Health
Healthcare financing, pharmaceutical regulation, mental health infrastructure, public health preparedness, and insurance market design.
A global policy challenge for the next generation
International
Policy Conference
2027 Finals in Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Discover IPC ↘2027
Our mission
About the International Policy Conference
The International Policy Conference, or IPC, was established in 2026 by a group of Harvard students and graduates in hopes of providing exposure to global perspectives to future leaders early in their education. We strive to encourage students to take some of the problems they might have seen in their communities and ask not just “what is the problem” but “why does it persist, how can we solve it, and who can we work with to change it.” IPC challenges students by delving deep into fields they might never have encountered in school, such as economics, international law, public health, environmental science, and more. In the process of developing research, synthesis, public speaking, negotiation, and persuasive communication skills, students will be given the unique opportunity to get their policy recommendations to the legislators whose vote influences real-world outcomes in their communities.
How the conference works →Past Proposals
Policy Examples from Around the World
1
United States
Healthcare
Expanding Medicaid coverage in rural communities through telehealth infrastructure investment
2
European Union
Environmental
Carbon border adjustment mechanism to reduce emissions leakage in steel manufacturing
3
India
Education
Digital literacy programs for girls in underserved districts using mobile technology
4
Kenya
Economic
Mobile banking regulations to expand financial inclusion for smallholder farmers
5
Brazil
Housing
Zoning reform to incentivize mixed-income housing development in São Paulo metro area
6
Australia
Technology
AI governance framework for algorithmic accountability in public sector decision-making
A world of questions
Eight Policy Categories
Environmental
Climate mitigation, carbon pricing, biodiversity regulation, environmental justice, and international climate governance.
Economic & Fiscal
Tax policy, public expenditure, labor markets, trade policy, income inequality, and macroeconomic stabilization.
AI & Technology
AI regulation, data privacy, algorithmic accountability, platform governance, cybersecurity, and digital infrastructure.
Education
School funding equity, higher education access, early childhood development, curriculum policy, and teacher workforce.
International Relations
Foreign policy, arms control, multilateral institutions, humanitarian law, refugee policy, and non-proliferation.
Housing & Urban
Affordable housing production, zoning and land use, homelessness, urban infrastructure, and community development.
Civil Rights
Policing policy, sentencing reform, juvenile justice, voting rights, civil liberties, and anti-discrimination law.
From idea to impact
Overview of International Policy
Conference Stages
Stage I
Policy Research
Build the foundation: define a policy problem, investigate its context, and develop a research-backed recommendation.
Stage II
Policy Brief
Translate your research into a concise, rigorous policy brief that makes a compelling case for action.
Stage III
Video Pitch
Bring your proposal to life in a clear and creative pitch for a broad public audience.
Stage IV
Finals
Selected finalists present their ideas and take part in an executive question-and-answer session in Boston.
Competition Standards
Requirements & Judging Criteria
I
Policy Brief Requirements
Mandatory Brief Structure
Executive Summary
150 words max. State the problem, proposed intervention, and expected primary outcome in jargon-free prose.
Problem Definition and Scope
Define the problem with at least one quantitative indicator of its magnitude. Specify jurisdiction and time horizon.
Background and Context
Summarize the relevant policy history and prior interventions. Cite at least three independent sources.
Stakeholder Analysis
Identify at least three distinct stakeholder groups; describe each group's interest, influence, and how the proposed policy affects them.
Policy Options
Present at minimum two distinct approaches evaluated against the same criteria: cost, feasibility, equity, and evidence base.
Recommended Policy
State the preferred approach, implementing authority, and a realistic implementation timeline.
Anticipated Objections
Address at least two significant objections with substantive responses.
References
Full bibliography. Minimum 8 sources; at least 4 primary or peer-reviewed.
Academic Integrity Requirements
- All submissions are screened for plagiarism. A match rate above 15 percent (excluding the reference list) will trigger manual review and may result in disqualification.
- Use of AI language model tools to draft or substantively write any portion of a policy brief is not permitted. Students certify at submission that all written work is entirely their own.
- Faculty advisors may assist students in identifying sources and reviewing argument structure, but may not draft, substantially edit, or revise student text.
- Students must disclose any familial, professional, or personal connection to organizations cited or analyzed in their brief. Failure to disclose constitutes a conflict of interest violation.
Judging Rubric (100 points)
| Criterion | Description | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Problem Definition | Clarity and precision; use of quantitative indicators; appropriate scoping | 15 |
| Evidence Quality | Quality, recency, and independence of sources; correct interpretation of causal vs. correlational claims | 25 |
| Analytical Rigor | Depth of stakeholder analysis; quality of options comparison; soundness of trade-off reasoning | 25 |
| Policy Recommendation | Specificity of proposed intervention; feasibility; identification of implementing authority | 20 |
| Counter-Argument Engagement | Substantiveness of objections addressed; quality of responses | 10 |
| Writing and Structure | Clarity, organization, adherence to required structure | 5 |
II
Video Pitch Requirements
Technical Specifications
- Duration: 8 minutes minimum, 12 minutes maximum. Videos outside this range are disqualified without review.
- Format: MP4 or MOV, minimum 720p (1280×720). Audio must be clear and free of significant background noise.
- File size: Maximum 2GB. Submit via IPC upload portal only; external platform links are not accepted.
- Students may appear on camera, narrate over slides, or combine both; no requirement for on-camera presentation.
- Submissions must be in English. Students may include subtitles but must present in English.
- No background music, dramatic effects, or theatrical elements.
Required Content Elements
Opening Statement (≈90 sec)
Identify the policy problem and state at least one quantitative measure of its scale or severity. Lead with evidence.
