 | What are some of the job requirements, to become a policy analyst? Do I need to prepare speeches, or briefing notes? I'm thinking of majoring in Public Administration and Governance, in University next year. I don't have strong English writing skills, or math skills but I enjoy learning about the law, and excel in that area? Is the job hefty work? I read its a lot of desk work.
1 answer - Asked By: Sugar S - 7/17/2010 |
| |
 | On average how much money will I make coing right out of grad school? If i wanted to work as a policy analyst for the government about how much will i start off as?Does the government hire fresh graduates as GS 13's?
i'm talking about a MPP not a MPA
|
| |
 | I'm a 26 year old student in Canada, graduating this spring. I am wondering what you perceive as a fitting job for a political science student. What kind of jobs would be available for someone with that kind of educational background? I'm thinking the public service, or a government job of some sort, but does anyone have any concrete suggestions? I'm pretty sure I would need at least a Master's level degree to apply as a policy analyst, so what are some potential options? I live in Ontario, Canada. Thanks for your help in advance
3 answers - Asked By: CanadianTheorist - 2/5/2010 |
| |
 | If you have majored in political science and/or public policy, what do you think of the major? Are you happy that you chose that degree? What kind of job did you get with it? Is it a difficult degree to study in college? I'm planning to major in it and I was wondering what to expect.
1 answer - Asked By: Dream Achiever - 9/1/2008 |
| |
| I've been thinking about joining a federal agency for some time now, whether it be DEA, FBI, CIA, or whatnot. As a college junior majoring in history, I was just wondering whether I'd be qualified for such a position, and what type of work it would entail. Is it necessarily of the same high-risk profession as seen in "NCIS" or "24" with all the office drama and intrigue, even if I'm not deployed on the field? And would having a career in the public sector be beneficial if I plan to go into public policy doing more analytical work?
3 answers - Asked By: BravoTwoZero - 3/11/2010 |
| |
 | My husband is set to graduate in one year with a Masters Degree in Asian Studies. He has intermediate knowledge of Mandarin and has lived in Taiwan for 2 years. He does not have very much experiance. He doesn't want to teach or work in business. He likes public policy making and humanitarian institutions. His dreams job is Diplomacy but idk how he's start that.
Where can he start?
|
| |
| After getting my masters in economics and getting the job I strove for as a policy analyst in a law office I realize that I hate economics.
After two months I have come to realize how little precision there is in anything legal or policy based. People just don't want to reach agreements and government agencies purposely try to confuse the public with convoluted wording. Moreover government agencies seem to just spend all their time justifying their own existence.
I would really like to get my PhD in physics or math, and I am curious if anybody here has ever got a degree in something very different from a previous degree.
Thanks
|
| |
| Hi guys
I'm going onto University soon (hopefully!) I have a passion for politics and was wondering what Jobs can one get if they have a political science degree? List of potential institutions and potential salary would be fantastic.
As always I will give 10 points to the best answer.
Thanks in advance :)
5 answers - Asked By: comicfreak111 - 3/3/2012 |
| |
| I am seriously thinking about going back to school and was wondering if you all could help me think of jobs an anthropologist major might qualify for, outside of teaching?
1 answer - Asked By: ihcuids - 1/14/2009 |
| |
| I am currently in college and don't know what I want to do in life. My current major is nursing but I am a nursing assistant and I know I do not want to become a nurse, despite the good job prospects. It is just not my thing. However, what are the prospects for someone with the above degrees? And what kind of jobs could I work with degrees in those fields?
Ok, but what about international studies?
|
| |
 | My brother just graduated in June and is currently waiting tables. What sort of job employers would be looking to hire him?
