rwillh11

For top programs, I'm seeing median verbal scores at 165 and higher, while quantitative reasoning scores are generally 162 and higher.
 

All other things equal, the marginal effect of a 151 verbal GRE score will make the chances of acceptance to a top 10 program very very low.

Of course your good grade in your stats course matters in their overall assessment of your profile, and it can compensate somewhat for a weaker quant score. The problem is that 150 is below the level where compensating is really at hand, and you're at risk of just falling short of cut-offs. Obviously such things are not certain, but since the rest of your profile makes you a good candidate for top-15 programs, it would be such a shame to have this potentially rule you out. Related to that, it would be a shame to pick programs you are less interested in and that are a worse fit for you, purely because you think they are less quant-heavy, especially because it doesn't seem like you don't like or are not good at quant at all.
So all thing considered, resitting would really be valuable. You said the main reason you scored so badly was that you panicked during the test - in that case you don't need to do more studying (you probably know the material), you just need another stab at it. Obviously it's a hassle and expensive and all that, but given all the effort you're putting into applying and the amount of time you'd potentially be spending getting your PhD, it's worth getting it right.

What are some of the most difficult tasks and assignments when it comes to Political Science major for a 4-year Bachelor Degree Program?
 
What are some of the hard assignments that are given to Political Science Students?

If you want to go to law school and do a PhD, don't waste your time or money with a Masters degree because 1) you''re going to earn one doing your PhD; 2) your going to realize three separate degree programs is easier said, and seldom ever done; and 3) Columbia Master's in Human Rights is a cash cow.  You're better off doing a professional program (development, ia, etc) and focusing on human rights, in my opinion! 

You have to ask yourself what is the masters going to give you that is worth the huge expenses that will ensue? 
 
I would look at the nuts and bolts of these programs. Learning a bunch of information for thousands of dollars seems like a waste. A quick look at the requirements of the Columbia program shows that the only real 'methods' or research type class you need to take is a colloquium related to the thesis. Is taking a few classes and writing a thesis really worth 50K+ to you? If you are interested in this topic, you can just read and research human rights independently during law school.
 
I am slightly confused at your ambitions. You want an MA, but then you want to go to law school, but maybe want to get a Ph.D.? You want to work internationally in international law? Be careful, you need to pick the path you are most interested in. And also, international law is the least employable (some would even say there are no jobs at all) of all law fields. Burdening yourself with thousands of dollars of debt and then trying to beat the odds is probably not the best course of action.
 
I agree with the other person in that you need to set out your path, then figure out what you need to do to get there. 

Just the name "master's in human rights" raises an eyebrow for me. Even if it comes from a prestigious university, it's not clear who would view this as a qualification-- I can only hope a law school would look favorably on it. A degree in international relations with a focus on human rights will be a lot more flexible and earn respect from a much wider community.

But please, if other forum-goer's have first-hand knowledge of such a degree, do correct me.

Do you have spare time to improve it without neglecting your statement of purpose and writing sample? If so, then yes.  

I don't think it is particularly selective.
The big question I would ask, if you are thinking about getting a PhD there, is what do you hope to get out of it? What do you want to do with the degree? The academic job market is super competitive-and there isn't a ton that you can do with a poli sci PhD outside of academia-and the few interesting jobs for PhDs that don't go into academia are likely to go to people from top schools. Fwiw, they don't even have a section detailing job placement after completion, which is standard at pretty much every school. Not saying you shouldn't do a PhD, or shouldn't do one at Kent State....just something to be aware of and think about.

Any reason you aren't applying to Oxbridge-is it a bad fit, or just a don't want to? At the MSc level, I would think you would have a very good chance at Oxbridge/LSE. MSc admissions standards are substantially lower than both PhD and undergrad standards.
I would disagree with the above that university prestige is less of a thing at post grad level..at least in the social sciences/politics world, where jobs are scare, it really does help to have the right name on your CV. Beyond that, if you do want to do a PhD eventually, it will look great to have gone to a top school for the master's, and you will have better letter writers as well. If you are really averse to Oxbridge that is fine...and I think the LSE in particular could also be a great fit (its where I did my MSc....), but no if you reason for not applying is doubt over whether you could get in, you should go for it.
 

