When we advise people exploring policy and public service careers, some of the most common questions we get are about “fit” for policy work: Would I be happy in this line of work? Would I be likely to succeed and thrive professionally? Which roles am I best suited for? And how can I learn more about my fit?

If you’re potentially interested in policy work, testing your “fit” to learn how well-suited you are for it is important. If you hate your job, you’ll be both less happy generally and less effective at the job. Success in policy and government often relies heavily on taking initiative, thinking creatively, gracefully navigating uncertainty, and building coalitions—things that are hard to do if you’re miserable. Also, your mental health is important! You shouldn’t invest in a policy career if you expect you won’t like being there and risk burning out.¹

At the same time, people often self-select out of policy careers too early, mistakenly thinking they’re a bad fit based on a single bad experience or an overly narrow understanding of the career landscape.

This article aims to help you avoid both of these mistakes. It discusses qualities that are valuable across the landscape and in specific sub-parts of the policy and government world (e.g. in Congress, research, or as senior agency staff). In general, because the policy world and government involve so many different kinds of work and types of organizations, we think that the great majority of readers could be a good fit for some career in this space. There are good jobs for people from diverse backgrounds and with highly varied skill sets and personalities. Often, the most important and difficult question is not if you are a good fit at all but where within the policy world someone with your profile can best plug in.

We also suggest ways to test your fit for policy work to get real-world feedback about which of these qualities you have (or can acquire)—helping you make an informed decision about which policy roles you should pursue, if any. These fit tests range from “cheap tests” like reading think tank reports or speaking with policy professionals to higher-effort and more costly activities such as internships, fellowships, and graduate school.

Thinking about your fit for policy

When considering your fit for policy and government work, you can think about:

1. Your fit for the work in general, which can help you decide whether you want to pursue a policy career at all or should instead focus on a different sector (e.g. academia, nonprofits, or industry). 
2. Your fit for specific institutions, roles, and areas, which allows you to narrow down your list of options within policy and specialize to develop an area of expertise.

Your fit for policy work in general

Given the huge diversity of roles, there isn’t such a thing as a generic “public policy experience,” which can make it difficult to resolve the “fit” question in general terms. You may be a good fit for an advocacy role at a think tank but a bad fit for a research role there. You may like working at one federal agency—perhaps due to the unique features of its culture, mission, or type of work—but dislike working at another one. You may enjoy yourself more when Congress is active and you feel your work can materially impact policy but feel frustrated during election years if things feel stuck and politicized.

Still, there are some general indicators of policy fit we discuss later, including certain personality traits, preferences, and skills that can make you more or less likely to thrive in policy careers across the board. Also, you can gradually learn from your experiences in the policy world as you make them: it’s a positive signal about your fit for policy generally if you tend to find those experiences fun, engaging, and insightful, while it’s a negative signal if the opposite is the case.

But it’s important not to give undue weight to any individual experience: while having a single bad experience in a policy context (e.g. during an internship) does count as some evidence against pursuing policy work in general, it might also have been due to your particular role, project, supervisor, office, agency, or unrelated factors in your life. So, it’s helpful to try to identify the specific factors that made it a bad (or good) experience and learn whether those factors will apply to other policy roles. For example, if your negative experience was due to having a bad supervisor, that probably doesn’t tell you much about your fit for policy overall.

Your fit for specific policy institutions, roles, and areas

Even if you’re confident in pursuing a policy career, it’s essential to learn about what specific roles you might most enjoy and excel. Again, this is a vast field, and your fit may differ across: 

1. institutions (e.g. think tanks, Congress, or the executive branch),
2. types of work (e.g. research, advocacy, or program management),
3. policy areas (e.g. particular topics in AI, biosecurity, or cyber),
4. levers in government (e.g. budgeting and appropriations, regulatory policy, diplomacy, government procurement, or standard-setting), and
5. types of workplace (e.g. working at a small team in a new organization, or at a large established organization). 

Don’t worry, there is no need to figure all of this out before you’ve ever even worked in policy. If you’re just starting out, think about where you might best fit in initially, but don’t narrow your options too much by considering only roles that match a highly specific combination of the above factors. 

