Hello all! I am currently a freshman at UC San Diego. I am a pre-law student and I was wonder which would be a better major for me International Studies - Economics (emphasis in econ) or Poli Sci - International Relations. I find both very interesting. However, I am much better at writing/reading than math. Some of the econ classes I would have to take are very math-centric. I believe I will get a better GPA as a Poli Sci major; however, if law school doesn’t pan out, I don’t think a poli sci degree will help me in the workforce. What would be the best decision: do Int’l Studies with a lower GPA and better employment prospects or do Poli Sci and have a higher GPA and less employability? Any advice would really help!
As an undergrad, I did a dual major of political science and international affairs, with a minor in Russian and one credit shy of a minor in Econ. I went directly into law school afterwards and obtained a joint degree with a masters in foreign service, with a focus on international joint ventures and particularly Russian joint ventures. After graduation from law school, my undergraduate degree didn’t make a bit of difference to employers. What mattered was that the undergraduate program helped me find and develop my passions.
As an undergraduate, I did not worry about GPA. Let me be clear. I always tried my best to achieve the best grades I could in a particular class, once I chose it, but I often chose classes that were known to be harder than others or have profs that were tougher than others. Even in my masters program, I took some specialized courses that were over my head and impossible to master, but so incredibly fascinating and rewarding despite the less-than-stellar grades I received.
My advice is to not worry about GPA. Also, don’t worry too much about employability, especially if you plan to go directly to law school. But I agree, if you do not go directly to law school, a degree in Econ / International Studies will likely be more marketable than Poli Sci / International Studies.
The most important thing is to find and develop your passions. Work hard and challenge yourself as much as possible in a field that inspires you. If you do that, your path will lead you in the right direction for you.
Now that said, just to be clear, your potential law schools WILL care about GPA, but what’s even more important is your “story.” As you develop your passions you will build your story. It will be important to be able to market that story to your proposed law school or employer, so build that story in your head (or even on paper) as you go. Look to extracurriculars, etc., to fill out that story. If you are following your passions, it will all fall into place, because you will naturally become involved in activities that round out that story. Make sense?
I’ve followed the law school admissions scene closely for the past 5 years, and I must differ with @SoccerMomGenie that your “story” is ever more important than your GPA to law schools, unless that story might include a Congressional Medal of Honor, your family’s ability to make a 7-figure gift, or some other highly unusual resume point. Law schools will consider your story, but certainly not more than your GPA/LSAT score.
It is good advice to find and develop your passions. If you’re a freshman, how do you know you want to be a lawyer? Are there lawyers in your family, have you done a law-related internship, etc.? Can you shadow a local judge or lawyer this summer, just to see what an actual lawyer does? Then you can decide whether law falls in line with your passions.
OP, you’re wise to consider employability in case law school doesn’t materialize for whatever reason. GPA is always going to be important, even in a math-related major. Have you checked out your Career Services website and office to see what kind of internships and interview prospects each major offers at your school? You’re asking good questions - good luck.
No one cares about your “story.” I don’t care, employers don’t care, and law schools definitely don’t care. Law schools care about GPA/LSAT first, URM second, and nothing third.
“Finding your passion” is the kind of advice you get from people who didn’t have to pay today’s tuition rates. You are absolutely right to focus on employability. The obvious answer to this dilemma is to major in what will keep your GPA high and minor in your backup plan.
Also, you should spend some time interning at a law office. As a freshman it’s unlikely you have much first-hand experience with the practice of law. That is something you should absolutely pursue before deciding to make law your career.
Claims that law schools care only about GPA/LSAT and URM status are demonstrably false.
Those are certainly the most important things, but law schools also care about work experience, difficulty of school/major and the like, all of which can help a marginal candidate get in. Law schools say that they care about those things (see Dean Minow at HLS), and they do.
Look at the “scattergrams” that show who gets admitted and who gets rejected based on GPA/LSAT combinations. Above the medians, more people get in than below the medians, but a GPA/LSAT score above a school’s median- even far above- won’t necessarily result in admission, and a GPA/LSAT score below a school’s median doesn’t necessary result in a rejection. If GPA/LSAT scores and URM status were the sole criteria, then there would be a much clearer distinction between who’s admitted and who’s not, taking just numbers and URM status into account.
Look also at entering class stats: a growing number of students at HLS and other schools has work experience after college, which is consistent with what Dean Minow says she wants.
Look also at GPAs for admitted students; some law schools, such as HLS, give a GPA “boost” to people who went to Harvard College, for example.
Top law schools (e.g., Yale, Harvard and Stanford) still get plenty more applicants than they need in order to fill a class just with candidates who meet GPA/LSAT/URM criteria; of the large numbers of people who meet those criteria, they can be picky about who they take.
Back on track, OP, I would pick whatever gets you the higher GPA as long as (1) you’re 100% sure that you want to go to law school and (2) your GPA will be enough to be within a range of getting into a good school, but I’d also be aware that there are other factors that schools will consider, and so you should plan on taking a year or so off if needed after college, and having interesting experiences during college, in order to make your application as strong as it can be.
