I am currently a UCF freshman going into my second semester as a freshman. I am majoring in political science and on the Prelaw track. Im unable to meet with my college advisor for a couple weeks, so I could use some help.

I am planning on taking:

PHI 2101, Formal Logic I
POS 3703, Scope and Methods of Political Science
SPC 3301 Interpersonal Communication
SPN 1121C, Elementary Spanish Language & Civilization II

These are the classes Ive already taken:
.
Completed (Summer 2026)
EUH 2000, Western Civilization I: A, 3 credits (UCF)
AMH 2010, U.S. History 1492-1877: A, 3 (transfer)
AMH 2020, U.S. History 1877-Present: A, 3 (transfer)
ENC 1101, Composition I: A, 3 (transfer)
ENC 1102, Composition II: B, 3 (transfer)
POS 2041, American National Government: A, 3 (transfer)
SLS 1101, Principles of Academic Success: A, 3 (transfer)
SPC 1608, Fundamentals of Oral Communication: A, 3 (transfer)
BSC 1005, Biological Principles: S, 3 (AP)
BSC 1005L, Biological Principles Lab: S, 1 (AP)
MAC 1114C, College Trigonometry: S, 3 (AP)
MAC 1140C, Pre-Calculus Algebra: S, 3 (AP)
In progress (Fall 2026)
EVR 1001, Intro to Environmental Science: 3
PHI 2010, Introduction to Philosophy: 3
SPN 1120C, Elementary Spanish Language & Civilization I: 4
STA 2014, Principles of Statistics: 3
Totals: 34 credits completed or transferred, plus 13 in progress, for 47 credits.

Hi Reddit!

I don’t have any formal training in political science, I just am kind of interested in the subject. To me, an uninformed observer, North Korea looks a lot like a new monarchy, but everywhere I look online they call it a “hereditary dictatorship.” My question is…why??

According to North Korea’s constitution, the effective leader of the country is the Chairman of the State Affairs Commission, and that role is meant to be fed by elections and served in terms of 5 years. However, since 1957, power has only ever really been held by three successive members of a single family: the Kims. Despite the fact that the country’s constitution nominally puts power in the hands of the Politburo, the Kims have managed to amass a degree of power that’s more or less absolute. Most people seem to describe this as a hereditary totalitarian dictatorship achieved through a one-party state.

Monarchy is a form of government in which power is concentrated in a single head of state, a monarch. Monarchies can be absolute (like Saudi Arabia) or constitutional (like the UK), hereditary (like most monarchies around today) or elective (like the Vatican). As I understand it, their main uniting characteristic is that the state is not just controlled by but embodied in a single individual, as articulated by Louis XIV when he said “l’état, c’est moi.”

For the purposes of comparing with North Korea, let’s look at the Holy Roman Empire. The HRE was an elective monarchy, but it was often functionally hereditary or at least dynastic. This happened most famously under the Habsburgs, but also under the Ottonians, Salians, Hohenstaufens, and Luxembourgs. In each of those cases, the dynasties did not control the state through simple succession; they did so through constant reassertions of their wealth and power that either won over the Prince-Electors or forced their hands.

The Kims, too, are frequently maneuvering to reassert their own power and ensure dynastic control of the state. If anything, their elections seem to be more of a sham than those of the HRE ever were. At least the Prince-Electors had real power, unlike
the WPK, which has been basically totally suborned. And as for the question of embodying the state, while it’s true that North Korea may not have a European-style divine right of kingship per se, I think the role the Mount Paektu bloodline plays in the Juche ideology serves a similar purpose. Not that there haven’t been plenty of monarchs across history who have ruled in the absence of a formal divine right, mind you.

So political scientists out there, can you help me understand what the differences between North Korea’s hereditary dictatorship and a true monarchy are? Despite these superficial similarities, why do so many people seem to insist that North Korea isn’t a monarchy? Is it the existence of term limits on paper, even if the elections are a total sham and those limits therefore don’t exist functionally? Is it the lack of a title equivalent to King or Emperor? If tomorrow Kim Jong-Un announced that he would henceforth be known as Gugwang, but everything about the function of the state remained exactly the same otherwise, would that make North Korea a monarchy? How do we decide where this line gets drawn, and on what side should North Korea really fall?