Within the policy world, much of the professional experience and other benefits (skills, knowledge, network, etc.) you gain in any particular role are likely to transfer to other positions to some degree. As people progress in policy careers and make pivots within or between roles, it’s common for them to maintain at least one of the above specializations while switching up others. For example, you might start your career working on drug development regulation in a think tank, then transition into a congressional staffer role where your portfolio includes healthcare, science, and technology policy, and from there, you might move into the National Science Foundation to work on science funding broadly.

Attributes for policy career success

Certain professional qualities and attitudes will help you thrive in basically any policy role; other qualities are only required for some specific roles. 

Our policy skills guide provides advice on some abilities (e.g. writing, communications, and interpersonal skills) that are essential in most policy positions, regardless of the specific institution or role. You don’t need to have mastered all these skills when you start working in policy and you can generally improve with practice.

What’s typically harder (but not impossible) to change are certain personal attributes, character traits, and attitudes, which make you more likely to enjoy working in policy generally and to excel at your job. Not every policy role requires being exceptional in all of the below attributes, but they tend to help.

Helpful attributes for most policy jobs

These attributes will help you succeed wherever you work in US federal policy:

1. Professionalism, including knowing what to say or write about publicly and behaviors to avoid (e.g. illegal drugs, inflammatory social media posts, and any activities potentially inhibiting security clearances). This also includes feeling comfortable working in professional environments where people usually wear formal clothing.
2. High openness to working with people with different motivations and worldviews. Most policy roles involve interacting with a wide range of individuals, some of whom will hold beliefs or ideals that you don’t share. As such, it’s essential to get along and work productively with people you disagree with. This trait benefits from emotional intelligence, the ability to deal with challenging work dynamics and potential conflicts, and a willingness to “meet people where they are” in communication.
3. Being kind and social. In many policy roles (especially in government), every project is a group project, so you need to get along at least reasonably well with your collaborators and effectively manage interpersonal relationships. Being a pleasant person is very valuable, especially in DC, where reputation and success often depend on networks of trust. People want nice colleagues, so individuals who are perceived as cold, dishonest, or arrogant are generally less likely to succeed and make positive contributions to their area of policy. There are exceptions, including certain individual contributor-style roles where this matters less.
4. Intrinsic motivation. For policy work, it’s essential to maintain motivation even when complete success is unlikely, feedback loops are slow, progress is hard to assess, and positive developments can’t be neatly attributed to particular individuals. 
5. Humility and learning mindset. Policy work is often very complex. To succeed in and make positive contributions to the policy process, it helps to appreciate this complexity and to intrinsically enjoy learning. Additionally, it’s a lot easier to weather this unpredictability if you treat your work as a privilege and opportunity, not an entitlement, and focus on serving others, not getting credit along the way.
6. Being proactive and entrepreneurial. Some of the most successful people in policy are those who can spot gaps and come up with creative ways to fill them. You’re more likely to make a difference if you’re proactively looking out for opportunities to improve processes and outcomes, form your own views about policy priorities, and aim to exceed rather than simply meet expectations in your role.

Another thing to consider is your geographic preferences and constraints. If you want to work on federal-level policy, willingness to spend significant time in Washington DC matters a lot. While 85% of all civilian full-time federal employees live and work outside of the DC metro area, most positions contributing to federal policy-making are based in or around DC. Few roles are fully remote, and even those typically benefit substantially from prior in-person DC experience and may require regular visits. Exceptions include some federal agencies headquartered outside of DC (like the CDC in Atlanta), the national labs, and some think tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations (in NYC as well as DC) and the RAND Corporation (in Santa Monica, Boston, Pittsburgh, Cambridge (UK), and remote as well as DC). Of course, you can also do impactful policy work at the state and local level, and in many other places.

