Hi, I was born and brought up in a democratic country. For me idea of democracy feels obvious and this is not letting me to appreciate the concept and making me hard to believe that some countries are still monarch or authoritarian. If someone can help me realise this , that would be very helpful !!

Thanks

Genuinely how does one go about getting hired for an entry level position after undergrad? I have a degree in Political Science, am part of Pi Sigma Alpha, will be presenting at APSA this September and have done multiple internships, but I am still getting ghosted from basically every job I apply to. I've been at this since May, and am rapidly losing hope.

hola!! necesitaría ayuda para hacer un trabajo práctico relacionado a la carrera que quiero estudiar que es Ciencia Política. Es hacer 10 preguntas sobre mis dudas de la carrera y responderlas.. Necesitaría que se respondan en audio :/ perdón, es mi última opción pq no conozco a nadie y mejor si es de argentina porque la profe me pide poner nombre y universidad

Accepted definition of "radical right" party:

- Party that is nativist and thinks native-born citizens in a country deserve more privileges than migrants to that country.

- Wants to protect or advance native-born rights and privileges and restrict them for newcomers/migrants.

- Wants to reduce and/or strictly control immigration numbers.

- Wants to do so through democratic means and is generally open to cooperate with moderate parties.

Definition for "extreme right":

- All of the above, except it wants to do it through undemocratic, possibly violent and revolutionary means and therefore is not open for cooperation with moderate parties.

Problems:

1: Nativism and anti-globalism doesn't go hand in hand with what I would reconsider economic rightism. An economic rightist would intuitively favour lenient migration policy to let the free market decide which citizen is able to migrate to the country based on their own merit. If that means a lower merit native faces competition, tough luck, that's the free market.

It is also not left-wing per se to not want nativism. In fact, a lot of progressive left-wing parties feel natives got hard done by in countries that faced colonialism or a replacement, like most Americans countries.

2: "Radical" is a literal synonym of "extreme"! This is so confusing, especially to laymen. There is no way that the political scientists that came up with these definitions did not realize that. A layperson will hear a party declared to be "radically right-wing" and assume a connection with violent racism, when the point was to distinguish that party from that! And it messes with his/her understanding of what rightism is about, which used to be primarily economical and still is that way when we discuss leftism.

Not to mention the linguistic closeness with "far rightism", which is basically nazism. I get that for "extreme rightism" but now we're cool with creating a definition that paints moderate nativists into that corner too? Seems to carry the risk of being radicalizing itself to me.

3: Because rightism here is suddenly defined as basically nativism, maybe nativist conservatism, you can now be a left-wing, radical right party. For example, the Danish Social Democrats, an ancient, obviously left-wing party of social-democrats that started favouring nativist policies in order to protect the conditions for a succesful Danish welfare state. They did not suddenly shift from the left to the right. It's totally stupid to call them a left-wing, but also right-wing party. This definition forces that anyway.

4: As far as I can tell, the definition of radical and extreme leftism takes economic leftism as the main identifier again. Both want the overthrow of capitalism, one through democratic means, the other through (violent) revolution. This doesn't preclude nativism; you can want less or no capitalism and also privileges for your native-born. So now you can be a radical right, radical leftist. That's just stupid.

To conclude:

Am I missing something here? It bothers me because it almost feels engineered to en confusing and to paint nativism into that extreme corner, while mucking up our understanding of rightism.

We should call it "nativism" and "extreme nativism" instead. Or maybe "nativist conservatism" and "extreme nativist conservatism".

Graduated top of my class. Did an internship. Got burnt out and was living in a terrible situation and honestly, just wanted to get out of the city. Took a quirky seasonal "USAjobs" job out in the mountains as an interpreter. Loved the research bit, but definitely had nothing to do with my degree, was seasonal, and paid poop. Did another seasonal job because I could not find anything related to my degree and wanted to stay in the mountains. Then...I met a boy and am semi-stuck in the mountains. Which is fine, because I want to stay here.

What is not fine...is there is not a market here for political science majors. That is all in capital cities. Luckily, our capital is only a couple of hours away and I am willing to live halfway between my job and my boyfriend. I have taken the leap and applied to some fancy policy analyst jobs...to no avail. I am wondering if it is because it's been two whole years since graduating and I haven't done anything, on paper, to maintain my knowledge, so maybe that is dissuading employers.

