 

Created for who?

This list is aimed at people interested in working in public policy (especially in Europe) and in tech policy with a potential to specialise in AI but only provides a very narrow selection of options. Degrees with "tech" or "AI'' related words in the name are helpful to quickly signal your relevance on these topics. Many of the Masters in this list are geared towards people with a non-technical undergraduate degree in social sciences, economics etc. Thus, it excludes many Masters on Artificial Intelligence and Tech Policy that require you to have had a Computer Sciences or technical background. We wanted to share the list to help with some of the preliminary research in choosing a Masters programme. 

The inclusion of Security Studies Masters programmes comes from the argument that it seems like a viable path from which to enter inter/national think tanks or institutions working on relevant AI policy without having technical specialisations beforehand. 

Other considerations

Besides studying in Europe, studying in the US can be a great and high-impact option since many degrees are both highly regarded in Europe as well as allowing you to potentially work in US policy. We highly encourage you to read this post on working in US policy as a foreign national and this post on masters in the US, including a database of top options as found in this post. An internal tip we’ve received is that Georgia Tech’s public policy Masters is a popular choice, offering access to a range of AI efforts, tech policy specialists, philosophers, and multiple NSF AI Institutes. Purdue University is also launching a new Masters in tech policy and politics with a focus on regulation and compliance, set to launch in fall 2024.

Typically it seems to be a good option to aim for the most prestigious universities which in the EU bubble include the College of Europe, LSE, Sciences Po, Oxbridge, and possibly Bocconi. Another classic option is to pursue a degree with a law or econ heavy focus, as these are valuable skills to have in policy. You can then still supplement your education with other credentials, such as MOOCs, to signal competence in the tech side of things. 

It remains to be said that overall when it comes to the types of backgrounds that are valued in the field, those with STEM, law, and quantitative economics degrees tend to stand out. While degrees in political science, international relations, or policy are still valuable, they may not be as competitive in the job market since they are currently overrepresented and the EU seems to be moving towards diversifying these study backgrounds and “origins” of applicants. 

In summary, choosing the right Masters program requires careful consideration of your career goals and interests. Look for programs with a strong reputation and consider supplementing your education with additional credentials or skills to make yourself stand out in a competitive job market. By taking these steps, you can be well on your way to a rewarding career in tech policy.

Invitation to edit 

As mentioned above, this is nowhere near being an exhaustive list and we’d love to receive suggestions, feedback and any other comments that can improve the content of this Airtable. Please use the Feedback Form on Airtable (Link HERE) or email us directly at sarah.fberg@gmail.com. Since we did not include economics or law degrees in our list, we’d like to encourage people to post their favourite ones in the comment section below so that we might include them. 

Get in touch. Please reach out if you are considering which masters degree would be most impactful to work in tech policy, we have a wide network of people in similar situations and might be able to connect you.

Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 12m read
 · 
Economic growth is a unique field, because it is relevant to both the global development side of EA and the AI side of EA. Global development policy can be informed by models that offer helpful diagnostics into the drivers of growth, while growth models can also inform us about how AI progress will affect society. My friend asked me to create a growth theory reading list for an average EA who is interested in applying growth theory to EA concerns. This is my list. (It's shorter and more balanced between AI/GHD than this list) I hope it helps anyone who wants to dig into growth questions themselves. These papers require a fair amount of mathematical maturity. If you don't feel confident about your math, I encourage you to start with Jones 2016 to get a really strong grounding in the facts of growth, with some explanations in words for how growth economists think about fitting them into theories. Basics of growth These two papers cover the foundations of growth theory. They aren't strictly essential for understanding the other papers, but they're helpful and likely where you should start if you have no background in growth. Jones 2016 Sociologically, growth theory is all about finding facts that beg to be explained. For half a century, growth theory was almost singularly oriented around explaining the "Kaldor facts" of growth. These facts organize what theories are entertained, even though they cannot actually validate a theory – after all, a totally incorrect theory could arrive at the right answer by chance. In this way, growth theorists are engaged in detective work; they try to piece together the stories that make sense given the facts, making leaps when they have to. This places the facts of growth squarely in the center of theorizing, and Jones 2016 is the most comprehensive treatment of those facts, with accessible descriptions of how growth models try to represent those facts. You will notice that I recommend more than a few papers by Chad Jones in this
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achieve 25% on its Frontier Math
Omnizoid
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
Edit 1/29: Funding is back, baby!  Crossposted from my blog.   (This could end up being the most important thing I’ve ever written. Please like and restack it—if you have a big blog, please write about it). A mother holds her sick baby to her chest. She knows he doesn’t have long to live. She hears him coughing—those body-wracking coughs—that expel mucus and phlegm, leaving him desperately gasping for air. He is just a few months old. And yet that’s how old he will be when he dies. The aforementioned scene is likely to become increasingly common in the coming years. Fortunately, there is still hope. Trump recently signed an executive order shutting off almost all foreign aid. Most terrifyingly, this included shutting off the PEPFAR program—the single most successful foreign aid program in my lifetime. PEPFAR provides treatment and prevention of HIV and AIDS—it has saved about 25 million people since its implementation in 2001, despite only taking less than 0.1% of the federal budget. Every single day that it is operative, PEPFAR supports: > * More than 222,000 people on treatment in the program collecting ARVs to stay healthy; > * More than 224,000 HIV tests, newly diagnosing 4,374 people with HIV – 10% of whom are pregnant women attending antenatal clinic visits; > * Services for 17,695 orphans and vulnerable children impacted by HIV; > * 7,163 cervical cancer screenings, newly diagnosing 363 women with cervical cancer or pre-cancerous lesions, and treating 324 women with positive cervical cancer results; > * Care and support for 3,618 women experiencing gender-based violence, including 779 women who experienced sexual violence. The most important thing PEPFAR does is provide life-saving anti-retroviral treatments to millions of victims of HIV. More than 20 million people living with HIV globally depend on daily anti-retrovirals, including over half a million children. These children, facing a deadly illness in desperately poor countries, are now going