Helpful attributes for some policy jobs 

Some attributes and attitudes are important for specific policy roles and institutions, including (but not limited to):

1. Openness to work on a portfolio of issues. Many roles demand working on a portfolio of issues (e.g. staffer in Congress or the White House), even if not all correspond to your top policy areas of interest. As individuals become more senior, roles tend to cover more topic areas.² As such, many policy professionals are generalists, though some policy jobs allow for more specialization (e.g. think tank research).
2. Ability to endure (and thrive in) hierarchical and bureaucratic organizations. Some government employees struggle with their organizations’ structure and work culture, feeling like a small cog in a large machine. Not all policy organizations are highly bureaucratic, though. The work culture can differ a lot between the parts of government, agencies, and even across teams within the same organization.
3. Comfort working in politicized environments. Political dynamics tend to be most pronounced when working on hot-button, partisan issues (e.g. immigration) rather than more niche, technocratic, or bipartisan issues (e.g. semiconductor policy). Some roles are also inherently much more exposed to political dynamics (e.g. many staffer roles in Congress or the White House) than others (e.g. think tank researchers and most civil service positions).
4. Ability and willingness to work long hours over extended periods. Many policy jobs (but far from all) can be fast-paced and demanding, with long working hours and high stress levels. This is the case, for instance, in many mid-level and senior jobs in Congress and the White House. In these positions, balancing work and personal life can be challenging, and they involve a higher risk of burnout. But this is not true of all policy jobs, such as at most think tanks, more relaxed Congressional offices, or civil service positions in many agencies.
5. Willingness and ability to accept lower salaries than in private sector jobs. Many policy roles—particularly junior roles in Congress and think tanks—aren’t as well compensated as private sector roles at similar qualifications and experience levels (though policy roles typically compare favorably to roles in academia and NGOs at similar levels of experience). Salaries also tend to progress more slowly in policy than in industry, creating a pay gap over time, which can be challenging considering the relatively high living costs in DC. But not all policy roles pay little; salaries can increase significantly as you advance. For example, federal employees can earn between $100,000 – $160,000 per year with a graduate degree and a few years of experience, and they receive benefits that, on average, exceed those offered in the private sector. For details on salaries in the executive branch, see the General Schedule payscale, though note the significant cost-of-living pay adjustments for high cost areas (e.g. >30% in DC). Similarly, senior congressional staffers (e.g. Legislative Director, Chief of Staff, Communications Director) often earn between $100,000 – $180,000 per year.³ And senior roles outside of government can earn more than that.
6. Ability to move from abstraction into implementation—most policy change is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration (i.e. figuring out and negotiating implementation details), which strong “ideas people” can struggle with. This attribute is especially important in non-research roles, particularly in the executive branch, and is similar to the difference between scientists and entrepreneurs in the technical world. But if you mainly like doing research, there are organizations (e.g. certain think tanks or FFRDCs) that have roles along those lines. 

Common misconceptions about personal fit for policy work

There are also some common misconceptions about the nature of public policy work, which can mislead people considering their fit. These misconceptions include that you must be highly extroverted or sleazy to advance professionally, or that you require very specialized technical skills or many years of experience to make a difference. This is not necessarily the case:

• You don’t need to be an extrovert or exceptionally charismatic to be successful in policy, though strong interpersonal skills and comfort with networking certainly help. Plenty of senior policy practitioners identify as introverts; indeed, introversion can be a benefit (particularly in specialized, research-heavy roles), as many policy positions involve much reading, writing, and researching day-to-day.
• You often don’t need deep subject matter expertise to work in a given policy area, for better or worse. For example, you’re not required to have a technical background to work on technology-related policy. Having a solid technical understanding and credentials can certainly help, but it’s not required for most roles, and the bar for what counts as technical expertise in DC can be surprisingly low. 
• You don’t need to be sleazy, disingenuous, or unscrupulous to advance in DC—typically, the opposite is actually true. Contrary to the stereotype and occasional “House of Cards”-like portrayals, many policy professionals and public servants are upright, principled, and public-spirited people trying to do the right thing, including those in politicized environments like Congress and the White House. This is partly because relationships and trust are so important for many policy roles, and it’s hard to maintain these if one gets a reputation for being dishonest or mean.
• You don’t need to be very senior to make a meaningful difference. Policy professionals do earn more responsibility as their career progresses, and certain organizations can be hierarchical. But even many early-career professionals in DC report feeling like their work is meaningful and impactful. Of course, the potential for impact depends critically on the role, institution, political windows of opportunity, current events, and other factors. Legislative staffers in Congress are especially notable for how much responsibility they can get early in their careers.