I don't think it is particularly selective.
The big question I would ask, if you are thinking about getting a PhD there, is what do you hope to get out of it? What do you want to do with the degree? The academic job market is super competitive-and there isn't a ton that you can do with a poli sci PhD outside of academia-and the few interesting jobs for PhDs that don't go into academia are likely to go to people from top schools. Fwiw, they don't even have a section detailing job placement after completion, which is standard at pretty much every school. Not saying you shouldn't do a PhD, or shouldn't do one at Kent State....just something to be aware of and think about.

your profile is pretty similar to mine, and I ended up getting into my top two choices, and am attending a "top-5". I actually regret not applying to more "top" schools-I think I would have ended up where I ended up even if I had applied and been accepted to all the top schools, but I definitely undersold myself when I was applying. The only thing I had that you don't was a 170/170 on the GRE, but I have no idea how much that matters.
My advice would be, sure apply to a few top 50, but if you are going to apply to 10 programs, maybe 3-5 top 10, 3-4 10-25, and a few "safety" if need be. Fit really matters...but I would be very surprised if you can't get into a top-20 program. Also, apply widely...the application fees suck, but if you are on the fence about whether to apply to a specific school, but could see yourself attending if accepted, apply.
I am in comparative, but know nothing about Indonesia, but I would suggest maybe broadening your focus to all of SE Asia...I don't think there are a ton of "Indonesia" scholars per se, but I know that a lot of the big departments do have people doing SE Asia generally. And of course, the comparative methodology traditionally does involving comparison of multiple cases.

Usually these fund too, because you can establish residency after 1 year. It is more of an issue for international students. Maybe not all the UC Schools do, but the 'good' ones do.

Any respectable PhD program is fully funded.

Good programs have a minimum cutoff somewhere just above 160/160/4.0.  Substantially beating the cutoff will not grant you extra credit.
 
Panic only if you cannot reach those scores.

I know a bunch of people at SAIS since I go to a master's program down the street from it (I'm at Georgetown), seems like a wonderful program so first of all congrats!
 
About Ph.D, as far as I understand most people in SAIS master's are trying to go into policy or government or think tanks or something rather than Ph.Ds, but I'm sure it's been done. If I had to take a guess, I would say it most definitely will not harm your application. In fact, if you do well in your academic classes, and get great recs, it'll not only be of help but great help in applying to doctoral programs.
 
Good luck!!

Pending GRE, you should be reasonably competitive anywhere. I wouldn't say any of those "special" courses are special, but IQMR could help if its relevant to what you want to reserach. What will determine where you should apply is what you are interested in researching, as if you are a strong fit at a department, you should have a good shot at admission.

There is a lot more to Ph.D. admissions than GPA and GRE.

I think if you're going to only do exclusively qualitative work you really need to justify why you are doing so and why you dont want to employ the methods that the majority of the discipline uses in their current research. If youre asking different types of questions that can't be answered using quantitative methods, that's fine, but anyone saying "I'm only going to use process tracing, case studies, or interviews" to do research on current topics is severely limiting themselves.
 
Learning how to actually do quantitative analysis isn't that difficult and is more conceptual and concerned with research design rather than math based. If you have a great idea and plenty of evidence from case studies, a larger-N statistical analysis could really strengthen your argument.

Not many. You basically have to be a up and coming rock-star to get any solely qualitative jobs these days. If you can't hack it as at least a mixed methods person, the chances of succeeding in academia in political science in the current climate is very low. 

Oh right....you should be naming faculty (at least 2 I would say) who you would like to work with. But it seems less important to have a specific POI who you will work with, due to the nature of the discipline (you won't be working in someone's lab or generally jumping right on a research project). I would always name people whose work interests me, and meshes with mine-but I think in general decisions are not made by one person, and it is more about showing a general departmental fit, not targeting one person to work with.

Complete your master's first, and then focus on teaching.

It's more competitive than you think. A master's just isn't good-enough to get a full-time teaching position in the U.S. at a community college. You need several years of being an adjunct to get the minimum teaching experience. Getting into a Ph.D. program is more realistic than getting a teaching job at this point.

You could get a job with the U.N., but don't bank on it, unless you can be an unpaid intern.

Can...but even to get a non-adjunct position at a community college, don't use usually need a PhD? Or at least, won't most applicants have one?