<p>Of English, History, poli sci, and philosophy - take the one you like the best, as there isn't one that stands out as being much easier/harder than the others. </p>
<p>I myself, of those, would take philosophy or the classics - up there with engineers for getting the best law school grades.</p>
<p>Hey guys, I am applying to law school next year, so I have done a lot of research on admissions. I do agree that it's really smart to take a relatively easy major to maximize grades and that is why I have personally chosen to major in Sociology.</p>
<p>I wanted to make a couple important points though. First of all, I think majoring in something 'easy' is really risky - because if you are not really challenged in Undergrad (although it is good for admissions purposes), you could have a REALLY hard time in law school, and hence struggle to make decent grades. An easy major would generally allow you to slack off and not have to take hard exams and do much reading, which obviously is not a good preparation for the rigor of law school. THAT is why I am considering double-majoring in Philosophy which really makes you think and is quite challenging, in my opinion. Although I will probably not receive high marks, I think it can give me a good preparation for the heavy reading/analyzing in law school. I am still deciding, however, if it is worth it to lower my GPA for this though. So, my point is that although it smart for admissions purposes to take a 'lolly-pop' major, it might come back and bite you in the ass later on.</p>
<p>Point #2: If you choose a 'lolly-pop' major in Undergrad, you are also risking not being able to find a job after Undergrad if you decide not to pursue law school, or worse, drop out of law school after the first year because it is too hard compared to what you are used to. I am not saying you should choose Business or Economics (majors that are more practical) - I am just warning you that it is definitely very risky to take the easy route like I am doing. Hopefully I'll be OK though.</p>
<p>Any thoughts?</p>
<p>Hey,</p>
<p>Well my major is law and society (when I reach UCSB that is, I am currently a transfer student attending a JC)...</p>
<p>This is the most "perfect" major for pre-law they said</p>
<p>Then again, ANY major is perfect for pre-law, because there (yes, you got it), IS no pre-law major !!</p>
<p>HAH.</p>
<p>:) The only thing about law and society as a major is that they think you are really wanting to go to law school...which is a good thing.</p>
<p>But yeah, get a more direct major like philosophy, psychology or sociology that is somewhat related to law school...</p>
<p>avoid the big majors like biology, computer science, business administration, etc...</p>
<p>but then again it doesn't really matter ultimately...just in case you want to be super duper careful, then follow this routine..</p>
<p>Going back earlier to what Sakky said about the difficulty of grad-school courses: does the same REALLY apply for things outside of engineering?</p>
<p>Part of the logic behind the engineering-grad-school courses being easy was the fact that the other people in the class, who you're essentially competing against for your grade, were previously busy working in the real world, outside of the classroom. So they were basically out of practice. But, aren't most grad school students in the humanities (history, english, etc.) straight out of undergrad? Hence, aren't they more "difficult" to compete against? Are THESE grad-courses that much easier than undergrad courses in the same topics/areas?</p>
<p>No, because the issue is that there are so few LFM'ers relative to other engineering graduate students that from a grade-distribution standpoint, they're a drop in the bucket. For those who don't understand, LFM is the special dual-degree MBA/MS-engineering program that MIT runs, and LFMers are expected to pass graduate-level engineering classes at MIT, while at the same time completing all the MBA stuff as well, and despite the fact that LFM'ers, like regular MBA students, are older and have been in the working world (as opposed to most regular engineering students who have never left academia) </p>
<p>Think of it this way. The vast majority of engineering graduate-level classes at MIT will not have any LFM'ers. For the ones that do, most will have only 1 or 2 such students. Only a tiny minority of engineering graduate-level classes have a substantial number of LFM'ers, and even then, the number of them almost never exceeds 25% of the entire class. So, sure, you might be able to beat them (to be honest, considering all the handicaps that LFM'ers endure, if you can't beat them, then honestly you don't deserve to be an MIT engineer anyway), but that means that you're only beating at most 25% of the class. What about the other 75%? </p>
<p>And besides, let's say that you don't beat those LFM'ers. My analysis still holds. Like I said before, every LFM'er in the history of the program has managed to complete the program, meaning that they manage to get passing grades in their graduate-level engineering classes (as well as their Sloan classes). Often times that means, considering all their handicaps, that they are at the very bottom of their engineering class- but that's still good enough for a passing grade. So let's say that you are an undergraduate who is thinking of taking an graduate-level class. And let's say that you are the worst student in the class - worst than the "real" graduate students, worst than the LFM'ers, worse than everybody. When the prof assigns grades at the end of the class, the prof usually doesn't know whether the bottom person in the class is an LFM'er or not, and doesn't care. All the prof knows is that the worst person in the class will get the worst grade, whatever that grade may be. However, in the case of LFM, as demonstrated by the history of the program, that "worst grade" is evidently still good enough to pass. </p>
<p>Furthermore, the classes that LFM'ers take in any given year is random. LFM'ers are not restricted in the kind of graduate-level classes they can take. Some of them take quite weird and exotic stuff. And they still manage to pass. Again, usually they do wind up at the bottom of whatever class they're in. But that's still good enough to pass. </p>