Differences in fit between policy institutions

There are important differences between roles across policy institutions like Congress, the executive branch, and think tanks. Reflecting on these differences can help you decide which institution(s) you might want to work in and avoid mistakenly overgeneralizing from limited experiences. For instance, if you fear you are a bad fit for Congress, do not confuse that with being a bad fit for policy in general—there are many ways and places to do valuable policy work.

We describe the different institutions below in very general terms, but every organization and office is different, so there are many exceptions to these characterizations. And just as institutions differ vastly, so do roles within these institutions—as such, your fit for a particular type of role does not always predict fit in another.

Congress

Working on “the Hill” has some unique selling points. Hill staffers do an incredible amount of networking and coalition-building as they navigate stakeholders across offices and interest groups. If you enjoy the adrenaline of an “all-hands-on-deck” hectic week with your team, connect quickly with strangers (including those with differing beliefs), sort through competing demands on your time effectively, and have a knack for navigating complex social or political environments, you might be uniquely suited to public service in Congress. Also, formal credentials like graduate degrees matter relatively less in Congress than elsewhere in DC.

But Congress is not for everyone. Many people—even those interested in and suited to policy work more broadly—will be a bad cultural or professional fit for the Hill. Workdays are often hectic and unpredictable in Congress, and hours can be long. Workplace culture is relatively formal and hierarchical, with junior staffers having little autonomy. Pay is relatively low (especially in junior roles), and you do not have long-term job security. Congressional work is often explicitly partisan and politicized. 

Part 1 of our Congress guide discusses these and other aspects of being on the Hill in more detail; congressional work can be great, but it’s important to go in with eyes open.

Executive branch

Consisting of more than 100 federal agencies and the White House, with millions of employees, the executive branch is by far the biggest and most diverse policy institution. This diversity of agencies and roles makes it especially difficult to generalize which qualities predict personal fit. 

Compared to staffers in Congress, civil servants in federal agencies often have a much narrower issue portfolio, highly expert colleagues, decent pay and long-term security, and more reasonable and more predictable hours. This is why many in DC prefer working in federal agencies over Congress. But, like congressional staffers, they also need to be good at putting out fires and responding to the latest crisis, building coalitions, grasping the context of an issue, and (probably) wearing formal attire most days. They can also be more hierarchical and slow-moving. And executive agencies tend to put more weight on educational credentials than Congress. Of course, with such a broad range of agencies and roles, there are exceptions to each of the above points.

Think tanks

Talent for research and long-form writing is generally valuable for think tank research positions. People who primarily enjoy writing for other academics may not enjoy think tank research as much as academia. Others may find this work overly academic: if you’re eager to get involved directly in the execution of policy, roles within government may be a better fit for you.⁴ But most think tanks do more than just publish research. Some specialize in ‘convening’ groups of experts within and outside government and so prize networking and event-planning skills; meanwhile, others significantly focus on advocacy, prioritizing political judgment, and relationship-building with policymakers and journalists who can shape the policy environment.

Compared to working in Congress or agency positions, think tank jobs tend to be less hectic, with greater potential for work-life balance, and are typically more narrowly focused; yet, think tanks are also further removed from actual policy decisions. Relative to the culture in academia, think tanks are often more action-oriented and communications-focused; compared to tech companies, think tanks are typically more risk-averse and “old-school” culturally (e.g. by expecting formal attire). Seniority and credentials, rather than pure performance, can weigh heavily in hiring and promotion decisions, though there are also meaningful roles for junior hires.

Part 3 of our think tank guide goes into more detail on assessing your fit for think tank work.