To add:
Here is an article about the growing importance of taking time off after college:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/4/9/hls-admissions-work-experience/
If only GPA/LSAT numbers mattered, why would the portion of the class that had taken time off post-college have changed, particularly when the change came in connection with Dean Minow requesting the change? I doubt that the GPA/LSAT numbers of people who took time off suddenly became better than those who didn’t.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/4/9/hls-admissions-work-experience/
To add to my posts above:
Taking time off after college, and where you go to college, most certainly does matter:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/5/14/hls-new-pilot-program/
One HLS admissions program requires that both (1) an applicant attend Harvard College and (2) take time off after college.
So just GPA and LSAT count? Definitely not so. OP, not saying that you should follow the steps in these articles, but they just prove the point that things other than GPA/LSAT matter, and that your application should take things in addition to GPA/LSAT into account.
Harvard says it, so it must be true! Who needs basic math anyways.
Demosthenes49, the two articles I posted were ones showing (1) statistics regarding entering classes at Harvard Law School, showing that more and more admitted students have post-college work experience (conveniently coming once Dean Minow said that post-college work experience should be emphasized), and (2) Harvard Law School’s admissions program that requires studies at Harvard College and post-college work experience.
Make whatever flippant remarks you want, but facts are facts.
GPA/LSAT may be the most important criteria in law school admissions, but they aren’t the only factors- as also evidenced by the “scattergrams” that you keep showing us, which only show that candidates with requisite GPA/LSAT numbers are more likely to be admitted than those who lack them, but that people without those numbers are also sometimes admitted, and numbers alone do not lead to automatic acceptances or rejections.
Kudos to HappyAlumnus for some insightful and well-made points. And frazzled1 made some great points and helped me to see that I might not have been entirely clear.
First, a disclaimer. I’ve been far from the law school admissions scene for a while. No doubt, GPA and LSAT are the 2 most important factors for getting into law school. They may be even more important now than they were “back in the day.” I am no expert on law school admissions.
On the other hand, I have many years experience as an employer. I was on the hiring committee at a very large law firm and I was the head of the legal and contracts department for a multi-billion dollar company. I won’t try to speak for others, but I will tell you that for myself, when I was hiring, I most definitely cared much more about a candidate’s “story” than any other single part of his or her resume.
What do I mean by “story?” I want to see candidates who know themselves. I want to see that they’ve found something that truly excites and motivates them – and no,“getting the best GPA and going to the best law school so I can get a job that makes a lot of money” doesn’t count for much in my book. I want to see evidence in your job history, extracurriculars, majors/minors, etc. that back up your story. Once you’re in the working world, money is not much of a motivator for very long. I tried to find candidates who had some sort of passion for what they did. Maybe they knew that they enjoyed working as part of a team (as evidenced by team sports and other team-based activities). Some people love a challenge and take pride in overcoming hardships (and they can give me examples of this from their past). Some people love technology and innovation. Some love debate. A strong legal department (and most employers) will need a diverse workforce, so I wasn’t looking for any single type. I wanted employees who were self-aware (understood their strengths and weaknesses), who had a passion for something (and I could tell by the spark in their eye), and who were team-players. I didn’t like self-promoter types because I knew they were not likely to be acting in the best interest of the company and the department. I didn’t like “check the box” types who took the right courses or joined the right clubs simply because it would look good on a resume, because I wanted people who had a source of motivation beyond just checking boxes to get to the next rung.
By following this approach for hiring – and then emphasizing mutual-respect, hard work and collaboration – we created an amazing legal team that was highly respected throughout the company. Within the team, most became great friends and felt it was their best job ever.
So coming back to OP. What I meant is that you need to find what truly excites and motivates you. You need to do this for your own benefit over the long-term, not just for getting into law school. It ties into the important question I did not ask – WHY do you want to go to law school? If your answer is because you don’t know what else to do, or because it’s a good profession where you can have prestige and make a lot of money, that’s not going to carry you very far. You need to figure out what really makes you tick. If what really makes you tick leads you toward a difficult college course where your grade may not be as high as some other fluff course, it’s my personal view that you would be best-served over the long run by following your interest. That will lead you in a direction toward your more authentic self. It will lead you toward greater self-fulfillment and long-term happiness. And it MIGHT lead you to the right law school and employment opportunity after law school. And if you end up not going to law school, you are much more likely to find other employment if you have chosen a major because it interests and inspires you, not just because it’s the one where you could have obtained the highest GPA with the most ease.
What does this mean for your immediate choice? I think economics is more employable than political science. If you like them both equally, I’d recommend the economics. I don’t think you should shy away from the economics just because it might be a bit more challenging. On the other hand, if you don’t think you’ll enjoy the economics because of the math, I think it would be foolish to set yourself up for a potential career in a field where you’ll be miserable. Although political science might be less employable generally, it might still be a good choice if you are absolutely passionate about it – if you are a political junky or if you would like to work in state politics or if you plan to go on to a graduate degree. If you’re not passionately excited about either poli sci or econ, there are many other fields and majors that also pair well with international studies. What about communications, for example?
