Considering switching to Political Science

[jhyt]

I was a history major as an undergrad and only took two political science classes (an intro theory sequence). I am now in an interdisciplinary MA program where I've had the opportunity to take political science classes, and am thinking about pursuing political theory instead of history.

 

How open do political science departments tend to be to students who weren't majors? Are there any major hurdles I should be aware of/kinds of courses I definitely need to take to make up for my lack of undergrad preparation? I've spoken to my professor in the polisci department, but she seems pretty sanguine about everything, so it's hard to judge her comments.

 

Thanks!

[Zahar Berkut]

Going from intellectual history to political theory is absolutely doable. It's important that you show a set of research interests in your personal statement that reflect familiarity with the debates and questions driving your area of political theory, and that you understand what political theory is about in general. Different departments might have theorists whose perspective on theory differ radically, so you should know what approach you prefer when selecting departments. But overall, I think it's much easier to cross between those two fields than many others.

[AmericanQuant]

No one will care that you're not a PoliSci major. It's possible that most of the people in my top-6 program were not political science majors.

[Zahar Berkut]

No one will care that you're not a PoliSci major. It's possible that most of the people in my top-6 program were not political science majors.

 

I'm glad you mentioned this, because I've also noticed that heavily quantitative majors like economics, math/statistics, and natural science/engineering are often valued above a major in the actual field of political science. I realize that the discipline is in a very turbulent place methodologically, and many undergrad political science programs do not provide anything like the training needed for a graduate program, but one would still think that most polisci grad students had already majored in it before entering a graduate program.

 

Thoughts?

[jhyt]

Thanks for everyone's comments! They've been very useful.

 

I'm glad you mentioned this, because I've also noticed that heavily quantitative majors like economics, math/statistics, and natural science/engineering are often valued above a major in the actual field of political science. I realize that the discipline is in a very turbulent place methodologically, and many undergrad political science programs do not provide anything like the training needed for a graduate program, but one would still think that most polisci grad students had already majored in it before entering a graduate program.

 

Thoughts?

 

If I'm pursuing political theory, would a quantitative background still be helpful? I was a math minor, but I did very little on the applied side.

[Zahar Berkut]

Thanks for everyone's comments! They've been very useful.

 

 

If I'm pursuing political theory, would a quantitative background still be helpful? I was a math minor, but I did very little on the applied side.

 

Political theory is the exception, and a math minor can only help and never hurt-- especially if you did "theoretical" math. That means you could engage with the segment of theorists who use formal theory to convey arguments, if that's of any interest to you.

[TheGnome]

That means you could engage with the segment of theorists who use formal theory to convey arguments, if that's of any interest to you.

 

Not sure how much the two crowds mingle. Also have my doubts about whether formal theorists are considered "theorists" in the political theory sense by the people in the discipline. 

[Poli92]

The Gnome has a point. Political theory and formal theory have a lot less to do with each other than their names imply. Political theory has more to do with the history of political thought and the interpretation of modern happenings in the context of a classical theoretical framework. Formal theory has more to do with systematically proving or disproving certain hypotheses through sequences of reasonable conclusions and would be better described as formal logic (as it is in many departments) to avoid confusion. That being said, there are theorists who use rigorous formal logic and mathematical analysis to create links between classical philosophy and modern events. Voter behavior, supreme court rulings, and policy-making come to mind. Just don't expect every theorist to be interested in those sorts of things. Regardless, Zahar Berkut's first post still holds completely true.   

[AmericanQuant]

Their is no doubt in my mind that an undergraduate education in economics would offer superior preparation for a poli sci phd (unless you're doing political theory) than a degree in political science, all else being equal.  For whatever reason, undergraduate political science involves much less quantitive reasoning and formal theorizing than economics. Since these are the bread and butter of modern political science, it's better to have been exposed to them.

 

Another approach would be to pair a very quantitative field like math, computer science or one of the physical sciences with a political science degree.  

 

I've found that the folks with less of a quantitative background struggle relative to those that do. Even if you're doing theory, most programs require you to take some methods courses.  If you're hopeless with math, you'll have some problems there.

Edited January 23, 2014 by AmericanQuant

[aecp]

Their is no doubt in my mind that an undergraduate education in economics would offer superior preparation for a poli sci phd (unless you're doing political theory) than a degree in political science, all else being equal.  For whatever reason, undergraduate political science involves much less quantitive reasoning and formal theorizing than economics. Since these are the bread and butter of modern political science, it's better to have been exposed to them.

 

Another approach would be to pair a very quantitative field like math, computer science or one of the physical sciences with a political science degree.  

 

I've found that the folks with less of a quantitative background struggle relative to those that do. Even if you're doing theory, most programs require you to take some methods courses.  If you're hopeless with math, you'll have some problems there.

Is it a good thing that the economists are successfully imperializing political science with their "quantitative reasoning and formal* theorizing"?

 

* abstract and unrealistic

[Poli92]

Is it a good thing that the economists are successfully imperializing political science with their "quantitative reasoning and formal* theorizing"?