Other institutions

The above sections focus on three categories of policy institutions that people commonly consider, but they are far from comprehensive. Many of the same fit considerations explained above might also apply, for example, to working for government contractors or public sector consultancies, the many kinds of nonprofits besides think tanks, lobbying firms, media outlets, and more. But there are also different sector-specific fit considerations for each of these. Covering these individually would go beyond the scope of this article, but if you’re considering any of these places, we recommend applying some of the same “fit tests” that we talk about below.

Testing your fit for policy careers

There are many ways to gather information about your fit for (particular types of) policy work. 

Some of these are “cheap tests” of fit that you could do by yourself in a few hours, often without leaving the house (e.g. reading think tank reports, talking to policy professionals). These are great starting points for testing your fit, especially if you’re new to thinking about policy as a potential career, but they’re limited in how much you can learn from them. This is because they don’t let you experience what it’s like to actually do the work (e.g. writing a think tank report, being a policy professional). While cheap tests aren’t a replacement for higher-investment fit tests, they can help you figure out whether it’s worth exploring further.

The most informative way to test your fit for a certain line of work is typically to actually do that work or something resembling it. These fit tests require more effort (e.g. internships, fellowships, graduate school), equivalent to weeks, months, or even years of work. But these activities also allow you to learn much more about your fit than the cheap tests and also gain other career benefits.

Testing your fit for policy work
Effort	Activity
Cheap tests (effort: hours to days)	1. Self-study 2. Reading policy reports and newsletters 3. Attending policy events (e.g. webinars or conferences) 4. Speaking with policy professionals 5. Completing online courses 6. Participating in advocacy events and coalitions 7. Reflecting on your fit for policy
Medium-effort tests (effort: weeks to months)	1. Policy internships 2. School work (classes, assignments, thesis) 3. On-campus work (relevant RA/TA roles) 4. Campus student groups 5. Policy seminars and courses 6. Part-time / short-term fellowships 7. Informal collaboration
High-effort tests (effort: months to years)	1. Policy fellowships 2. Graduate school 3. Full-time roles

If you complete any of the activities suggested in the above table, consider how you feel in the process and reflect on what aspects of the activity make you feel this way. You can ask yourself:

1. Does this feel boring and unpleasant, or motivating and engaging? How sustainable does this feel? 
2. Am I getting positive feedback from my supervisors, colleagues, or professors? 
3. How well am I performing relative to others with similar experience levels?
4. How easy is it for me to build rapport with others in this environment?
5. What traits do I observe in the people who seem to perform well in this environment? Do I share any of these traits, or do I see a way I can further develop them?

The answers to these questions are signals about your fit for (a particular type of) policy work. 

Cheap tests (hours to days)