Main point: I have to choose my Undergraduate dissertation topic by Tuesday, so I'd really appreciate help picking a topic, especially if the teacher I want to speak to isn't available before then.

I'd also appreciate advice on approaching third year while learning things from scratch, and what core Politics & IR knowledge I should focus on so I feel more confident in 3rd year work and not worrying about being awkwardly caught out by peers or teachers since I don't know anything.

Some context (not making excuses, just explaining my situation):

• Never cared about my education before/wasn't taught how important it was all my life- picked politics as a degree because I didn't know what else to do.
• First year-started good but at the end of things just skipped classes and stopped caring- failed and did resits to pass.
• Second year, unrelated to my lack of care for education -my mental health deteriorated severely, and I barely attended or studied. Someone close to me helped me through repeated resits, extenuating circumstances and doctors' notes. Without them, I think I would've given up.

Present day: I'm somehow in third year, and I genuinely know nothing beyond some basic terms. I don't know the main ideologies, IR theories, major thinkers or much about political analysis and forms of government etc. you name it -I know people sometimes say they've never studied but still know something. That's not me.

I've got through uni through only resits- im good at essays- and all assignments were just topic focussed or options to choose from- so I only crammed readings for questions and passed. 2nd year I did an entire year of resit assessments.

My mental health has improved, and I've matured. I genuinely value education now and realise how lucky I am to have this opportunity. I aspire to be like you guys who are knowledgeable and passionate about Politics or maybe some other field I will learn.

Right now I'm terrified by how much I don't know, but I genuinely want to turn my life around.

Dissertation ideas

One of my current modules is Populism, and I'll probably need to learn comparative politics for other classes and also a resit assessment. So logically, my mind is screaming populism for my dissertation, especially because I feel I could get into it as a beginner?

Other possibilities are representation, media, climate change, drones and sovereignty, military interventions etc. -topics that don't really need much time to learn or background/i can learn from scratch rather than stuff requiring lots of knowledge like IR theory.

But I only have three days to choose, so I'm leaning towards populism. Am I putting all my eggs in one basket, or does it make sense/can work as a beginner?

How would I even approach populism?

• Theory: Compare different authors' arguments or apply theories to specific cases. Would there be enough to write 10,000 words on? -I mean what theoretical stuff could I even possibly do?-cant think of questions for it.
• Data: Voter behaviour seems boring to me, although maybe combining data with theory would work better? -however there is a ton of research available maybe I'm forced to do this.
• Comparative: Comparing two parties or politicians seems promising, but I'm unsure how to develop a strong research question.- I thought maybe left wing vs right wing populism but seems like I cannot say much or am I wrong?
• Discourse analysis: Could comparing two parties' language be a strong enough dissertation? For example, AfD in Germany vs National Rally in France, looking at how they discuss nationality, immigration or present themselves as representing "the people" -would be kinda less scary but I worry theres not too much I can say there?

There are lots of papers on the European far right, so perhaps I could compare why certain parties are more successful, or look at economic vs cultural concerns. I'm just unsure if that's too broad or if its fine.

Overall I think I should go for some sort of comparative scope.

Random research questions I came up with:

• Does populism require crisis to thrive?
• some question about far right populism in Europe since there are so many questions on it -eg. do cultural or economic factors driving success in Europe or why do some far right populist parties succeed not others -(idk if this is too broad)
• How does left and right wing populism compare politician/party A Vs. B
• Does entering government change far-right populism- Does participation in government weaken the anti-establishment message of far-right populist parties? -not sure I could say enough
• Discourse analysis: Would comparing two parties' rhetoric be a strong approach for a 10k-word dissertation? I'm thinking about how they present themselves as representing "the people", anti-establishment rhetoric, nationalism or sovereignty. It seems more manageable to me, but I'm unsure how to make it into a strong, focused research question or whether there's enough to analyse. For example, comparing the AfD and National Rally
• Why do populist leaders who claim to represent the people come into conflict with democratic institutions?
• Does populist rhetoric deepen divisions between social groups, or does it give voice to divisions that already exist?
• How do populist leaders use foreign policy to construct a distinction between the nation and external elites or adversaries? -maybe like EU stuff.