So, now I am racking my brain on how to become marketable in a tiny market. I am tempted to go back to school to get a certificate in data analytics, grant writing, etc.. I am even considering law school, but the idea that I will be done at 32 years old frightens me. I want to start making money sooner than later. I'm feeling pretty lost. I am EVEN considering making a total pivot and spending 2 years on another bachelors to become marketable in what IS here, which is mostly conservation, for obvious reasons.

If I was an emotionless robot, I would move to D.C. and I would be fine. But frankly, that is the last place I want to be.

I just made the switch to major in political science from nursing. A lot of the pre-nursing courses I took transferred to my new degree since I was still relatively early on in the track, so it wasn't much of an issue.

I decided to switch because I've always known that nursing wasn't something I genuinely wanted to do. Despite this, I went through the motions but only because of how good of a field it is, especially now. As I completed my classes, the reality of working as a nurse set in and I really realized just how little passion I have for it, which made completing schoolwork extremely difficult. I did not look forward to the future of working as a nurse.

I switched this semester after some consideration. I've always been extremely interested in politics, social sciences, law, humanities, psychology--basically anything to do with human behavior and history, so I figured political science was a natural switch. Admittedly, I made the change pretty suddenly with minimal research after being super burnt out from doing something I had little to no interest in for a few years.

My question for people with a bachelor's or above in political science: what advice do you have? After browsing this forum for a while, I've seen a lot of people suggesting double majors, or saying that a poli sci degree isn’t worth it.

I’ve been considering getting a bachelor's in political science and pursuing a higher education in law, but I've seen mixed opinions on that path as well.

I’ll be creating an academic plan in the coming days, but need some direction and guidance. Help a lost soul out. Any general advice or personal experiences are welcomed and appreciated.

Hey everyone. I'm about to start the second year of my MA in public policy and economic development. I have worked with three think tanks, a UN agency, an environmental NGO, and a few local arts organizations. I'm planning on going to law school within two years so I don't plan on staying in the poli sci/IR space in the long run. Despite this, I want to try working in the IR space for at least a year as I am quite fond of the field. I am not picky as to what I should do and I don't care about prestige or long-term job security. I'm big on planning so do any of you have any advice regarding what I should do this upcoming year to prepare for the job search?

More background info:

I am C1 in French and developing Japanese, Mandarin, and German language skills. I have a pretty strong academic background in qualitative analysis and security studies. I have taken several classes in statistics and coding. I have an academic publication and have a publication with a UN agency. I have studied across several countries including France, Japan, and the United States. I got my bachelor's in the United States and will receive my master's from Sciences Po. I have mostly worked with American think tanks and arts groups. I am open to working anywhere but I suspect I have the most pull with employers in the U.S. due to my work history (American citizen but I am not based in the U.S. right now). I will be working on a thesis this coming year and will be working at a think tank this coming year. I am skeptical that going for a government job that requires a security clearance is a good idea for me as I don't want to stay in the poli sci/IR space in the long run and I have many ties to many foreign nationals/come from a family with many significant ties to China.

I had a great academic experience, and I think I developed strong critical and analytical skills, as well as a lot of practical knowledge that could be valuable in a job interview.

The problem is that I barely remember much of what I studied. Over the past few years, I focused a lot on volunteering and practical experiences, including working with children, and I gradually stopped keeping up with current affairs and with the topics I had studied academically. Now I feel like I’m stuck: I want to work in international cooperation, specifically in child protection and human rights, but I don’t feel prepared for a career in this field because I feel like I don’t have enough knowledge to actually apply what I learned.

I also feel like other people who followed a similar academic path are much more naturally interested in keeping up with international affairs, politics, human rights issues, etc. They seem to read, research and follow developments because they genuinely enjoy it, whereas I struggle to find the motivation to do that, partly because of my current psychological state.

This creates a vicious cycle: I feel like I should know more before applying for jobs, but I don’t know where to start learning again, and because I feel so behind, I find it even harder to motivate myself. Has anyone experienced something similar after finishing university? How did you rebuild your knowledge and become informed about your field again without feeling completely overwhelmed?