<p>The point is that this demonstrates perennial grade inflation, even at a tough place like MIT. You got all these LFMer's running around taking unpredictable sequences of engineering graduate-level classes, and these LFM'ers are handicapped (because they have to take classes for both engineering and Sloan, whereas the real engineering grad students just take engineering classes), and by their own admission, these LFM'ers aren't as good as the regular engineering grad-students. One LFM'er said it best when he said "Look, if I really was as good as those other engineering grad-students, then I'd be getting my PhD just like they are". Yet the fact is, they all still manage to pass their engineering classes. I submit that the only way that's truly possible is that the grad-level eng classes are grade inflated.</p>
<p>I didn't talk about humanities, because, to be perfectly honest, humanities undergrad classes are already highly grade inflated, especially relative to engineering (something that ariesathena can unhappily attest to, I'm sure). Hence, I don't know if there's really a whole lot to be gained from gaming the system in the humanities, because the system is already 'gamed' for you. Let's face it. Humanities classes tend to assign far less work and give out far higher grades than do engineering classes. When was the last time you ever heard anybody say "Well, I wanted to study History, but it was just too difficult, so I switched to electrical engineering"? By the same token, lots of engineering undergrads go around 'poaching' humanities and social-science classes in order to raise their GPA. Either that, or they use such classes strategically as "a break". </p>
<p>For example, they might say "Yeah, I'm taking 3 tough computer-science classes, but during the middle of the day I got this nice and relaxing poli-sci creampuff class, and that will also help me keep my GPA afloat, and then next semester I plan to take just 1 CS class and then load up on easy humanities classes to make my GPA soar." Or something like that. When was the last time you heard an English major say "Yeah, I got these 3 really hard English classes, but during the middle of the day, I got this nice and relaxing chemical engineering creampuff class, and next semester, I plan to load up on all these mechanical-engineering classes to really boost my GPA". Ha! I'd love to see that.</p>
<p>Sakky, I hear a lot of talk about engineering and humanities; from what I've gleaned they're definitely on opposite ends of the difficulty-spectrum. Where would you peg Economics on that spectrum though, in terms of difficulty/amount of work given and overall grade inflation in undergrad/grad courses?</p>
<p>Middle. </p>
<p>One of the major dividing lines (although clearly not the only dividing line) seems to be math content. The more math a particular subject has, the harder it tends to be graded. I have no idea why that is, and I still have yet to hear a good reason for why that should be. Why exactly does the fact that a certain subject uses a lot of math have anything to do with the fact that it is graded harder? I am not even talking strictly about the difficulty of the material - I'm just talking about how the classes are graded. Forget, for the moment, about the sheer difficulty of the material itself - and let's just talk only about the grade distribution. Why exactly is it that the grade distribution in quantitative, math-based classes is consistently lower than that of non-quantitative classes? </p>
<p>But anyway, because economics does tend to use some math, especially the econometrics and statistical analyses classes, economics can be difficult. Not as difficult as engineering, obviously, but still no cakewalk. The reality is that if you're an econ major, you're going to be looking over at the humanities students who will, on average, be getting better grades than you are for doing less work and not studying as hard. </p>
<p>As far as the 'trick' of getting into graduate-level classes in econ, I would propose that it still works, although it's obviously not as useful as in engineering. The problem with undergrad engineering is that they are plenty of courses (the notorious 'weeders') where you can study extremely hard and know a lot and still get a very bad grade - possibly enough to boot you out of the program - because of the deliberately harsh grading. You have to get used to the fact that your grade is not really determined by what you know by itself, but rather by what you know relative to what everybody else knows. If you're in a weeder engineering class and if you know a lot, but everybody else knows more, then you'll fail. It doesn't matter that you know a lot. It only matters that you were last in the class, and in the weeders, that's a failing grade. Even the non-weeder undergrad eng classes aren't much better. Contrast that with the graduate-level eng classes, where everybody is basically guaranteed to pass. This is how those LFM MIT guys often times manage to pass. They usually come in last in their graduate eng classes, due to all their handicaps. But according to the grad eng curve, coming in last is still good enough to pass. </p>
<p>I suspect that econ has some similarities. After all, when was the last time you heard of an econ grad-student flunking out because of bad grades? Yet keep in mind that econ grad students, like all grad students, need a B average to maintain their academic standing. Contrast that with undergrads who only need a C average to continue. Undergrads have an entire letter grade to 'play with' to maintain their standing, and yet undergrads flunk out at a far higher rate than grad-students do. And even if those undergrads don't flunk out, another card that undergrads often times resort to is switching to an easy major. Lots of undergrads come in wanting to major in econ, then take some econ classes and find out that it's harder than they thought and so switch to Film Studies or American Studies or some other stupid do-nothing major. Grad students can't do that. An econ PhD student who isn't doing well can't simply switch over to the PhD program in Film Studies. Hence, graduate-classes in any subject tend to be graded fairly easily, otherwise, because grad-students can't switch majors, you really would see lots and lots of grad-students being thrown out because of failing grades (remember, anything below a B is effectively a failing grade for a grad-student). </p>