I suffer from indecision so would appreciate thoughts on picking something.

If you've read this far, I'm immensely grateful for your time and any advice.

I was wondering why fascism is considered far-right, and the answer I found was it is anti-egalitarian, nationalist, and combats socialists and communists. But is egalitarianism a left wing view? Like there's no way the right wing just goes "yeah, people aren't equal"??? I thought maybe it's like egalitarianism vs hierarchy but that also didn't really work because meritocracy is hierarchial but there's no way that's a right wing view???

I guess after all left - right really doesn't mean anything but how would y'all define it?

Hey everyone,

I’ve been trying to find a solid way to study political theory as an interconnected intellectual history—looking at it as a genealogy of crises and responses rather than just a massive list of isolated, biographical thinkers.

The problem I keep running into is scale. If you try to cover every thinker from Plato to Foucault, it either turns into a dry encyclopedia or feels overwhelmingly disjointed. I'm not even sure if that's the right approach.

I want to map it into three epochs to keep the core thread visible:

- Pre-Modern: Plato, Aristotle, Augustine

- Modern: Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Marx

- Post-Modern / Contemporary: Weber, Schmitt, Arendt, Foucault, Habermas, Rawls, Gramsci, Fanon

I still think I'm missing a lot of names, and hence, want to know the way to cover most (if not all) the major thinkers and debates of the field of political theory.

Please suggest. Many thanks!

Paper published in PNAS on September 28, 2026. Berkeley News coverage here.

Obviously few if any kings, archons, presidents, popes, and countless other forms of ruler perfectly lived up to ideals like justice and piety, but my understanding is that in ancient and medieval times, popular ideas of rulers and political authors often emphasized that the powerful need to be just, obey the laws of their people, and be pious according to their customs, with moderm authors like Machiavelli amd Hobbes popularizing the open discussion of the brutality and hypocrisy that often comes with politics that, in their view, could be necessary and a lesser evil not to be avoided for the state's well being. Do any political scientists take ideas like the necessity of virtue in rulers or sanctity of law and custom seriously or is that all just old cope?

Hello everyone,

I am interested in doing a PhD/DPhil in Political Economy and I've run into a bit of a hurdle in trying to figure out which \*make\* of a Political Economy program would be the best fit for me. I'm wondering between economics and politics departments how does the political economy field change? I mean this in a sense of asking the question what kinds of topics would be present at both departments. As I am interested in working on topics regarding wealth inequality making use of economics, politics, history, sociology, women and gender studies, etc. with a specific focus on South Asia more specifically southern India. I am also looking at a Public Policy PhD program also as I am thinking there is a lot of overlap between the two.

The schools I am considering are the following in no particular order:

Oxford - Jesus College
Cambridge - Peterhouse and Emmanuel Colleges
UCL
LSE
Harvard
Yale
Princeton
Stanford
UVA (my alma mater)
Columbia/UPenn
UChicago
UMich
Duke
Northwestern
CMU
Hopkins
UCLA
Berkeley
Brown

If you have suggestions for other English taught programs, please feel free to throw them in the comments. Ideally I’d like to be able to do international development work and more specifically working as a researcher.

I go to a university that places great emphasis on methodology courses - over my polsci bachelor, I’ll end up doing 6 courses, each 5 ECTS, in different methodologies - an overall on, a qualitative, a quantitative, philosophy of science, advanced social sciences analysis methods (2 of these).

This is all very boring, and something that’s shocked me is that while I’ve been looking at unis to do exchange semesters at, none of them have nearly as many methodology courses - indeed it’s been difficult to find unis to which I can match my home uni’s courses, due to the lack of such courses.

So my question is: how important are these courses later on? Do you get better career oppurtunities if you’ve had an abundance of methodology courses like I have, or is it irrelevant?

Suggest me some political theory books to begin with, in order to be more active in class with good intellect value, and least personal biases. Note: I am a beginner, 2nd year pol science hons student, and the fact I get a bit bored of books🥀BUT THIS TIME I AM PROFOUNDLY DETERMINED TO READ GOOD BOOKS

Depending on the culture, era, and social structure, property is extended to living things, not just material. So if all people are entitled to life, liberty, and property, but the ownership of another person takes away the owned persons right to liberty, then does that mean that the owner’s right to property has been infringed upon? Which right is more important? What does property really mean?