I fully support the idea of getting some legal-related experience … with a small caveat. The legal field is so huge and so diverse, I wouldn’t want you to judge the entire field based on a single experience. A small town legal office is very different from a large multinational law firm which is very different from a medium-sized company which is very different from a public defender’s office, etc. There are civil litigators and criminal litigators and real estate lawyers and M&A attorneys and government antitrust lawyers and advocates for the environment or civil liberties,etc. If you can find a legal-related job – any legal-related job – that would be excellent. But you might also want to do some research and reading and talk with the career advisors at your college. As you are a freshman, there is no immediate rush. Later on, when you have some ideas of the type of legal career you may be interested in, consider contacting a few different attorneys for informational interviews. Not a job interview under false pretenses, but a sincere interview to learn more about their particular field of expertise and to receive whatever advice they might have to offer. I would gladly give 20-30 minutes of my time (or more) to a student sincerely looking for advice. (After all, that’s what I’ve just done here!)
Good luck!
I would say that employers and law schools alike will lump Poli Sci and International Relations together, so if choosing between the to opt for the one that will allow you to maintain a higher GPA and some honors for your resume. If you really want your undergrad degree to have an appreciable effect on your employment, consider working on your math skills and pursuing a degree related to biomedical sciences, computer science, or engineering, as having a background in these fields as a lawyer opens up a lot of well-paying doors, while closing none.
While there are obviously exceptions, I agree that LSAT + GPA are the driving forces of law school admission.
@SoccerMomGenie: So, when you were involved at hiring at a very large law firm, your firm didn’t have a GPA floor for each school? I find that quite impressive, as it’s a practice I despise but one that law firms seem to universally value. Similarly, your firm wasn’t one that would automatically call back those with higher GPAs? Again, that’s really a good thing, but surely you must recognize that it’s not the common method at OCI.
As for the very large company, you’re right that these companies can and often do care about things besides law school GPA (although it’s usually experience; I haven’t heard of a company that cares for “story”), but they are also rarely involved in entry level hiring. Just about every major company I can think of pulls from BigLaw rather than bringing in 1st years. There are a few exceptions, like HP, but they absolutely have GPA cutoffs.
@SoccerMomGenie, thanks for your post. It’s brilliant and if there were a “sticky” or something on this board, it should be posted there. Anyone applying to law school should read it.
@STEMsupport, we all agree that GPA/LSAT are very important in law school admissions. The issue is whether or not:
(A) GPA/LSAT (or maybe URM status) are the sole criteria that law schools use, or
(B) GPA/LSAT are definitely the main factors, but if once someone has GPA/LSAT numbers within a range that’s acceptable to the law school, law schools will then consider other factors, however secondary, particularly when there are more eligible applicants than slots to fill (e.g., work experience, general employability, undergraduate school/major).
My view is (B).
There’s another current thread in which the topic is also being discussed, and one other poster goes so far to say that even a re-applicant to a school from which the person was banned due to behavior issues would have only GPA/LSAT considered when reapplying, to the exclusion of other factors (position A).
@HappyAlumnus: No one disputes the use of secondary factors as a tie breaker. It’s just that with the decrease in applicants it is only very rarely the case that there are more eligible persons than seats (see, e.g., Yale).
@Demosthenes49, you’re contradicting yourself. For example, in your post above, you state, “Law schools care about GPA/LSAT first, URM second, and nothing third.” Please be consistent.
I give advice for the regular applicant, not the unicorn. There’s no way to predict when a person will tie with another in such a way that schools will turn to softs (and not just admit both). That means, for all intents and purposes an applicant has to act like he will never be in that situation (which most won’t be). That means admissions is all about GPA/LSAT. There are always outliers. Trying to be one is foolish.
@Demosthenes49, if you look at the “scattergrams” that you promote, you’ll see that it’s not necessarily a matter of tiebreaking; some admitted applicants have test scores and grades below the school median, and some rejected applicants have numbers well above the school median.
If you’re saying that you tell people who you think aren’t superstars that all that law schools care about is their LSAT/GPA and maybe URM status, but you tell the people who you think are superstars a more complete picture, is that not pretty insulting to the people who you think aren’t superstars?
If the superstars are looking at Yale or Stanford, then softs might matter (small class sizes plus high numbers yield more ties). Otherwise, they probably won’t get into any situations in which softs matter either. That’s the reality of law school admissions these days, for better or for worse.
Demosthenes, those “scattergrams” seem to show a lot more fluidity in a lot of schools, not just Yale or Stanford.
The following “scattergrams” show lots of waitlists or rejections among applicants who meet the schools’ GPA/LSAT medians, and a pretty good number of acceptances and waitlists among applicants who don’t:
Columbia: http://columbia.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/1415
Georgetown: http://gulc.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/1415
UVA: http://uva.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/1415
There are lots of others.
I’m not following why you tell people who you think are “superstars” one thing about law school admissions, and people who you think are non-“superstars” another. Why not just say the full story to everyone? I think that they can think for themselves and apply the facts to their situation.
Thank you everyone for your replies! You have definitely helped me gain perspective on my choices. I truly want to go to law school, but the horror stories and the dismal employment prospect worry me. I guess my follow-up question is: Do you think a law degree is worth the cost in today’s economy?