Charlie2010

It would definitely be worth it to retake the GRE and get a better Q score, if indeed you are as comfortable with quantitative material as you say your coursework shows. Your school will hurt you because faculty on the admissions committee are less likely to know of your letter writers. Also, a 4.0 or almost 4.0 is what we'd expect from anyone coming from outside the top twenty or so undergrad institutions, so it doesn't stand out as much as a 4.0 from one of those. But you should have a good shot at some of the programs you mention.

If you're serious about grad school, take as many of the basic math courses as you can stand and have time for. Calculus, multivariate calc, linear algebra, probability theory. These will show your analytical capabilities more clearly than most social science stats courses, including intro poli sci methods for PhDs. However, taking a stats class might be useful if you can do it in time to be able to use some stats techniques in your senior thesis. But a solid qualitative thesis plus decent grades in multivariate calc will be enough to put you ahead of that pack in applications. (plus GREs, overall GPA, rec letters, etc., of course)

With your GPA (and presumably strong letters) you should have a good shot at a top-ten poli sci PhD, although we will certainly notice that you avoided quant material. If you are willing to work hard, you can remedy that now by getting a 760-plus math GRE, or over the course of the next year by taking the math courses you've been avoiding (even at night school/community college) to show that you're serious and at least better than a C-student in math. This isn't to say that you have to take an aggressively quant approach in grad school, but you'll have to do a little and we don't want you to burn out. Languages are helpful but not at all required for IR. Having a historical bent is also no problem--we aren't historians, but we aren't journalists, either. Looking into the past is a good way to develop or examine a theory. And it would probably hurt to apply for both history and poli sci PhDs, since it shows a lack of focus, and this will come through in your letters and your recommendations. Poli sci job prospects both in and out of academic are much better than history, although neither is a golden ticket.

This is all pretty funny. I'm a faculty member who served on an admissions committee this year. This guy does exist, is easily identifiable (as are several of you) if one has to look at the 50 or so files that are of a similar caliber (across all subfields) and thereby know their scores, essays, etc. I admit I have better things to do with my time but the alternative leisure activity is watching sitcoms and watching your board is an easy thing to jump to when I'm stuck on a research question and want a break. (You can now debate whether I'm for real. Believe what you want.)