<p>I am currently a first year Political Science major at UC Berkeley. Due to various circumstances, I will have completed all my major requirements by my third semester (Fall 2006). My question to you is, what do I do now? Should I pursue another major, or would it be more beneficial to take graduate level courses in Political Science? I mean, do law schools even care about that kind of stuff?</p>
<p>Any help would be appreciated. :-</p>
<p>thanks!</p>
<p>Do you plan on doing anything other than law school? Are you considering graduate school study (perhaps in a join JD/PhD program), or anything else (med school, business, ect)? </p>
<p>I would imagine taking at least some graduate and extra upper division poli classes would be a good idea, regardless of what you do.</p>
<p>You know what I was wondering? I know that Berkeley does not offer a terminal Masters degree, but when you go to the graduate political science website it lays out the steps needed for PhD students to obtain a Masters. You pretty much have to take 8 graduate classes and write a 25 page paper. Do you think if I fulfill these requirements I could get a Masters?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you think if I fulfill these requirements I could get a Masters?
[/quote]
Not sure why you're asking us - try asking your advisor or someone at your school.</p>
<p>Be aware that your transcript will be sanitized and heavily modified before it is sent to law schools. LSDAS sends out a report that deletes all course names and numbering. While your actual transcript may be sent to law schools, I think the fact that your LSDAS report doesn't even list your courses indicates that no one much cares which courses you took. If the extra courses give you another degree (master's or major), then they might be important; however, they come in a very distant third to LSAT and GPA. Major and graduate work are also in the amorphous realm of "other" factors, such as work experience, quality of undergrad school, recommendations, personal statement, geography, etc.</p>
<p>Perhaps I got unsound advice, but I was told that course numbers do appear on the transcript sent from LSDAS, though course titles are not. Can anyone else either confirm or rebut this?</p>
<p>Even if course numbers appear on the transcript, I don't think it matters. I had more grad level courses than I could count, but I don't think it really helped me. Someone will spend about 10 minutes reading your application; between GPA, LSAT, geography, personal statement, and recommendations, do you think an admissions dean is going to spend a bunch of time figuring out if you took an exceptionally heavy courseload or if you just did what was required?</p>
<p>Best advice I can give you is to stop thinking of law school admissions as being anything like undergrad. It's all about GPA and LSAT; other factors might tip one way or another, but the stuff that really matters undergrad doesn't matter much for law school.</p>
<p>No, I personally do not think for an instant that admissions officers are "going to spend a bunch of time" determining how hard an applicant's courseload was, but I do not think it is crazy to think that an intuitive, almost automated, general assessment is made by officers about the apparent difficulty of the coursework. (Even if it is a very broad, imprecise chivvying of candidate's work into "joke" and "not-joke"). Similarly, I do not doubt that committee members know of the general practice among universities of having rigid grading rubrics for entry level (and thus, lower numbered) courses. Moreover, it is my belief that any successful letter of recommendation will at least touch on the student's coursework. I will feel as if I have been betrayed if I learn that my professors chose to make no mention of my graduate-level work in my recommendations.</p>
<p>I agree with you generally aries, based not on first-hand experience, but from what I gather from a great many different sources: GPA and LSAT are primary. Also, I am not taking a stance on the probable or potential influence of these plausible considerations of coursework. I just think that dismissing coursework, full-stop, is too dogmatic to be entirely accurate, and that it is indeed possible that it is considered in borderline cases. Lastly, while GPA and LSAT undeniably determine what schools you have a chance at getting into, they are not the sole criteria for admissions into a particular institution. Any career service department at a large university will tell you they are surprised * every * year. I think the relative importance of the tertiary factors is simply unknown to us, and that it probably varies greatly from school to school. I think it is sensible not to take a stance on the importance of these factors (including the difficulty of coursework) until convincing emprical data is furnished, indicating a clear, general trend, as with LSAT/GPA composites. Until then, let us just defer to the vague LSAT/GPA first; other factors second.</p>
<p>True... BUT!</p>
<p>Some upper-level courses have harder grading than lower-level courses. I know that many of my grad-level engin. courses were graded on the 2.5 median - and a fair amount of the students were grad students, who invariably got the As and Bs. That left the undergrads with a very, very low median GPA.</p>
<p>Ultimately, I don't see the point in taking hard courses merely because you think law school admissions officers will be impressed. A thesis, independent research, or a masters are all more tangible ways to demonstrate mastery of upper-level material. JMHO.</p>
<p>If Law school adcoms only take "10 minutes looking over my GPA and LSAT" then what occupies all their time? At that rate they should give you a decision within a week....there HAS to be some consideration given to a tougher courseload, no?</p>