• Self-study: There is a lot you can learn about the history, culture, and working conditions in different policy environments simply by engaging with policy-relevant resources like newsletters, books, podcasts, government strategy documents, etc. For example, if you’re interested in working in Congress, consider reading books like Surviving Inside Congress and Climbing the Hill.
• Reading policy reports and newsletters: There are many excellent reports from policy research organizations like think tanks and the Congressional Research Service. These reports can provide high-quality, accessible overviews of policy areas and specific policy proposals. If you’re interested in learning about emerging technology policy issues, check out our list of think tanks focusing on these issues and look for relevant reports and newsletters on their websites. For example, some good starting places are CSET and Brookings for AI policy; CHS and the Bipartisan Commission for biosecurity policy; New America and CDT for civic tech; CFR and the Atlantic Council for cyber policy; FAS and NTI for nuclear policy; and CSIS and SWF for space policy. But it’s normal for detailed reports, especially on technical or niche topics, to seem a bit boring or hard to follow until you develop a better understanding of the topic—even if you have a great policy fit.
• Track daily political news for a few weeks: Make a habit of skimming stories from politics and policy-focused outlets like Politico, Foreign Policy, or The Hill. Most policy professionals follow political news—often casually, but sometimes intensely—and staying informed is valuable for navigating DC culture effectively.
• Attending policy events (e.g. webinars, workshops, or conferences): Many think tanks host regular events that are open to the public, including many online webinars in recent years (often recordings are available). Check out the think tank websites listed here to learn about upcoming events specific to emerging tech issues. Our policy area webpages also highlight conferences relevant to AI, biosecurity, civic tech, cyber, nuclear security, and space.
• Speaking with policy professionals: Among the best ways to learn about policy work (and expand your network) is to talk to practitioners about their day-to-day work, their issues of interest, and their organization’s culture. Our networking in policy guide offers advice on connecting with policy professionals, such as via cold emails, LinkedIn, your school’s career services, or your professional and demographic affiliations. There are also several policy networks and organizations aiming to support professionals from underrepresented backgrounds, including the Public Leadership Education Network, Make Room, NatSecGirlSquad, Women of Color Advancing Peace, Security, and Conflict Transformation, and the Leadership Council for Women in National Security.
• Completing online courses: Platforms like Coursera, LinkedIn Learning, and Udemy offer various free or cheap online courses relevant to policy. Our policy area pages highlight online courses on AI, biosecurity, civic tech, cyber, nuclear security, and space.
• Participating in advocacy coalitions and events: There are many “policy coalitions” organized around specific policy goals or issues. Consider engaging with them if you find one or more whose mission you share. Relatedly, many public interest organizations organize issue-specific “advocacy days” or “lobby days” that are often open to the public. These events bring together activists, constituents, nonprofits, and other interested groups to coordinate and often meet with lawmakers and government officials. You can find various policy coalitions and advocacy/lobby days via online search. 
• Reflecting on your fit for policy: Write down your skills, strengths, and interests, and consider how they map onto different roles in policy organizations. As our full-time policy roles guide notes, “If you excel at research, you might consider think tanks or government research organizations (like an FFRDC or the Congressional Research Service); if you enjoy fast-paced, collaborative work on legislation, consider working as a legislative staffer in Congress; if you enjoy politics and have strong communication skills, you could become an advocate for an interest group or work in a congressional campaign; and if you have strong project and people management skills, you might find appealing opportunities to work on policy implementation in agencies.”

Medium-effort tests (weeks to months)