Policy Proposal (≈2–3 min)
Identify the implementing authority, target population, and primary mechanism of effect.
Evidence Base (≈2 min)
Cite at least two independent studies or data sources. Distinguish correlational from causal evidence where relevant.
Objections and Trade-offs (≈2 min)
Address at least one significant objection and describe the primary limitation or equity concern.
Conclusion (≈60 sec)
State the primary expected outcome and the condition under which it is most likely to be achieved.
Judging Rubric (100 points)
| Criterion | Description | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Problem Framing | Evidence-grounded introduction within the time allotted | 15 |
| Clarity of Proposal | Precision of the intervention; whether the mechanism of effect is clearly explained | 20 |
| Evidence Presentation | Quality of empirical evidence and effectiveness of communication to a generalist audience | 25 |
| Objection Handling | Credibility and thoroughness of objections addressed | 20 |
| Communication | Clarity, pace, structure, and accessibility of the video as a standalone presentation | 20 |
III
Finals Requirements
Live Pitch Requirements
- Duration: 12 minutes. Timing is enforced; finalists will be signaled at 10 minutes and stopped at 12.
- Slides or visual materials must be submitted to the organizing committee by 9:00 PM the evening before the presentation slot.
- All team members must be present at the podium. Speaking responsibilities may be divided at the team's discretion.
- Finalists must present from memory or notes; reading verbatim from a prepared text is not permitted.
- Presentations will be recorded for the competition archive. Recording constitutes consent for non-commercial use by IPC.
Executive Q&A Format
- Duration: 15 minutes, moderated by the IPC Chair of Proceedings.
- The executive panel may ask any question related to the proposal, evidence cited, analytical methodology, or implementation.
- Questions may be adversarial; panel members may adopt a skeptical position regardless of their personal views.
- Students may consult their notes and submitted brief during Q&A. No external materials or devices are permitted.
- Team members may confer briefly (under 30 seconds) before responding.
- Responses should be direct and concise. Non-responsive answers are evaluated negatively regardless of length.
Updated Policy Summary
All finalists must submit a 500-word updated policy summary on Day 2, due by 11:59 PM local time. Required elements: the policy recommendation in one sentence; the three strongest pieces of supporting evidence; the primary implementation challenge; and the proposed metric by which the policy's effectiveness should be evaluated within five years. This document is provided to the executive judges prior to the Day 3 Q&A session.
Judging Rubric (100 points)
| Criterion | Description | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Command of Material | Depth of knowledge; ability to cite specific data without notes; familiarity with the literature | 25 |
| Pitch Effectiveness | Clarity, structure, and persuasive coherence of the 12-minute live presentation | 20 |
| Q&A Responsiveness | How directly and substantively each question was addressed | 30 |
| Policy Realism | How implementable and politically viable the proposal appears to working policymakers | 15 |
| Intellectual Honesty | Acknowledgment of limitations; willingness to update positions in response to new information | 10 |
Recognition
Awards tiers
Teams advance through six recognition levels. Final placements are determined by composite scores across all judged stages.
Gold Medal
Champion team of the session
Top teamSilver Medal
Runner-up team of the session
Top 2Bronze Medal
Third-place team of the session
Top 3Finalist
Invited to the live finals round
Top 8 teamsHonorable Mention
Strong performance across stages
Top 15%Distinction
Commended for quality of work
Top 25%All recognized teams receive a certificate of achievement. Final placements are determined by the committee’s composite score after integrated video and paper adjudication.
Participant center
Everything you need to prepare
Competition Guide
A complete introduction to the policy challenge, each stage, eligibility, and the standards that shape strong work.
Explore the process →Policy Brief Guide
Clear expectations for research, evidence, structure, citations, and persuasive policy writing.
View requirements →Judging Rubric
Understand how judges assess problem definition, evidence, feasibility, equity, and communication.
Review recognition →Frequently Asked Questions
Find guidance on teams, submission format, judging, finals, and what happens after registration.
Read FAQs →2027 cycle
Key dates at a glance
Fall 2026
Registration
Sign up for updates to receive the registration announcement first.
Winter 2027
Research & Policy Brief
Teams investigate a problem and submit a research-backed recommendation.
Spring 2027
Video Pitch
Selected teams communicate their ideas in a concise recorded pitch.
Summer 2027
Boston Finals
Finalists present live, take part in executive Q&A, and celebrate their work.
Questions, answered
Frequently asked questions
Who can participate?+
IPC is designed for student teams who are ready to explore a public-policy question with depth, evidence, and imagination. Full eligibility requirements will be published with registration.
What does a team submit?+
Teams progress through research, a written policy brief, and a short video pitch. Finalists also prepare for a live presentation and executive question-and-answer session.
How are entries judged?+
Judges assess the quality of research, clarity of the policy recommendation, feasibility, evidence, equity, and the team’s ability to communicate their work persuasively.
When will registration details be released?+
Join the IPC mailing list through the contact section to receive the 2027 timeline, eligibility requirements, and participant resources when they are announced.
The people behind IPC
Leadership & Advisors
Student Leadership
Founder
Zinia Khattar
Harvard College ‘29
Director of Outreach
Position Available
Recruiting Now
Director of Judging
Position Available
Recruiting Now
Director of Membership
Position Available
Recruiting Now
Director of Tech & Design
Position Available
Recruiting Now
Director of Internal Affairs
Position Available
Recruiting Now
Advisory Board
Senior Advisor
Position Available
Policy Expert
Faculty Advisor
Position Available
Academic Institution
Faculty Advisor
Position Available
Academic Institution
Industry Advisor
Position Available
Private Sector
Community Advisor
Position Available
Non-Profit Sector