<p>I don't feel that I will be educated enough if I just go from 4 years of undergrad directly to law school. My plan currently is to earn a second undergrad degree after my standard 4 years of undergrad and then go on to a Ph.D (political science)/J.D. program, earning about 215 hours (including summer hours) before going on to grad/law school. Is this viable or discouraged? How would the extra 2 years of undergrad affect my graduate admission, my chances, my connections in the field, etc?</p>
<p>Um... why? Just go for a MA. Or just do the JD first and then go for your PhD? Or just apply anyway and see what happens!</p>
<p>I've talked with several people about an MA in political science, but is it necessary for political scientists? I couldn't find much information in that regard.</p>
<p>Also, I would prefer to get an extra two years and an additional degree because there's a lot of disciplines relevant to law and politics that I won't be educated in if I just follow the four-year undergrad program.</p>
<p>I would also vote "go for the Masters". It will look much better usually than 6 years and 2-3 majors (something many people pull off in 4 years...)
6 years of undergrad also might make you look indecisive, like you were just trying to avoid the real world.</p>
<p>Yes, but why? I've talked with the dean of the political science department about a political science master's and she says it's not necessary.</p>
<p>There's nothing indecisive about getting an additional two years of undergrad education, and I do plan to have 2-3 majors in 4 years--the 2 years of undergrad would provide an additional major or two. I don't feel that 4 years is enough education for myself or anyone; many courses at the undergraduate level are very valuable to have and will make me a more useful and versatile person to have taken them. For example, if I become a politician and am only educated in political science, I've only covered the "politics" part.</p>
<p>Regarding the "real world", I don't think shaving off a few years of my education is worth being able to jump into receiving income sooner. My education will define my skills and to some extent what I can achieve, thus I can be a more competent person that way.</p>
<p>talk to:
a) an academic adviser. They can explain the difference between what you /think/ (and what many people might think for that matter) and what the actual world perceives. This may clear up some of your issues.
b) career services at your undergrad institution. Same reasons as above.
c) a law school admissions rep, from any school you are interested in. They can explain the details of what those programs actually want. Just give the office of admissions a call, tomorrow even. Say you are a prospective student and have a question. They'll answer it.</p>
<p>Why just a poli sci masters? There are other fields out there...JD/MPP's are very popular for example, as are JD/MBA's.</p>
<p>Out of curiosity, what year in undergrad are you? That could potentially explain alot.</p>
<p>A-B) My advisor took 7 years of undergrad and is actually how I learned it was possible to take more than 4 years of undergrad courses. Also, what do you mean by what the actual world perceives? I'm not as concerned if the world thinks I'm educated enough because the standards for what it takes to be considered "educated" in society are pretty low.</p>
<p>C) For what purpose? I know what law programs require for admission--they're primarily based on your LSAT and GPA. Are you referring to how a law or grad school will view an additional 2 years of undergrad?</p>
<p>Regarding the PoliSci master's--isn't that the most sensible choice if I were going to get a Ph.D in political science? Regardless, I still feel like there would still be many disciplines I would be ignorant to which I think are key in any job that involves regulating something. Too much of my education would be focused on the management/regulatory aspects, or management as management alone, and not as much on getting a broad understanding of many disciplines, which I feel is important because they necessarily intertwine. </p>
<p>Also, I will be a sophomore in Fall. I feel like this year's gone by extremely fast, and each year has gone by faster than the last, so I don't see the long period of education as an obstacle. If the Master's is really that important, what about going for the master's after an additional two years of undergrad, then going for the Ph.D/J.D.?</p>
<p>Why are you so deadset on doing two additional years of undergrad? People do double and triple majors in 4 - 5 years (total) all the time; with humanities/social sciences this should be even easier since many classes overlap. And yes you would be wasting your time if your ultimate goal is law school because they don't care about who the best educated students are; they care about your critical thinking and ability to learn. You could major in however many disciplines you want, if you don't know how to apply it, you're not going to succeed in law school. There's no such thing as a lawyer who's an expert in everything; he/she eventually needs to consult with experts or do outside research on a topic they are not familiar with.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why are you so deadset on doing two additional years of undergrad? People do double and triple majors in 4 - 5 years (total) all the time; with humanities/social sciences this should be even easier since many classes overlap.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>From my other post: "I do plan to have 2-3 majors in 4 years--the 2 years of undergrad would provide an additional major or two. I don't feel that 4 years is enough education for myself or anyone; many courses at the undergraduate level are very valuable to have and will make me a more useful and versatile person to have taken them."</p>
<p>
[quote]
And yes you would be wasting your time if your ultimate goal is law school because they don't care about who the best educated students are; they care about your critical thinking and ability to learn.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Law schools care about my GPA and LSAT. An additional 2 years wouldn't be to impress them; it would be to make me a more valuable, useful, and versatile person capable of achieving more and making greater accomplishments.</p>
<p>Well, I've definitely done more research on this subject since originally posting it--after looking into M.P.P. and M.P.A. programs, it seems like that's most appropriate for my goals. I'll definitely consider that and despite seeming adamant and stubborn I've read through every post in this thread several times. Thanks.</p>
<p>Well.. "education" may not be as important as you think it is. I would find a person who graduated with a double major and spent 2 years working in a relevant field more desirable than a student who double majored, then spent another 2 years double majoring again. You don't have to do a Masters and phD in Poli Sci. Pick a subfield you particularly like and get a masters in that. This is especially useful considering how you're trying to diversify your background. Doing all the undergrad work (which, as awesome as the classes may be, are still undergraduate level) seems more like a 'jack of all trades' approach.</p>
<p>From your tone, it sounds like you have been pushed to think that "society" is brain dead and that you must be an expert in every related field to succeed in your desired career. This is not true. Most people going into their field are going to feel unprepared at some point. These programs exist to teach you, not give you a piece of paper that says its okay to start your career.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not as concerned if the world thinks I'm educated enough because the standards for what it takes to be considered "educated" in society are pretty low.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For the very general, world wide stereotypical "society" this is true. But consider your peers. Do you really think your phD/JD peers will think your 6 years of undergrad is "educated"? Bachelors < Masters < Doctorate for a reason? </p>
<p>I don't know much about applying to law schools but I hope they care more about you then just a GPA and LSAT.</p>
<p>I agree with Sydneya here, 6 years of undergrad WILL look weird (and WILL look like you were simply TERRIFIED about the prospect of having to join the real world) to admit committees, and 4 years of undergrad plus 2 years of actual work experience will look much better. I've learned more that will help me in graduate school in my last 2 years working in a lab (phd in neuroscience, if you care) than I did in undergrad. I forget who it was who said "if you want an education, go to a library, if you wanna meet chicks, go to college", but it holds true.</p>
<p>cm85 - You recommend a JD/MBA for someone with these interests. Can you give me some idea of your reasoning? I'm considering a JD/MBA as well.</p>