4 answers - Asked By: C Deezy McCain - 9/5/2007 |
| |
 | My wife is getting a masters in Public Administration, but she is getting disheartened by her friends earning money while she just spends it. Will it pay off in the end or would it be better to earn experience in a certain field?
|
| |
| I'm planning to major in criminal justice and probably minor in forensic science/investigation. Are there any career positions that I could work with criminal justice degree without having to carry a gun? I also dont want to work as a lawyer or legal field related
I also want to know is it possible to get a job as a crime analyst, criminologist, or anything similar with criminal justice degree?
|
| |
| What kind of jobs are there for someone who gets a degree in this? Seems like a waste of education and money if there are no viable careers.
7 answers - Asked By: billybobinbred - 10/8/2007 |
| |
| I don't really know what type of degree program I want to go into, but this is one of the ones I've been juggling around in my mind. Also, any information about the options between Bachelor's degree and Master's degree, salary, job outlook etc. would be welcome too.
|
| |
| If life has taught us anything, it is to specialize, specialize, specialize. It's basic economics; the more specialized you are, the better you are at your job, and the more money you make. If you're a systems analyst, you aren't trusted to judge the value of the many-worlds hypothesis (physics). If you're a middle school teacher, you aren't trusted to judge the moral philosophy of Marx and Nietzsche. If you're a theoretical physicist, you aren't trusted to give accurate nutritional advice. If you're a businessman, you aren't trusted to know how to design a building safely. If you're a janitor, you aren't trusted to give intelligent psychiatric advice.
So, if an American citizen is not an economist, a political philosopher, an ethicist, and a public administrator, why would he/she be trusted to make an intelligent decision on how the country should be run? Other fields require only the specialization of a single skill, of a single set of related skills. To judge the truthfulness and utilitarian usefulness of political and public policy actions, one would need not only specialize in ONE area, but in MANY areas, since government encompasses all things. Therefore, governing accurately, justly, and efficiently requires one to be not just intelligent, but super-intelligent and knowledgeable in all of the issues relating to political governance. However, the foundation of our government does not incorporate these people, nor does it even incorporate those who specialize in just one area related to public policy. Instead of raising the high standards necessary for a good government, we have counterintuitively lowered the standards; everyone can vote. Americans give legitimacy to the democratic system by obeying its results (or, if they don't obey the results, most often they claim election fraud, which is still demonstrating their underlying trust of the majority's decision). Isn't this just a noble lie, that democracy (or a representative republic) is the best regime?
Now, it is true that with less popular representation comes a greater chance of exploitation and oppression. However, keep in mind that Americans are already psychologically exploited to a great extent; we spent over 1 billion dollars total in the previous election, but how many of those people that contributed actually knew exactly what they were talking about, politically? (1 billion dollars is equal to the amount that some 33 thousand average people would contribute to their household income in a year.) All of the mindless, irrelevant campaign commercials exploit us intellectually, as well, giving many citizens their overconfident political hubris.
People today decide their vote from:
* listening to the biased, politically illiterate media, which knows next to nothing about critical thinking
* A few biased, meaningless 30-second advertisements made by the candidate themselves
* Peer pressure
just to list a few.
Do most voters understand logical fallacies, critical thinking, political philosophy, or even basic economics? Are they intelligent enough to make accurate judgments on how 300 million people should be governed? My answer is no. What do you think?
Note, when I'm talking about the idiotic voters, I am referring primarily to people like you, you Yahoo Answers people. Who else would spend their time on the anonymous internet answering useless questions for the purpose of gaining useless points? (and, in this politics section, for spreading ideology)
3 answers - Asked By: Anonymous Cynic - 11/18/2008 |
| |
| If life has taught us anything, it is to specialize, specialize, specialize. It's basic economics; the more specialized you are, the better you are at your job, and the more money you make. If you're a systems analyst, you aren't trusted to judge the value of the many-worlds hypothesis (physics). If you're a middle school teacher, you aren't trusted to judge the moral philosophy of Marx and Nietzsche. If you're a theoretical physicist, you aren't trusted to give accurate nutritional advice. If you're a businessman, you aren't trusted to know how to design a building safely. If you're a janitor, you aren't trusted to give intelligent psychiatric advice.
