wish I did a language rather than poli sci, but I enjoyed my poli sci classes and I feel it made me a better and more informed citizen so it wasn't all bad.

"Go to history and get an analyst job.

People here will tell you that's not tenable but it really is, if you're good at history anyway. Study recent history of East Asia, Africa, or the Middle East and you're in. "

Wasn't tenable for me and I was very good at history. Those jobs are getting hundreds of applicants for very few spots. You should to have a language to really make it work, those that don't are in an extremely competitive job search environment.

There are few more interdisciplinary fields than political science (integrating everything from anthropology & psychology to sociology & economics). Political science does everything economics does, except usually better because it is open to more methodologies and more variables than the primitive rational choice models of economics. Political scientists have to have rigorous training in statistics, so don't think that you're not going to be using numbers. I mean political economy is a huge subfield within both IR & Comparative Politics, the idea that economics alone is more interesting is humorous. Political science is even integrating computer science and simulation models in its works. Look at the work of Lars-Erik Cederman.

If you want to be a glorified journalist that does nothing but book reports in their coursework, treating every problem like its sui generis, then do history.

^
Or targeted internships may work, I didn't do any of those.

I think I've done 2 "book reports" in my 6 years as a student of history.

Putin, if you think economics is primitive, you've never taken economics beyond the basic ideas and theories of micro or macro 101.

Obi's politics are innocuous enough that he could use polisci to gain any number of jobs in government. Apply for all the departments. Take the civil service exam. Also, read up on statistics. Take a few stats classes, maybe some accounting. That'll help.

If there are jobs in the government to be had when he gets out.

Basically Obi, if I went back to school now and was to do things that would have helped me get a job earlier I would have done the following.

1. Everything Putin Said above.
2. At least get to an intermediate stage of a Language and take it seriously
3. Take a couple of programming/computer courses, I cant tell you how many jobs I saw that required "Some Knowledge of Programming." You don't need to be an expert but they want some background. This would include jobs in English, Poli Sci, History etc. All these fields are looking to update themselves so they are relevant to today's world, this usually requires computer background.
4. Figure out what you REALLY want to do and do internships and make contacts leading toward that. I stumbled into my dream job but if I had skipped one E-mail I wouldn't have even known it existed. Even that job was based off of contacts I had made although I suck at making contacts. Networking is real, it works, and you would be surprised who is really happy to help you.

Also don't give up on your dream jobs, look for something practical but always actively look for what you really want to do.

"Putin, if you think economics is primitive, you've never taken economics beyond the basic ideas and theories of micro or macro 101."

Applying the assumptions of microeconomics to any and every problem is primitive and reduces the utility of the discipline to explain much of anything that is interesting. Unless you're going to tell me that rational choice theory doesn't dominate microeconomics.

Yeah a language really is key.

But Santa, if I can just say, you may be right, but there are large numbers of private sector analyst firms who basically want people who think politically, can research, and speak another language. Easy way to get that kind of cred is a history degree. PoliSci is often too broad for what they'd like. Depending on where you get your PoliSci degree, you can walk out of there without ever really writing many serious research papers.

The key is to be able to burnish your research credentials, language credentials, and show you've succeeded in some relevant coursework.

Also be willing to work for pennies on the dollar. Lol.

"If I were going to go the legal route, I'd want to be arguing for a CAUSE, for SOMETHING..."

If you want to be an activist then no field is going to satisfy you fully (sociology might come close, since they tend to study social movements more). Political science is, contrary to popular opinion, not a partisan science. It aims to be an objective behavioral science like allied fields. Anyway, you can use your English degree to get into grant writing and such for NGOs who do work for a cause. Stats, web design & computer programming will land you those kinds of jobs too.

Its true, but I'm just saying from someone who tried that route, just be prepared to be competing with 500-600 applicants for one spot, that comes from chats with people who were hiring for positions I didn't get.

And just from my experience and my own opinion, even though History and English (and less specific areas of Poly Sci like theory), used to be perfect for those sorts of jobs, arn't cutting it in this economy. When you have hundreds of applicants, it doesn't really matter how good you are at research and critical thinking, if you don't have the specific knowledge (of a region, culture, period, a directly relevant internship etc.) someone else will and that person will get the job. With PhDs, Master students, and college history graduates (along with people from several other disciplines) around the country applying to the same jobs, it makes getting those jobs (that do exist to be sure) very difficult.

* should clarify, it isn't that research skills and critical thinking don't matter its that a good number of your competitors will have those skills also.

"This is the dumbest thread I've seen in a long time."

Well, Putin, that's one of the dumbest posts of yours in a long time...

The question wasn't dumb. The econ bullshittery being spewed here is dumb.

