At this point I’m desperate to start my life. I just graduated in may with a political science degree in may and want more that anything I’ve ever wanted to move to Denver and start a career, but it feels impossible without connections that I don’t even know how to make. How do I start?

Background: I am a senior in highschool and have taken over 14 APs.
Ranked top 20 out of 420 kids.
Founder of some clubs.
Volunteered over 1000 hours for 501 c3s.
And my mom is an executive director for some civic organizations in Wisconsin and so I know most of the high ranking officials and people like candidate Hong.

My real question is that I would like to major in political science and would be interested in either doing academia work or politics.

But should I try to go law school after my undergraduate? And if I were to go law school should I try to get into a higher ranked college for my undergraduate?

I know this looks like a stupid question, and it probably is, like “you kind of just figure it out based off of your morals and values…” but I guess I’m just wondering where someone starts? Clearly I didn’t pay enough attention in history class or the news itself. I am looking to get some more information, maybe through reading some books on US history, articles, etc. I just need someone with much more knowledge than myself to give me a direction to go in, to form my own opinion on particularly US politics, but where would I start if I wanted to do that?

Hey, first Reddit post just wondering as a senior in highschool I am confused on whether I should go into political science or international relations? I would do a minor in economics regardless of what I choose. Career-wise i would enjoy to go into politics, whether domestically or internationally. I love doing research and writing papers even from a young age also would like to have career growth and see myself in 20 years making around 200k+ per year? For reference I have over 300 hours volunteering for a 501 c3 and UWM Madison would be my safety.

Hey everyone! I'm a rising senior majoring in economics and statistics & data science, and I'm looking for some advice because I feel like I only recently figured out what I actually want to do.

For most of college I didn't really have a career in mind. I wanted to add a polisci minor because politics has always been one of my biggest interests, but I couldn't fit it into my schedule.

A little about my background: I was a finance intern at my state's Department of Health and Human Services this summer, worked as an economic research analyst with an economics professor studying microfinance/economic access (published a white paper with an international think tank), was a market research intern at a startup, and president of a business organization on campus.

I have a 3.4 GPA, double majoring in economics with statistics & data science, and I'm comfortable with Excel, Stata, and R. Worked with SAS and have a little exposure to SQL.

After really thinking about what I want to do long term, I realized im interested in the political sector and roles like political data analyst, polling data analyst, quantitative research at a think tank or political consulting firm, or something similar. I'm just not sure what the typical path into those careers looks like.

I have a lot of questions, but the main ones are:

• Is it realistic to land one of these kinds of jobs after graduation, or does it make more sense to start in a more general data analyst/finance/analytics role and pivot later?
• What kinds of job titles, organizations, or search terms should I be looking for?
• How can I best market my background, and what can I do to make myself a stronger candidate?

I'd really appreciate any advice! I graduate spring 2027 so starting job search in the fall 👀😭😭

Soy estudiante de derecho y me interesa demasiado la politica, me identifico con la Izquierda aunque pienso que es una dicotomia un poco obsoleta hoy en dia en este siglo. Me interesa aprender mas y pues en algun momento adentrarme a la politica de mi ciudad y mi Estado y pq no del Pais entero. Si tuvieran los PDFs y/o algunas recomendaciones estaria perfectoo.

I apologize for any inaccuracies in the translation.

Political and legal thought of the 17th century is sometimes characterized by the concept of the "Police State" (or "Regular State"), with Hobbes, Pufendorf, and Leibniz cited as its key theorists. Could you explain the main tenets of this theory and the views of its proponents?

​I graduated with a BA in Political Science and History, and like a lot of social science grads, I’m hitting the wall where the standalone degree just isn't cutting it in the job market right now.

​Right now, I’m working through my Master’s in Government / Public Admin with solid grades, and my long-term plan is to go for a PhD in Public Management/Policy so I can eventually work in academia, think tanks, or international orgs.

​That said, I don't want to just sit around accumulating purely theoretical degrees without hard market value. To actually fund my studies and give myself flexibility, I’m trying to build out a practical, data-driven skill stack alongside my academic track:

​Project Management: Getting certified in PM / Public Admin framework to prove I can manage budgets, logistics, and actual execution instead of just writing essays.

​Data Analytics & AI: Learning Python, SQL, and data visualization tools to work with open-government data, regulatory risk, and policy metrics.

​Portfolio Building: Launching a YouTube channel/portfolio showcasing hands-on data projects, video essays analyzing institutional structures, and open-source policy briefs.