<p>The issue of course is that the "grading gap" between undergrad and grad is not as large in econ as it is in, say, engineering, where the 'trick' of using graduate-level classes as safe harbor can be very useful. Clearly that trick is basically useless in the humanities where grading tends to be easy for both grad and undergrad, and is especially useless in those stupid creampuff majors where both undergrads and grads get high grades for little more than showing up.</p>
<p>Economics graduate school <b>is</b> hard, and completion rates are fairly low. This is because of the math content.</p>
<p>And if you look at the difficulty of economics - judging by average GRE scores of different PhD programs, economics students actually have higher averages than some engineering majors (Civil) while lower than others (EE). Of course this is assuming that GRE means anything! In History PhD for example, it doesn't matter except as a cutoff.</p>
<p>I'm going Political Science with minors in Spanish and Communications & Theatre. It should work for me the foreign language will be an asset.</p>
<p>What are people's opinions about sociology majors? I'm thinking of law school and am looking at different majors, leaning towards Econ plus either Psych or Soc, but maybe English. I've heard a lot of negative things about soc majors, mainly regarding how sociology is like "dumbed-down" history... but it seems like a very dynamic and important area to me. Any thoughts, esp. about the LSAT/law school preparation someone can get from a sociology degree?</p>
<p>It is not "dumbed down history." It guess it really depends n how good the department is at your school, but there's a lot of exciting stuff going on, especially at the graduate level. You get all types of people and approaches used, from the most mathematical econometrics to anthropological ethnography.</p>
<p>I think it rocks.</p>
<p>At my school - Princeton - I think a majority? or at least a large percentage of soc majors go into law school. Other do the MBA eventually, go into academia, or just work. But the law school contingent is by far the largest.</p>
<p>Ahhh, that's where I want to be and what I want to do, ericmeng. I was accepted ED to Princeton, and I'm really excited by the prospect of majoring in soc at Princeton. I've heard their department is one of the best out there, especially in terms of research and faculty know-how. And I think sociology is a great stepping stone to law school (which is where I want to go): you get the opportunity to become versed in several specific areas of population/societal analysis as well as the opportunity to conduct research in a field that continues to be at the forefront of the progression of our world. That could end up being very useful in law school. Maybe at some schools sociology is a "dumbed-down history," but pick the right one and it could be a highly rewarding major.</p>
<p>I'm entering Vassar in the fall and I want to major in the Classics (or possibly Poli Sci). Are these majors good law-school prepartory concentrations?</p>
<p>Ericmeng, I didn't say that economics graduate school was easy - my point was that economics graduate classes, like almost all graduate-level classes, tend to be graded easier than undergraduate classes. Again, when was the last time you ever heard of an economics graduate student who couldn't complete his/her degree because of bad grades? I have heard of many cases of them not completing the degree because they couldn't pass their quals. Or their research led them to a dead end. But not being able to stay eligible because of bad grades? That's a rare event, you must agree. </p>
<p>Also, I think that using civil engineering as a basis of comparison is not fair. The fact is, even most civil engineers would concede that their classes are easier than that of EE's, mechE's, and ChemE's. On the scale of engineering difficulty, CivilE's tend to rank near the bottom. Hence, it doesn't surprise me that economics graduate students tend to be better than CivE graduate students. </p>
<p>Finally, about sociology. I believe sociology gets a bad rap simply because at many schools, it really is in fact an easy and grade-inflated major. And that tends to attract a whole host of dubious students. Honestly, when was the last time you saw a star football player at a major Division 1A program majoring in electrical engineering? The fact is, at many schools, lots of students are majoring in sociology not because they really care about sociology but simply because it's easy. It is that unfortunate reputation of being a dumping-ground for those less-than-dedicated students that hurts the image of the major.</p>
<p>I'm entering Vassar in the fall and I want to major in the Classics (or possibly Poli Sci). Are these majors good law-school prepartory concentrations?</p>
<p>Absolutely. A distant relative of mine was a famous judge on the Supreme Court, Justice Cardozo, and he majored in classics.</p>
<p>sakky - I agree with you. I think the problem of the humanities and social sciences' perception is that they are in fact being used as a dumping ground. There is like a "talented tenth" of people who are truly passionate, and many of the rest just do it because they can.</p>
<p>Classics and Poli Sci are fine.</p>
<p>Sorry to go off topic, but what kind of lawyers do the majority of law students become? Is there a definite most popular kind of lawyer? There are just so many specializations for law...</p>
<p>A strong plurality tend to go towards corporate law. And the reason for that is simple - they need the money. A lot of people go into law school intending to do public-interest or academic law. But upon graduation, the reality of their student loans starts weighing heavily on them and they realize that they need to make serious money quickly to get out of hock. Corporate law is the most straightforward way to do that.</p>
<p>I'd bet that close to half of law students who end up practicing law at all become sole practitioners, and handle a variety of matters (divorces, evictions, personal injury cases, debt collection, wills, real estate closings, in some states), or basically "whatever comes through the door."</p>