I meant it for both--

If they think econ is that amazing, who are you to tell them it isn't?

If it's suiting them well, clearly, it's not just bullshittery, the field or their feelings towards it or suggestions or otherwise...

Except they're using polisci as a doormat by which to prop up the glory of econ, that's why it's dumb. If you're going to trot out econ as wonderful then don't do it by distorting what polisci does.

1. Whatever, I put down mathematics in my own way a bit to "glorify" English...

If they want to do the same with PoliSci and Econ, why not, it's their opinion, after all...

2. Excuse me, my far-far-Left, dogmatic, vote-Blue-or-don't-vote Democrat "friend"...

But how are my politics and political views "innocuous?"

I think they're rather well-defined, most of our regular Peanut Gallery of posters on these political/philosophical topics could probably say where I'd stand on most things...just because I'm a tad more pragmatic and a bit less dogmatic than you and your "Vote with the Party or you're a traitor" mentality doesn't mean my views are innocuous, and I think we can agree they're well-defined and relevant...

So before I go English major on you and ask WHAT you are trying to mean by "innocuous" when you don't seem to really be adhering to what the word's intent and meaning IS...

What do you mean by that?

He means your "pragmatic" views tend to support the status quo and reflect a privileged white college students world view quite plainly. In that way they are quite innocuous, or "not harmful or injurious" to the institutions of the United States of America.

"So before I go English major on you and ask WHAT you are trying to mean by "innocuous" when you don't seem to really be adhering to what the word's intent and meaning IS..."

Um, it's clear that despite you being an English major you don't know what the word means, which is as Santa described it - not harmful or threatening. Your views are not deemed harmful or threatening to any government agency or department. You neither support any kind of transformation of the current system nor do you support groups overseas that are deemed problematic according to the State Department. So you're not going to fail any security clearances, in other words. Drop the chip from your shoulder.

"If they want to do the same with PoliSci and Econ, why not, it's their opinion, after all..."

Holy christ nobody is depriving them of their right to make dumb arguments. But if they're bashing my field with dumb arguments I'm going to call them dumb. Get over it.

@SC:

"He means your "pragmatic" views tend to support the status quo and reflect a privileged white college students world view quite plainly"

I go to a community college and don't have a regular job or the money to pay for an apt. or car or a better college than a Cal-State...

I hardly think I AM in that "privileged white college student" mold (not that I've got it "I was born a blind, black kid in Brooklyn" tough, or anything, just saying, when I think of that white-and-privileged-college-student mold, I think of Harvard or Yale or UPenn or UChicago or a UC-level school...I think, comparatively speaking, I'm pretty much in the middle class/privilege-wise...as for being white--well, I can't "help" that, and given my a-religious views and embracing of evolution and all that, I'm hardly Mr. Middle America...) :)

As for what I SUPPORT--

Meh, I think I've been pretty consistently Left-of-Center without going full-out-Left like Putin...

For gay marriage, for more money in education, for more taxes for the wealthy, against tax breaks for the wealthy, for slashing the defense budget...

I may not go as ideologically-wild as Putin, but in terms of policy, I think I'm relatively-consistent supporting the Democrats, though, again, I'll break party lines if I feel the GOP has a better answer (if that DOES ever happen...still waiting...)

I consider middle class privileged, and I fit in that group as well. I don't know how you can argue your views aren't "innocuous." You are no rebel. I am not either

^ lol word

what are a few examples of pol sci careeers

"I don't know how you can argue your views aren't "innocuous." You are no rebel. I am not either"

Because while the standard definition of "innocuous" has to do with harm/no harm...

"Innocuous" is, in a connotative sense, also something of a synonym for something being benign to the point of unimportance or insignificance.

And I don't think either of our views could be classified as such...

Supporting Left-of-Center politics and the causes I advocated for aren't insignificant...

Gay rights, Stem Cell research, Slashing defense, Improving and drastically reforming education, standing against tax breaks for the wealthy and religion being connected with schools in ANY WAY...

For starters.

I don't think those are innocuous, unimportant, insignificant political causes I'm aligning myself with...

I'm not going to pretend that they're game-breakers, and I'm not going to go James Dean here...

But I think we could all agree such views/causes are important and NOT innocuous in that connotation of being unimportant or insignificant?

no. innocuous does not mean unimportant. it just means harmless.

like

"dont worry - the additives are innocuous"

I said that it can have the connotation of unimportance...

Take your sentence--the implication is that the additives are not harmful, and thus not important to think about, in terms of harm or otherwise.

Again, not in the dictionary definition, it's just more of a connotation thing.

Do NOT go to law school unless you are really passionate about being a lawyer, obiwanobiwan. There are much more fun ways to waste $100,000 dollars in three years.