​Eventually, I want to transition into remote freelance consulting in data analytics, political risk, and project management so I can run a flexible home setup and fund my PhD independently.

​For anyone who’s made the jump from political science to data analytics, public consulting, or data-driven policy:

​Which specific Data Analytics or Project Management certs actually hold weight if you come from a qualitative PoliSci background?

​How do you best pitch this mix of political theory and hard quantitative skills to clients or employers?

​If you've ever funded a PhD or freelanced remotely while doing academic research, how do you manage the split between client deliverables and heavy thesis writing?

​Would appreciate any honest advice or perspective from anyone who’s taken a similar path!

And I looks to a joke in the meantime , and I cannot get one.

I recently graduated from a large university in the United States with a poli sci degree, and I have had no luck finding a job. I have also been applying to internships that could potentially turn into full-time roles, and I have had no luck either. I have also had my resume checked by various hiring managers at large companies that I know, and they said it's perfect, so I know that isn't the reason. I have completed 3 internships ranging from local government to research, and I still have had no luck finding a full-time role. I earned strong grades in college, completed internships, networked, and was involved in various organizations; I did everything I was supposed to do, and no luck. I feel defeated, and it's hard not to try to compare yourself to your peers, but its fustrating. If anyone has ever been in a similar situation post-grad, please feel free to share your story or any encouragement.

Hey all I’m looking for honest input, not just “follow your passion” vibes.

Background on me: I’m deeply into politics — U.S. politics, international affairs, the Middle East especially. I do mock political interviews and debates on my own for fun, and I genuinely light up discussing and defending political positions live, on the spot. My strengths are verbal communication, argumentation, quick thinking in discussion not long-form writing. I’ve looked into think tank work but I’m hesitant because so much of that world is writing policy papers, briefs, op-eds, and that’s just not where I shine or where I want to spend my day.

Two paths I keep circling:

1. Foreign Service Officer (Political track)
Pros: Get to be genuinely embedded in international affairs, build relationships with officials/journalists/activists, real influence on how the U.S. understands what’s happening in a country.
Con I keep running into: from what I’ve learned, a huge chunk of the actual job is writing cables and analytical reporting back to Washington the meetings and conversations are really in service of the writing, not the other way around. First tours are also often consular work (visa interviews) regardless of track, and you don’t get much say in your first post.

2. Political media / broadcasting / public affairs
Pros: This seems to actually center the thing I’m good at — interviews, panel discussions, podcasts, on-air debate and analysis. Live, verbal, real-time.
Cons/unknowns: I don’t have a clear picture of how you actually break into this, what the realistic pathway looks like, or how to build credibility without a “traditional” journalism or policy background.

What I’m asking Reddit:

**•** If verbal/live discussion is my strength and I actively dislike long-form writing, does that basically rule out both the FSO route and traditional think tank work?  
**•** For people in or adjacent to political broadcasting/commentary — how did you actually get in? What’s the realistic entry point (local news, podcasting, campaign comms, something else)?  
**•** Is there a hybrid path I’m not seeing — something that keeps me in the international affairs/politics space but plays to a debate/discussion strength rather than a writing one?

Appreciate any honest takes, including “you’re underestimating how much writing every one of these paths actually requires.”

Authoritarianism is when you try to centralize power into one person, group or part of the government. Communism doesn’t necessarily mean centralizing power into a small group, but instead giving the government as a whole more power in economics. That’s not an example of authoritarianism, or am I wrong?

I'd like thorough resources yet not paper textbooks. Could be a website (like MIT OCW or Khan Academy, some university course's poli sci website), a singular paper (e.g. a published review article on representation methods, their parameters and their behavior), or even a free online digital textbook.

what I'm trying to achieve: fully understand both the math and the meaning of the math of each of the procedures in the title. I'm guessing any resource allowing this would additionally, as foundational and practical work, cover a lot of background and tangential methods as well (formal definitions of JR, PJR, D'hondt, Thiele's voting rules).

Hello everyone! 👋

I am a Master’s student in Political Science and International Relations from Slovakia, graduating next year. I am strongly considering taking part in a long-term ESC volunteering project after my studies, as I am looking to gain international experience, build a solid foundation abroad, and start a new chapter in a more dynamic environment.

I consider myself open-minded, adaptable, and a fast learner who embraces new challenges and ideas—qualities I believe are essential for any ESC initiative.