• Internships: Interning in policy organizations is a great early-career opportunity to explore whether you’d enjoy and excel in different types of policy work and to compare public policy to your other sectors of interest. While internships can be great fit tests, they generally differ from full-time employment: interns typically have much less responsibility than full-time staff, less context on the organization, and less experience performing the particular tasks. So, as an intern, pay close attention to the work of your full-time colleagues and supervisors, and reflect on whether you’d enjoy and be good at their work. If at all possible, speak with your full-time colleagues to help you answer these questions. If you’re a student, consider participating in your school’s Semester in DC program (if there’s one) and applying for a remote, part-time internship with a government agency via the Virtual Student Federal Service (VSFS).⁵
• School work (classes, assignments, and theses): During college, you can learn about government and different policy areas by taking policy-relevant classes and writing your class assignments or thesis about related topics. While school work can allow you to learn about the policy world, it typically doesn’t closely resemble the day-to-day experience of policy professionals. The writing and research in college tend to be more academic (e.g. in terms of style, methodology, and target audience) than what’s involved in many policy jobs, even in writing-heavy think tank research positions.
• On-campus work: As a student, you might also be able to build policy-relevant experience through research or teaching assistantships (“RA” or “TA” positions) with professors working in relevant areas. It’s best if the professor has first-hand experience and relationships in DC policymaking institutions. But it can also be valuable to RA in a technical lab if you’re interested in science and technology policy or want to explore your fit for technical research as well.
• Campus student groups: In college, you could also get involved with policy-relevant campus student groups, such as student magazines, Model United Nations, or political groups (be intentional about affiliating yourself with partisan groups). Engaging with these groups can allow you to explore certain aspects of policy work (e.g. policy writing and research, debating policy proposals). But be mindful of the time commitment and also consider less costly or more informative ways to explore public policy.
• Policy seminars and courses: Some think tanks and academic organizations offer training seminars and courses on specific policy topics. These programs are typically free, occur in the summer, and last between a few days to a few weeks. Some examples include the Henry Clay Center’s two-week College Student Congress, UC San Diego’s two-week Public Policy and Nuclear Threats Boot Camp, the Public Leadership Education Network’s policy seminars for college women, and the various summer opportunities offered by conservative or libertarian policy organizations.
• Part-time and short-term fellowships: Many policy fellowships are full-time programs lasting an entire year or more. But there are some fellowships relevant to emerging technology issues that are either part-time or only last a few months at most. These part-time opportunities include the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Project on Nuclear Issues (PONI), the Center for Health Security’s Emerging Leaders in Biosecurity Fellowship (ELBI), RAND’s Technology and Security Policy Fellowship (TASP, also available full-time), and the Council on Strategic Risks’ Ending Bioweapons Fellowship and Nuclear Risk Reduction Fellowship—but note that except for PONI all of these programs target mid-career subject matter experts (though your expertise doesn’t necessarily have to be in policy). A few short-term, full-time fellowships include the National Academies of Science’s 12-week Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellowship for STEM graduate degree students or recent graduates and the 10-week Aspen Tech Policy Hub Fellowship for technologists.
• Informal collaboration: You may be able to contribute to short policy projects by asking a policy professional if they could use any help in their work, such as support for a research project. Doing this is less common and institutionalized than the other fit tests on this list, but it was recommended to us by some senior policy practitioners who found it very helpful in testing their fit and getting a foot in the door. Such collaborations would have similar benefits to an internship, but they may be easier to do part-time, remotely, on shorter notice, and in an area you’re especially interested in. The main downsides are that your work would likely be unpaid, you’re less likely to get good mentorship, and you’ll likely have fewer networking opportunities. Collaborations like this may be more likely to succeed if you already have at least some subject-matter knowledge and know policy professionals working on interesting topics, though a cold email might also work. Send a message that signals your learning and interest (e.g. by discussing the researcher’s work and your own research ideas and experience) and make sure you have the time and interest to follow through on the collaboration. If you already have significant subject-matter expertise outside of policy (e.g. in technology), there might also be more opportunities for you to formally collaborate with policy professionals.

High-effort tests (months to years)

• Policy fellowships: Besides offering training and networking opportunities, fellowships are often designed specifically to allow individuals with different backgrounds and levels of experience to explore policy work full-time for 1-2 years. Some programs aim to support recent graduates in exploring their fit for policy; others target mid-career professionals from non-policy fields (e.g. STEM, business, or law) to help them transition into public service. Fellowships are often better than internships as fit tests since they more closely resemble the work of traditional full-time employees. If you’re particularly interested in Congress or the executive branch, consider our congressional fellowships list and this federal agency fellowship database.
• Graduate school: Alongside many other benefits, completing a policy-relevant graduate degree (e.g. master’s programs or law school) can be great for learning about different policy areas, institutions, and processes. But considering the substantial cost of graduate school (in terms of both time and money), we recommend getting a policy-focused graduate degree only after testing your fit for policy in other ways to ensure you’re actually getting the right degree. Many graduate programs are much more academic than policy work. So, if you’re pursuing a career in public policy, look for practitioner-oriented programs rather than academic programs. During your degree, consider directing much (or even most) of your effort toward pursuing relevant internships and part-time work experiences that give you stronger fit signals for various policy roles. If you’re completing a non-policy-oriented degree (e.g. most standard STEM degrees, social science, business, and humanities degrees), it’s likely you won’t learn much about the functioning of government or the policy process in your classes.
• Full-time roles: The most reliable way to explore your fit for policy work is actually to do the work. If you’re struggling to find a full-time position in DC or have a location constraint, you can test your policy fit by working at different levels of government (e.g. as a staffer in a state legislature or working in a state or local government agency). And if you’re transitioning from a different field, consider if there are intermediate positions allowing you to learn more about policy work, leverage your background, and advance your policy career development. For example, a technologist might transition into policy by first working for the government in a technical role as a stepping stone to future policy-focused roles. As a scientist, you might also work for one of the national labs or other government-affiliated research organizations.