 

* abstract and unrealistic

 

People had the same concerns when math and statistics became highly prevalent in economics. For my part, I don't think quantitative analysis is necessarily a good or bad thing. It's just another tool in the social scientist's toolbox. It becomes good or bad once it's applied, and the same can be said for qualitative methods. It all depends on being intentional about ensuring that your questions and your methodology are appropriate to one another. Quant tools just allow us to ask different questions. 

Edited January 23, 2014 by Poli92

[Zahar Berkut]

I have no objections to incorporating methodology pioneered by economists into political science, so long as people properly value it and its limits and do not abandon qualitative inquiry or theorizing. I mainly wanted to suggest that there's a problem with the undergraduate political science major if it's lagging so far behind the actual discipline of study, perhaps reflecting rapid changes or fierce divisions in the field. I must also point out that quite a few would-be economists flee to political science departments because of the extent to which economics has become an esoteric discipline that values narrow formal-theorizing and modeling over attacking big, enduring questions. I'd like to see political scientists bring some balance to the Force.

 

(I also think that disciplines should be abolished, with all social scientists enrolling in a core methodological sequence before specializing in some area of study.)

 

Oh, and in response to Gnome, I don't actually know any theorists who do political-theory-as-formal-theory, but I'm told they exist... so I'm sure that's a tiny segment. I'd be curious to learn more about it, though.

[overworkedta]

To the OP, our program doesn't look down its nose at other degrees.  I have committee members who have PhDs in poli sci that did u-grad degrees in econ, history, and math.  The biggest challenge (which has been highlighted here) is making sure you can suss out the math required for your "job".  Ask lots of questions.  All programs differ in how they "prepare" you for stats.  If you are doing political theory, you will likely have fewer requirements but, honestly, the number of places with a theory concentration are dwindling and the number of jobs out there for theory are even fewer.  We don't have one anymore.  I don't think, however, that any ONE major is valued above all others as long as you can explain why this program is a good fit for you.  Our program doesn't seem to care more for a certain major when admitting new cohorts.

 

FYI, Some programs require stats and/or econ and methods courses for their u-grads.  I teach undergrads who have had all of these classes and have taught the u-grad methods labs for these students.  They also have the option of taking a second-level introductory grad stats seminar (the one we all take) as seniors if they take methods as a sophomore or junior.  So, some programs are doing a good job.  Other programs rate these things less important for undergraduates.  I came from one of them.  It was a top-30 institution (Indiana) and I am now a quant-head.  I have colleagues that have done Econ as undergrads, have masters in it, etc and while they are definitely better prepared for math and formal theory (which I don't do), they sometimes struggle with other aspects of the job - the high amounts of reading, different theoretical views, etc.  We each bring something to the table and everyone seems to level out by their 2nd year or they quit.

 

That's just been my experience and the experience of a couple of friends in other programs.  I favor requiring more methods and ACTUAL political science for undergrads but I don't think that methods alone are going to make the programs "better" or make people more prepared for grad school.  I think regardless of what you do, grad school is a big jump just like college is for most highschoolers.  It's meant to be this way.  Otherwise, everyone would excel and get a PhD.

[AmateurNerd]

As a former poli sci PhD student, I'd like to add to this discussion. In my experience as both a poli sci undergrad and grad, the difference between undergraduate political science and graduate/PhD political science is so great that, pratically speaking, the two are entirely different fields. At the undergrad level, poli sci is basically a mix of history, philosophy, and current events. Some institutions include a token course in "methodology" which is basically introductory statistics, but by and large quantitative training is entirely absent. In contrast, poli sci at the grad/PhD level is dominated by quantitative methods and formal theories. It bears zero resemblance to undergrad poli sci. To be successful in poli sci, a grad student is better off having undergrad training in economics, mathematics, and/or computer science.

 

I asked one of my grad school profs why undergrad poli sci programs tend to avoid quant, and his response basically boiled down to this: Many (if not most) poli sci undergrads are actually interested in law, education, or "politics" (not poli sci) as career fields, so were departments to add quant training at the undergrad level, they would lose lots of math-averse undergrads to the other social sciences and the humanities. Fewer undergrads = less funding = less influence/prestige.

[victorydance]

To answer the OP's question, not it doesn't matter, especially a history major going into political theory. The only problem I see is that you won't be as well versed in the literature as other prospective theory students who have been doing it longer and more intensively as you.

 

I agree with the general sentiment that political science undergraduate programs are not aligned very well with graduate programs. At my university, political science was the largest discipline by number of students in the arts department. Yet, the advanced quant course offered had to be cancelled last year because only 4 students enrolled in the class (much to my chagrin as I was one of those students). The only required methods class is a basic empirical class (basic stats and methods class) that is only required by honours students. So basically you could get an honours degree in political science with very little methods or quantitative training if you wanted.

 

However, I would argue that the top students in political science do have opportunities to enhance their skills. Many of the top undergraduate students take graduate courses, get RA positions, and do an honours thesis that gives them the opportunity to enhance their quantitative analysis skills.