<p>For students who graduated from their undergrad institutions who have had a change of heart and wanted to now do medicine, there is something called a "Postbac" program. In it, students take all the necessary natural science courses to get ready for medical school. To get in a competitive program, such as Berkeley or Tufts, I spoke with one adcom about how to get in despite having a low undergraduate gpa. The lady said taking science classes through the university's extension program (i.e. chemistry and biology) and getting A's in all of them, would do justice in letting adcoms know that the student has a strong interest in pursuing medicine and, having taken these classes undergraduate classes through extension and excelling in them, can definitely act as a game-changer insofar as admitting purposes go for the Postbac program. In other words, even with the low gpa, the lady told me you can increase your chances greatly by doing this. Extension classes are the same exact undergraduate classes that regular students are in.</p>
<p>My question is, if you have a not-so-great gpa and want to do law school, can taking undergraduate classes under the university's extension program in philosophy, english and economics and getting A's in all of them not increase your chances at all to the law school that you're seeking entry? Once you graduate from undergrad, that record is sealed--and that gpa alone is what determines your admission. So, I'm assuming you can't just take these undergraduate classes through extension, excel in them, and show law schools that you have genuinely changed and took more classes related to law (i.e. philosophy, english, econ). This approach DOES NOT work for law school as the lady above suggested for the Postbac medical school program. Am I right?</p>
<p>
[quote]
show law schools that you have genuinely changed and took more classes related to law (i.e. philosophy, english, econ).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i have a problem with your underlying assumption that these courses are somehow more related to law. to study medicine you need certain science prerequisites. to study law there really isn't anything you need or should have. nor is there anything inherent in the subjects you mention that, in my opinion, helps show an interest in law or a preparation for law school.</p>
<p>OP, your assumption is correct insofar that taking extension courses will not have an impact on your admissions chances. The admissions process is fairly rigid; academic work performed after graduating from undergrad will not be seriously considered.</p>
<p>The reason Post-bac programs help is that med schools use TWO gpa's in their analysis: the gpa in the required science classes (and calc if required), and then the non-science gpa/overall. Thus, a 3.8+ in Post-bac science classes (and appropriate research of some type) can win over med school adcoms even if the undergrad gpa was much lower.</p>
<p>I think its weird how competitive post-bac programs will view it as a game-changer if you take science extension classes and excel in them to offset your undergrad gpa. Why don't law schools do this? Crnchycereal, I get what you're saying. Most work performed after graduating from undergrad usually consists of graduate study. But extension classes are in essence undergraduate classes. Even that they know you've graduated, yet have taken a couple quarters/semesters of classes in philosophy english or econ under extension after your undergrad (and excel in them), this doesn't act as a game-changer for law schools as it does for post-bac programs. Why?</p>
<p>US News counts undergrad GPA as 6% and 4.5% (research and primary care, respectively) of med school rankings and 10% of the law school rankings.</p>
<p>As a result, law schools are less likely than med schools to take a candidate who will hurt them in the GPA category.</p>
<p>
[quote]
yet have taken a couple quarters/semesters of classes in philosophy english or econ
[/quote]
</p>
<p>again you seem to think that there is some relevance to taking philosophy english and econ for law school. there isn't. why should a decision to retry some undergrad courses make a bit of difference to a law school? you are starting with a faulty premise that there are some essential subject areas that merit special attention in law school admissions.</p>
<p>the core of my message is on extension classes, no need to worry about what classes i'm using, those are examples. to a certain extent, though, those classes have always been seen as giving you some good skills that are necessary in law school, such as philosophy, which can help strengthen your argument/reasoning skills. my professor even stated that if you want to go to law school majoring in english would be your best bet. ask him.
as for as taking these extension classes i now know they act as non game-changers as they do with post-bac programs.</p>
<p>i don't need to ask your professor -- i'll go by my own experience as a law school graduate. i saw plenty of fellow students who quickly learned that their "philosphy" arguing skills got them no where in a law school classroom and that writing like they had in english classes wasn't going to carry them in law school. </p>
<p>people who enter law school thinking that what they learned in ANY of their undergraduate courses will give them some advantage in law school, in my opinion based on my law school experience, are just setting themselves up for being "shown" that they need to learn to think and write like a lawyer -- not a philosopher, an economist, a political scientist, a historian, or an english major.</p>
<p>now don't argue with me about the importance of reading, writing, and analytical skills -- of course those are important in law school -- but the type of reading, writing and reasoning you do in law school is simply going to be very different than that you will have found in undergrad disciplines -- and i personally think it misleading to think otherwise. i knew students with engineering/science degrees who adapted better to law school than those with philosophy/english degrees. i'm not saying the former is better preparation -- just that you shouldn't assume that the latter is.</p>
<p>thanks for your insight. just out of curiosity, what law school did you graduate from? those classes were just the main ones i heard about in terms of 'preparing' for law school rigor (from other message boards, websites, my friend from law school, etc). what are you doing now? thanks</p>
<p>i graduated from a top law school (sorry, i prefer not to give more details than that -- but both when i attended and now, it would meet anyone's definition of a top law school). my classmates reflected an incredibly diverse range of backgrounds. there was no predicting how anyone would do based on what they had done prior to law school -- at least in my opinion.
i am now a former lawyer. i've posted about it previously.</p>
<p>are there any websites you recommend that give keen insight on how to prepare for the rigor of law school? if not, anything you know of to help future hopefuls of getting ready to the best of their ability? any books? Thank you.</p>
<p>it is my personal opinion that you can't really prepare yourself for what is to come in law school. any books you read, etc., can only lead you to a false impression that you are prepared.
personally, i think the best preparation is simply:</p>
<p>1) be smart -- simply being smart helps a lot -- but realize that most of your classmates are likely to be smart as well, so don't fall into the trap of thinking what has always helped you stand out in the smarts department in the past will make you stand out in law school.</p>
<p>2) be prepared to work hard -- its not the volume of reading per se, but the fact that you are just going to have to learn to read and think about things differently than you have before and that takes a lot of work - especially the first year.</p>
<p>3) be prepared to have your preconceived assumptions about how to think, how to analyze, how to write effectively challenged and changed -- the more you fight it, the harder it will be.</p>
<p>4) be prepared to be surrounded by people who are overconfident and act like they think they know more than they do -- and don't let it intimidate you -- they will eventually be dealing with the fact that they don't know as much as they thought they did. and often the loudest voices aren't necessarily the ones who "get it" the best.</p>
<p>5) be prepared to be frustrated -- by definition, when you think you are "getting it" your law professor will prove to you that you aren't. its part of the learning process.</p>
<p>6) understand why you are entering this process -- make sure you don't just want to go to law school, but that you really want to be a lawyer. they are two very different things and law school is awfully expensive and stressful to go into it not really knowing why you are.</p>
<p>that's all i can think of for now. i'm willing to bet that others will have other opinions, but since this question has now been buried in this thread, i don't know if you'll get a lot of other responses.</p>