Once a year or so, I devote a blog post to career counseling. Aspiring wonks: this one’s for you. Those who have already been through this drill, feel free to weigh in.

The best reason to pursue a career in arms control is that you will engage in meaningful work, one of life’s great rewards. Beware of trying to save the world: the world is a very difficult place to save, and the more you seek peace, the less of it you may know in your personal life. It is a regrettable fact that game-changers related to the Bomb are more likely to be negative than positive. This is why success tends to be incremental, while setbacks can be immense and recovery can take so long. Patience and skill can be rewarded. If you are capable and persistent, you might help make the world a little bit safer.

Is graduate school a wise investment for those who seek this kind of a career? A case can be made that a bad entry-level job can teach you more than an expensive graduate school. I counsel otherwise: a good graduate school education can help you land a good entry-level job. Of course, if you are brilliant and driven, you can skip college as well as graduate school. But not all of us are Bill Gates or Steve Jobs.

Some graduate schools are better than others in this field. My reference points are most definitely not those used in the U.S. News & World Report rankings. Instead, here are my overtly biased criteria:

1) Is the school situated in a location which is itself a learning experience? I went to graduate school (Johns Hopkins SAIS) in Washington, D.C. from 1968-1970. Outside the classroom, I majored in tear gas. Some of my professors were very distinguished and were working on important books, but Washington was a better teacher. If you are interested in international security and global affairs, it’s hard to beat Washington and New York for learning experiences outside the classroom. And, yes, it makes a difference if you go to school nearby, but not in, the big city. There’s no substitute for in-situ learning.

2) Take a close look at the graduate school’s faculty ratio between academics and practitioners in your area of interest. The practitioners are likely to teach you more than the academics. They are also more likely to help you find an entry-level position. But some practitioner-teachers are duds. Ask around before you enlist.

3) Does the grad school insist that you take statistics and calculus? Not disqualifying, but not a good sign, either. This is an indicator of a curriculum devised by academics that are certain they know what’s best for non-academic career paths. For some public policy fields, statistics and calculus are essential. For arms control, strong analytical, political, historical, regional and language skills, as well cultural sensitivity, matter far more than statistics and calculus.

4) Is there a prospective mentor at the grad school? If so, this can be crucial.

I’m also asked a great deal about whether a Ph.D. makes sense. I do not have one, so my answer reflects this bias, as well. A Ph.D. will take many years and could cost large sums. It’s obligatory for those who are committed to teaching at the college level. The downside here is that you may have to join a guild, most likely Political Science, that does not value functional expertise and security studies, and that dwells in theoretical pursuits. Some Ph.D.s manage to hook up with academic centers that do value public policy, and then use their university as a base for periodic forays into government. (The occasional law degree and law firm can also serve this purpose.) These are relatively rare opportunities. A Ph.D. can also help you become a principal investigator at institutions around the Beltway that rely heavily on government contracts.

A Ph.D. may not be worth the time and money if you are primarily interested in getting your hands dirty doing security policy. Very few staffers working on Capitol Hill have Ph.D.s. The same is true for the troops at the Departments of State, Defense, and Energy. If these jobs appeal to you, a Ph.D. doesn’t help and is likely to delay your career path. I’ve done a good deal of hiring over the years, and have had good luck choosing well-trained graduates without Ph.D.s. If you’re looking for comparative advantage in the job market for this line of work, whether in think tanks, the Hill, or the executive branch, I recommend good grades, “strategic” travel experiences, critical language skills, and developing expertise in a troubled region.