Locke argues that every person owns their own body and, by extension, the physical labor produced by that body. Locke explicitly states that "every man has a property in his own person." Because your body and labor are uniquely yours, nobody else can ever own you. But what happens when language and social/governmental institutions are used to degrade the humanity of a person or people? Language is very powerful.

In the realm of human rights, there are many conflicting views that make true universalism near impossible to accomplish: Islamic, Western, and Asian. In Islamic countries, the concept of owning women is seen as normal. To Western societies, it is seen as barbaric and outdated. However, at one point in time, Western societies owned people too, and they still implement systems that make it difficult for those minorities to succeed. Scholars of Political Theory and International Human Rights have attempted to steer the ways in which we view political rights and wrongs away from Western Triumphalism and Eurocentrism.

Having said that, on the topic of Islamic countries owning women, they also believe that having multiple women is a status symbol. Would this violate Locke’s Limits on Property even if, by Locke’s definition, people are not considered property? Would the act of acquiring more partners than you can truly care for and appreciate still violate the moral boundaries that Locke has outlined? Also, in the Lockean Proviso, he states that appropriation of resources from nature is only valid if there is "enough, and as good, left in common for others". With over 8 billion people on the planet, does this mean that there are enough people available for polygamy to not be considered overconsumption of “resources?” But then there is the statistical population differences between genders that needs to be considered.

How does one truly define property? Can culture overrule the moral boundaries Locke has established? If animals can be considered property (i.e, pets, livestock, etc), and humans are also, by definition, animals, what protections and universal definitions are truly in place now to prevent specific human beings from being defined as “animals” or “property.” If scholars are concerned about Western Triumphalism and Eurocentrism being pushed as a global moral standard for human rights protections, which aspects are the ones that should be used as the universal moral standard? If we are calling out cultural flaws in Islamic traditional practices, which Western practices should, then, replace the old ones? And, if we were to implement a universalist system, claiming that the Islamic traditional practices should be abolished under this new moral law, does that violate the social contract?

If Islamic people believe in marriage freedom and religious freedom, and the supposed “World Government” or “World Order” has forced the implementation of a universal law prohibiting the the freedom of marriage, placed restrictions on the freedom of religion, and imposed a universal moral code that violates the cultural rights of the Islamic faith, does this violate, not only the social contract, but also their rights to liberty and property? (I am not arguing for slavery. I am just wondering who gets to define these terms and who gives them the power. Is there even a social contract that can be put in place worldwide).

I’m 22 considering going back to school to finish my bachelor’s and I’m leaning toward Political Science.
I’ve always loved history, politics, international affairs, and current events. I considered law when I was younger, but law school is way too expensive for me. I’ve also looked into journalism, but the pay/career prospects aren’t really what I want. I also wanted to join the military specifically Air Force but I have a peanut allergy and that’s crushed that dream.
My actual dream job is becoming a U.S. Foreign Service Officer, specifically on the Political track. The international work, travel, living abroad, and nature of the job are pretty much exactly what I want in a career.
My concern is that the Foreign Service is extremely competitive, so I don’t want a degree that leaves me with few options if it takes multiple attempts or ultimately doesnt work out.

I currently work in lending/financial services and should have several years of experience by graduation. Im currently looking for a new job and am considering different industries like law, oil and gas, banking/ financing just because right now that’s what I have experience in and I have to unfortunately work full time so that I can afford to live on my own and go to online college. I’d also be interested in working for a multinational company in areas like finance, energy, government affairs, risk/compliance, or international business. I also wouldn’t mind working at a law firm or government here but not the traditional politician route.

For those with Political Science degrees: Was it worth it? What do you do now, especially if you didn’t go into law or traditional politics?
Would Political Science make sense for my goals, or should I consider something like Economics, International Relations, Business, etc. instead?

I am interested in PSIR and ive been studying some social science books but I wanna start reading politics on higher level now. I started by " an introduction to political theory" but sometimes i can't understand the core concepts. So I want u ppl to suggest me some other books for basics