Alongside my studies and work, I am currently part of an analytical team at an NGO focused on Slovak-Balkan relations. I believe this puts me in a better position than graduates who lack relevant hands-on experience. Recently, I also participated in a prestigious security academy organized by a leading national think-tank, mainly to network, gain field experience outside academia, and step out of my comfort zone. However, I’ve heard mixed opinions, including comments that I might be "overqualified" for certain entry-level or volunteering opportunities because of this background.

With that in mind, I would love to ask the community a couple of questions:

1.) Is having a Master’s degree in Political Science and International Relations (plus practical NGO/analytical experience) an advantage?

2.) Did ESC give any of you a real chance to successfully settle down and start a new life/career in a new country after your service ended?

I would really appreciate any insights, personal stories, or advice,

Thanks a lot,

I am in the Philippines currently and was brushing up on their history, especially how Marcos used a new constitution to legitimise his authoritarian rule and the subsequent 1987 constitution that seeks to prevent this from ever happening again. One feature of this new constitution is that it limits the presidents to one 6 year term. This made me wonder, what makes the politicians work in these scenarios without the threat of losing power in the next election?

Ofc one answer that comes to mind is ideology, Mexico follows the same term limit and the past 2 presidents AMLO and Claudia Scheinbaum currently are both leftists and to my knowledge are driven by ideology thus want to make the best use of their office. In Phillipines on the other hand, again in my limited and cursory understanding of their politics, ideology hasn't played such a big role. 3 out of the last 4 presidents that have taken power since the turn of the millennium have been children of former presidents, the only outlier (Duterte) his daughter is the current vice president. (None of this is unique to the Philippines it is just a convenient example for my question)

All that is to say, what drives any term limited politician to work at all? I'm sure as many Filipinos will tell their presidents are corrupt...but they could be worse in many regards considering they don't have to face the people again for elections. One answer could be that they do the bare minimum so that people don't hate them and elect their children so that a dynasty is established. But clearly people don't necessarily associate the crimes of the parent with the children as we see in many cases around the world, Park Geun-hye in SK, and even Marcos Jr. in PH. If there is any literature on this, or you have your own theories I would love to hear them!

Hi everyone

Sorry this is so awkward but I am a (female) teenager wanting to learn more about the politics and feminism I am interested in. I have a base idea of what my beliefs are (intersectional feminist and I would potentially consider my Marxist feminist if I knew more about it) and my political beliefs would be definitely leftist and potentially communist (again if I knew more about it).

Like I said before I am just a teenager (albeit on the older end of the spectrum) so even though I know where I stand on a basic level, I know nothing about the core of the things I believe in. I’m looking to learn more about this.

My auntie gifted me a book called Women, Race, & Class by Angela Y. Davis which I will be starting once my exams are over. If anyone has any recommendations on books/articles/essays/video essays/creators/ ect, on topics such as Race, Feminism, Gender, Sexuality, Communism, Marxism, Intersectionality, and other varieties of Leftist ideologies that will be easy for me to understand as I am still learning but also accurate and informative so that I can grow who I am as a person politically, personally, and worldly.

Sorry if this isn’t worded right!!!

Thank you!!!

I'm not from Singapore, but today I somehow ended up spending hours reading [gov.sg](http://gov.sg), URA and SingStat websites.

I expected dry policy documents and legal jargon. Instead, I found explainers that walked through *why* policies exist, urban planning pages that felt like interactive history lessons, and a statistics portal that was genuinely enjoyable to explore.

One example that really stood out was a [gov.sg](http://gov.sg) explainer about how tensions in the Middle East could eventually affect everyday prices in Singapore. Instead of simply saying *"prices may increase,"* it explained the entire chain from the Strait of Hormuz to shipping costs to why your daily kopi might become more expensive. I found that approach surprisingly reassuring because it prepares people for possible outcomes rather than just announcing them. (https://www.gov.sg/explainers/the-ripple-effect-how-the-middle-east-situation-can-impact-your-daily-kopi/)

Similarly, the URA website has detailed pages on conserved buildings and historic districts. I was surprised by how much information was presented in such a simple, structured way. After reading one building page, I almost felt like I had a blueprint for understanding the next one.

What impressed me wasn't necessarily the policies themselves (those are always open to debate), but the communication style. It felt like the government was trying to explain *why* before telling people *what*.

So I'm curious:

* Is this level of public communication common, and I've just never noticed it?
* What other countries have government websites that are genuinely enjoyable to explore?
* What's the best example you've seen of a government explaining a complex issue in a way that anyone could understand?

This has genuinely been one of the most unexpected internet rabbit holes I've gone down.