So, if an American citizen is not an economist, a political philosopher, an ethicist, and a public administrator, why would he/she be trusted to make an intelligent decision on how the country should be run? Other fields require only the specialization of a single skill, of a single set of related skills. To judge the truthfulness and utilitarian usefulness of political and public policy actions, one would need not only specialize in ONE area, but in MANY areas, since government encompasses all things. Therefore, governing accurately, justly, and efficiently requires one to be not just intelligent, but super-intelligent and knowledgeable in all of the issues relating to political governance. However, the foundation of our government does not incorporate these people, nor does it even incorporate those who specialize in just one area related to public policy. Instead of raising the high standards necessary for a good government, we have counterintuitively lowered the standards; everyone can vote. Americans give legitimacy to the democratic system by obeying its results (or, if they don't obey the results, most often they claim election fraud, which is still demonstrating their underlying trust of the majority's decision). Isn't this just a noble lie, that democracy (or a representative republic) is the best regime?
Now, it is true that with less popular representation comes a greater chance of exploitation and oppression. However, keep in mind that Americans are already psychologically exploited to a great extent; we spent over 1 billion dollars total in the previous election, but how many of those people that contributed actually knew exactly what they were talking about, politically? (1 billion dollars is equal to the amount that some 33 thousand average people would contribute to their household income in a year.) All of the mindless, irrelevant campaign commercials exploit us intellectually, as well, giving many citizens their overconfident political hubris.
People today decide their vote from:
* listening to the biased, politically illiterate media, which knows next to nothing about critical thinking
* A few biased, meaningless 30-second advertisements made by the candidate themselves
* Peer pressure
just to list a few.
Do most voters understand logical fallacies, critical thinking, political philosophy, or even basic economics? Are they intelligent enough to make accurate judgments on how 300 million people should be governed? My answer is no. What do you think?
Note, when I'm talking about the idiotic voters, I am referring primarily to people like you, you Yahoo Answers people. Who else would spend their time on the anonymous internet answering useless questions for the purpose of gaining useless points? (and, in this politics section, for spreading ideology)
2 answers - Asked By: Anonymous Cynic - 11/18/2008 |
| |
| If life has taught us anything, it is to specialize, specialize, specialize. It's basic economics; the more specialized you are, the better you are at your job, and the more money you make. If you're a systems analyst, you aren't trusted to judge the value of the many-worlds hypothesis (physics). If you're a middle school teacher, you aren't trusted to judge the moral philosophy of Marx and Nietzsche. If you're a theoretical physicist, you aren't trusted to give accurate nutritional advice. If you're a businessman, you aren't trusted to know how to design a building safely. If you're a janitor, you aren't trusted to give intelligent psychiatric advice.
So, if an American citizen is not an economist, a political philosopher, an ethicist, and a public administrator, why would he/she be trusted to make an intelligent decision on how the country should be run? Other fields require only the specialization of a single skill, of a single set of related skills. To judge the truthfulness and utilitarian usefulness of political and public policy actions, one would need not only specialize in ONE area, but in MANY areas, since government encompasses all things. Therefore, governing accurately, justly, and efficiently requires one to be not just intelligent, but super-intelligent and knowledgeable in all of the issues relating to political governance. However, the foundation of our government does not incorporate these people, nor does it even incorporate those who specialize in just one area related to public policy. Instead of raising the high standards necessary for a good government, we have counterintuitively lowered the standards; everyone can vote. Americans give legitimacy to the democratic system by obeying its results (or, if they don't obey the results, most often they claim election fraud, which is still demonstrating their underlying trust of the majority's decision). Isn't this just a noble lie, that democracy (or a representative republic) is the best regime?