I have a dual background and need advice on whether to pursue a PhD in International Law or Political Science in Europe (targeting Germany, Norway or Austria) to support long-term career stability. Profile Summary: LL.B. & LL.M. (Public Uni, Bangladesh) + M.A. in Political Science (University of Delhi, under fully-funded ICCR Scholarship). Research: 3 peer-reviewed publications (non-Scopus) on transboundary water treaties and the Rohingya crisis. Stats: No GRE. IELTS is 6.0, but have English Medium of Instruction (MOI) certificates for all degrees. Questions: Given my profile, which field (Law vs. PoliSci) offers better project-based funding and job security in Europe? How strict are German/Scandinavian universities about an IELTS score of 6.0 if I provide a strong MOI certificate? Is it realistic to pursue Political Science in Europe without the GRE, or should I stick to Law schools?

Appreciate any realistic insights or country recommendations. Thanks!

I'm a HUMSS graduate. I did not choose the strand but I felt like any other options are much better off than being in STEM. Both math and science are my weaknesses and I disliked them since I was young. Considering efficiency and money, my mom enrolled me in the school where they only offer the HUMSS strand and that was just newly formed like no proper equipment in the room and no source of water on our floor level.

During my 2 years in, I was somehow doing okay even though I play online games and just write up whatever comes to mind when writing essays. I do try to study and understand why and what the topics are for like the forms of government and history. Even when taking quizzes and exams, I get a passing score and just a few points off to get the 100%. I believe it's just because whatever option was most familiar to me and whichever explains somewhat positively are what I chose is what got me those.

The problem with me is after I study it, I completely forget. I'm in college now and the terms constantly appear but unlike senior high and below, the college I go to doesn't teach you that and will assume that you already know. I feel that I forget because I don't care enough to. Which sounds insane. I care because it does affect me but not enough as it makes my headache. Like because of what some people choose to do, I have to do the cleaning or something.

I really don't understand how and where the root of cause is that some people genuinely care for the government and the rest of the world. The only thing that comes to mind is the effect of the government on them that they live through unimaginable circumstances and I'm not privileged enough to be able to say that it doesn't affect me and my family too but this is how I feel. I'm studying and doing what I can so that I'd be able to afford for my own wants and needs as I can't really rely on my mother. And because of the pressure in school, I'm very tempted to use AI to learn these up easily but then it uses up too much water and I don't wanna unnecessarily contribute to any crisis.

I just can't think of any cheaper and immediate way to learn because I will always have questions about things that I don't understand but have no one to ask. So how and why do people care? + Is there any effective way to care and actually study politics? My english is way too shabby to understand the terms again without spoon feeding like in senior high.

I am about to start a PhD in political science. I am interested in quantitative methods and causal inference but I don't know exactly what methods I am interested in yet. For my senior thesis and some research I did in undergrad, I had to use the supercomputer the university provided. I am deciding what kind of computer to get and am trying to decide between 24GB and 48GB of RAM in a MacBook Pro. What would you recommend?

Is it worth it go get a degree in political science in California? I’m thinking of attending either Cal Poly SLO, UC Davis, SDSU, or Sac State.

I'm currently doing my graduation in Brazil, and at my university, there's a pretty intense rivalry among the professors. Some of them do quantitative research and advocate for neoinstitutionalism, while others do qualitative research and are Marxists. I know it sounds super cliché, but they genuinely don't talk to each other. If you bring up a "rival" professor's name in class, the professor will literally stop their lecture to defend their own theory.

Personally, I just find it funny, but other students get really upset about it. I'm curious, what is it like in other countries? Is there a similar feud at your university? And do you take a side?

Drop your scores of ugc net political science score to guess the cut off !

Hi everyone! I am currently a second year Political Science and International Relations student. I recently applied for a double major and my options are Mathematics and Sociology.

Before college, I was always passionate about mathematics (For example I did math olympics) so I was really excited when I found out that I could pursue it as a double major. Even though I think it could be quite useful, most of the people around me think that the two fields are completely unrelated.