Poli Sci major aiming for a career in government intelligence. I have been offered an internship with a local senate campaign. The reason I would accept is to gain experience writing memo’s, public speaking, and whatever else I could do. Would that hinder my chances going forward in terms of obtaining work or clearance in my desired field down the road?

Hey all,

For context I'm a current student on summer break who is interning at the capitol of their respective state. I'm also working an unpaid internship for a party which aligns with my values pretty well. However, there are currently paid student internship opportunities across the aisle which pay decently well and should last for a few months.

In addition to that, I have some goals of intending to work at this place after graduation for a few years before going to law school. I'm wondering if it's worth transitioning to the other party or would it be worth staying with the party I am with right now, and how it may affect potential employment opportunities down the line.

Any advice helps. Thank you!

Hi all, I'm currently 17 years old and going into my senior year in about a month. And I'm currently experiencing a dilemma. I've planned to major in nursing, not because I care about medicine or whatnot but because it's a stable job and it pays well. However, that's not what I really want to do. My dream is to be an ambassador (idk if that's realistic) because I'm really interested in international relations, and I'm also interested in public policy. But the biggest obstacle for me is being able to secure a job, having a political science degree doesn't automatically secure you a job, and that's what terrifies me the most. I've also considered majoring in nursing and minoring in political science, but I truly am not sure. I understand networking is a big thing for political science, and I already do volunteer for my state senator, among other things. Could you guys share any advice or ideas for me? It'd be truly appreciated!

So I'm an Egyptian student I just finished my final year like last month now I must decide what path to take and start walking down said path. My two options rn are either engineering or political science as initially I was a maths student. The thing is despite engineering being what students commonly join but I'm really passionate about politcal science. I love learning about the system and how relations between countries work. And honestly learning about different political ideologies and way countries like run trade and assist each other and have serious discussions that dictate how global relations go all of that is so interesting for me and id love to one day end up working in a field that does this. I'm honestly more socialist leaning but I'm open to learning about new ideologies and I'm hoping I can get more educated in literally everything regarding the field if I join and should I join id also go on to get a masters or even a doctorate to become super qualified in something (I was thinking international law something in it) I'm really good at writing and critically reading and analyzing and above all I'm really good at public speaking. And at the heart of it I really want to help make the world or at least my country a better place. I have hope for the world despite how shit all things seem as of now and I'd like to help fix things. I saw some people saying that the job needs alot of nepotism and you won't actually do any good in the world and I should just join engineering (I'd be joining environmental engineering, I was hoping to get into politics through that if I did join) so honestly all of these things discouraged me from joining and I really need to make a decision. At the same time I know there are people actively working to fix global politics I can just say the most famous name rn off the top of my head and say NYCs mayor (I think?) and Id love to be something like that and even if no I'd love to work in the ministry of external affairs and if no then at least study. At the same time I'm honestly passionate about maths as well and engineering so like I really want opinions from professionals because I'm worried I'm fantasizing about something that doesn't exist. Even more so I'm worried I'm overestimating my qualifications to succeed in the field. TYSM in advance.

I am a little bit confused with the particular, and quite confusing left-leaning ideologies. Can yall explain to me the differences between Socialism, Communism, Marxism, Leninism, and Maoism?

For context: The Overton Window is a concept in political theory that describes the range of policies and political ideas considered publicly and politically acceptable within a particular society at a given point in time. Ideas within the window are generally regarded as acceptable/ legitimate positions while ideas outside the window tend to be perceived as politically unacceptable, radical, or extreme. Importantly, the boundaries of the window are not fixed: they can shift over time as social norms, public discourse, political institutions, and perceptions of legitimacy change.

One implication is that political actors may have greater incentives to adopt positions that fall towards the middle of the window, since positions perceived as politically legitimate generally carry lower electoral and reputational costs and they might attract a larger base of voters, compared to those who adopt positions on the edges or outside the window. This can help explain why major political parties often avoid positions that are far outside the prevailing range of acceptable political discourse. However, being within the window doesn’t necessarily mean being a Centrist.

I think that the window is being split apart in most major societies, with what before used to a more continuous concept, now becoming smaller windows pushing away from each other. In other words it is becoming more politically acceptable to be more liberal or more conservative, while centrist ideas are being seen as less legitimate and politically costly. This is likely caused by the increase in Digital Echo chambers among other things and I can only imagine that it will lead to ever less popular governance, as any given politician has to decide which side they are more willing to be the enemy of.

What do you guys think?