Now, it is true that with less popular representation comes a greater chance of exploitation and oppression. However, keep in mind that Americans are already psychologically exploited to a great extent; we spent over 1 billion dollars total in the previous election, but how many of those people that contributed actually knew exactly what they were talking about, politically? (1 billion dollars is equal to the amount that some 33 thousand average people would contribute to their household income in a year.) All of the mindless, irrelevant campaign commercials exploit us intellectually, as well, giving many citizens their overconfident political hubris.
People today decide their vote from:
* listening to the biased, politically illiterate media, which knows next to nothing about critical thinking
* A few biased, meaningless 30-second advertisements made by the candidate themselves
* Peer pressure
just to list a few.
Do most voters understand logical fallacies, critical thinking, political philosophy, or even basic economics? Are they intelligent enough to make accurate judgments on how 300 million people should be governed? My answer is no. What do you think?
Note, when I'm talking about the idiotic voters, I am referring primarily to people like you, you Yahoo Answers people. Who else would spend their time on the anonymous internet answering useless questions for the purpose of gaining useless points? (and, in this politics section, for spreading ideology)
2 answers - Asked By: Anonymous Cynic - 11/18/2008 |
| |
| If life has taught us anything, it is to specialize, specialize, specialize. It's basic economics; the more specialized you are, the better you are at your job, and the more money you make. If you're a systems analyst, you aren't trusted to judge the value of the many-worlds hypothesis (physics). If you're a middle school teacher, you aren't trusted to judge the moral philosophy of Marx and Nietzsche. If you're a theoretical physicist, you aren't trusted to give accurate nutritional advice. If you're a businessman, you aren't trusted to know how to design a building safely. If you're a janitor, you aren't trusted to give intelligent psychiatric advice.
So, if an American citizen is not an economist, a political philosopher, an ethicist, and a public administrator, why would he/she be trusted to make an intelligent decision on how the country should be run? Other fields require only the specialization of a single skill, of a single set of related skills. To judge the truthfulness and utilitarian usefulness of political and public policy actions, one would need not only specialize in ONE area, but in MANY areas, since government encompasses all things. Therefore, governing accurately, justly, and efficiently requires one to be not just intelligent, but super-intelligent and knowledgeable in all of the issues relating to political governance. However, the foundation of our government does not incorporate these people, nor does it even incorporate those who specialize in just one area related to public policy. Instead of raising the high standards necessary for a good government, we have counterintuitively lowered the standards; everyone can vote. Americans give legitimacy to the democratic system by obeying its results (or, if they don't obey the results, most often they claim election fraud, which is still demonstrating their underlying trust of the majority's decision). Isn't this just a noble lie, that democracy (or a representative republic) is the best regime?
Now, it is true that with less popular representation comes a greater chance of exploitation and oppression. However, keep in mind that Americans are already psychologically exploited to a great extent; we spent over 1 billion dollars total in the previous election, but how many of those people that contributed actually knew exactly what they were talking about, politically? (1 billion dollars is equal to the amount that some 33 thousand average people would contribute to their household income in a year.) All of the mindless, irrelevant campaign commercials exploit us intellectually, as well, giving many citizens their overconfident political hubris.
People today decide their vote from:
* listening to the biased, politically illiterate media, which knows next to nothing about critical thinking
* A few biased, meaningless 30-second advertisements made by the candidate themselves
* Peer pressure
just to list a few.
Do most voters understand logical fallacies, critical thinking, political philosophy, or even basic economics? Are they intelligent enough to make accurate judgments on how 300 million people should be governed? My answer is no. What do you think?
Note, when I'm talking about the idiotic voters, I am referring primarily to people like you, you Yahoo Answers people. Who else would spend their time on the anonymous internet answering useless questions for the purpose of gaining useless points? (and, in this politics section, for spreading ideology)
1 answer - Asked By: Anonymous Cynic - 11/18/2008 |
| |
| Im in secondary school and Im very good at history ,I even got a History prise at the end of the year and i got the best gradees possible at my report card.Im wondering what good jobs need history.
|
| |