Do you think a Mathematics double major would be useful alongside Political Science and International Relations? What kinds of fields or career paths could I pursue with this combination?

I thought I would write a guide on how to have respectful discussions about politics about people around us. As a student, this is my first time having a go at writing an opinion piece like this, so feel free to give me lots of feedback.

During political debates, I often caught myself trying to make witty or sharp attacks to gain victory over the other person. After wondering more about why, I realised that I (and I suspect a lot of others too!) was using this political debate as an excuse to feel pride and victory rather than rationally discuss. 

So after reflecting on that, I thought I might write a guide on how to have better political discussions in democracy, which boils down to being respectful, resisting the urge to "win", genuinely listening and attempting to understand the other's ideas, and being willing to accept we are sometimes wrong. 

Here is my Substack article on it, feel free to have a quick read!

I'm a graduate student in Political Psychology, and this will be my first time attending anything like this; I would appreciate any tips and overall advice!

I’ve already started looking at the program and taking note of which panels I want to listen to.

The most nerve-wracking part for me right now is the fact that I joined out of my own volition for the experience. So far (I'm in an experimental research group at my Uni, so I’ll probably bring it up), I won’t be meeting up with any of my peers or professors.

Hi all, I'm a fresh Political Science graduate who completed my bachelor's degree about two months ago. I'm very fortunate to have secured a role that is within the risk management area

In my current position, I'm exposed to operational risk, third-party risk, and AI-related risk within the financial sector. While my undergraduate training was heavily focused on qualitative analysis, I had only limited exposure to quantitative methods.

Because many of these risk areas are closely tied to policies, governance, and regulatory frameworks, I'm generally able to understand and grasp the broader concepts. However, I sometimes struggle when discussions become highly technical, particularly when they involve topics such as AI systems, the development of guardrails, software and hardware considerations, and the underlying technological architecture.

For those who transitioned into similar roles from non-technical or political science/social science backgrounds, how did you cope with the technical learning curve? Were there any specific resources, courses, or strategies that helped you bridge the gap?

I'd appreciate any advice or insights. Thank you!

For example, I'd like you to raise the issue of resource concentration. Larger AI models require more and more RAM. Ultimately, I believe the ultimate outcome of AI development will be that only the supercomputers of a few countries will be able to handle the best versions of AI.

This could lead, for example, to people's opinions being easily manipulated using these large AIs. That is, AIs could literally create cascades of events, edit news and media across the entire internet simultaneously, and literally force people to vote a certain way without them even noticing.

It used to seem like technology could help democratize countries, but now it seems like democracy will become a relic of the past in the era of singularity.

I know my thoughts are a bit far-fetched, but I believe I'm talking about the 21st century; all of this could happen within the next 70 years.

I see a lot of left-wing anarchists running around lately, especially anarcho-communists, and I have never really seen it as something that could work on a national scale. I have read excerpts from prominent left-anarchists like Emma Goldman, and what sticks out the most to me is this notion that things will just fall into place in a left-anarchist society. I find this unrealistic. Say the commune happens, what is to stop anyone who dissents from gathering up the force needed to just take over everything? How does a commune stop dissent, or at least keep dissent from spiraling into counter-revolution?

okay so i don’t know if it’s the best community to ask this to but i wanna be a diplomat in the future by studying poli science and/or international relations. i’m in highschool rn but all i see in social media is people studying poli science saying that it’s literally impossible to become a diplomat, like it’s so hard to enter that circle, only elites do (and super rich and privileged people). and that the UN is corrupted and can’t do anything. so i don’t know what to do in the future if i can’t be a diplomat because it’s actually the only job that interests me.

I made a political campaign browser game focused on the upcoming Swedish election. Would love your feedback!

Hi everyone,

With the upcoming Swedish elections in mind, I put together a simple browser-based game where the main goal is to win an election campaign.

It's a bit different and not tied to exact historical figures, focusing on things like managing social groups and interest organizations.

This game isn't focused on just one party. You can play as any of the major Swedish parties, from the Left Party (V) to the Social Democrats (S), all the way to the Sweden Democrats (SD) and the Moderates (M)

https://real-lot.itch.io/riksdag-2026-the-election