<p>Um, besides the fact that many schools get 6,000 or so applications? My law school gets more applications than the undergrad school. They rank-order their applicants, accept from the top down and reject from the bottom up. Some decisions come quickly. Some schools don't start looking at the apps until January - Tulane is one of those schools. Some schools might pass the apps around the faculty. Consider as well that many schools probably wait to see how their first round of offers go before making a second round of offers - or rejections. Waitlisting is a huge game in law school admissions.</p>
<p>It's not like it's GPA, LSAT, and course load. Be real, please. There's recommendations; personal statements, resumes, geographic factors, major, strength of school, grade distribution (did they go up? down?), thesis, personal factors (for example, family or medical issues) etc. I just think that course load, for most schools, will run a distant "fourth" to those factors - which are the "third place" after LSAT and GPA. </p>
<p>Please also get real about something else - every school has its own way of designating higher-level courses. At my alma mater, a "100" level course was undergrad/grad level. For many schools, that's a beginning course. For us, the "1s" and "10s" were freshman/introductory courses; anything numbered higher than 19 had pre-requisites. When I was a freshman, I took courses numbered 31-34. Those were chems with lab - and there were three calc, two physics, and two chem pre-reqs for those courses. Like any admissions officer can even divine that from those numbers! </p>
<p>You're 19. You'll realize - someday - that law school admissions is a different beast.</p>
<p>so i guess it was dumb of me, i had the opportunity to drop a second year history class, that i likely will get an A- tops in. The rest of my courses, I have the potential for an A.</p>
<p>o well</p>
<p>If you finished your major requirements, does it mean that you can get your BA? If so, I suggest you graduate if you have a 3.8 or above. If you have anything below that, then do another major (econ is an easy one). </p>
<p>If you decide to graduate, then you can go directly to law school, or you can get a job or something so you can make some money...I know you'll think I'm crazy but stockbrokers make a ton of money...</p>
<p>Of course, you can graduate and study full time for the LSAT and get it over with in like two weeks or something...but in this case, you have to do nothing but eat, bathe, breathe, and think LSAT. If you can get above a 170, coupled with a 3.8 UGPA, you should be able to get in anywhere, maybe except for Harvard and Yale.</p>
<p>LOL, where did you get the impression that econ was an easy major???</p>
<p>Thanks for all the information, guys...I totally need to get a grip on Grad School. After just being accepted undergrad, it's a real shock to hear that all they mostly care about is GPA and test scores!</p>
<p>Yep, shows how much most of our parents know about the real world ...</p>
<p>" After just being accepted undergrad, it's a real shock to hear that all they mostly care about is GPA and test scores!"</p>
<p>It depends on the "graduate school." If you're talking the two most popular professional schools, medical and law, then sure, GPA is huge, and in many academic science disciplines it's huge, but there's more than GPA involved in academic graduate school admissions. A lot more.</p>
<p>"so i guess it was dumb of me, i had the opportunity to drop a second year history class, that i likely will get an A- tops in. The rest of my courses, I have the potential for an A."</p>
<p>That's too bad. I hope you think that studying something you really enjoy and getting a lower grade is more worth not studying something you really enjoy and getting a higher grade.</p>
<p>Can I be the first one to say that I'm sick and tired of all the talking down that is rampant on these boards? While I completely understand and agree with your viewpoint DRab, as a fellow Golden Bear I have to tell you to wake up and smell the rejection letters. To all the "holier than thou" posters out there, let's cut the crap and either give practical advice or (gasp!) not post. </p>
<p>While I understand the importance of studying something you enjoy, I also understand the desire to get into a top school. Therefore I do not think it is necessary to throw snide comments every chance you get at people asking for honest advice about possible academic choices. There's nothing wrong with bball87 trying his hardest to get an A. And while it may be a bit excessive to drop a class you might receive an A- in, that's just the nature of the beast. Top law schools and med schools are constantly demanding higher and higher GPAs- 3.7s simply don't cut it anymore. So to remark that you hope bball will one day realize the joys of studying something he enjoys while still receiving a low grade is just unnecessary. He doesn't need for anyone, not even you, telling him that it's sad that he comes off as a grade-monger. </p>
<p>And who knows? Bball might not have received an A- in that class....what if he received a lower grade, as is possible due to his inability to receive that golden A? While this may sound trivial to some, to Bball87 it might have long-lasting effects. Sure, one A-/B+ isn't going to ruin his chances at Yale law....but then again, how many might? Two? Three? Four? Five....???</p>
<p>Perhaps your post did not deserve to bear the brunt of my frustration, DRab- so I apologize. But I've noticed time and time again the need to ridicule and put down students asking for honest advice about how to receive a good grade in a class. (And in anticipation for all you who rush to post that an A- is MORE THAN JUST DECENT, let me clarify: Good grade = A...plain and simple).</p>
<p>Ariesathena studied something that she loved and had a great passion for, engineering, yet she talks everyday about the difficulties she had in obtaining admission to a top law school because of her sub-3.9 GPA. So let's just please stop the political correctness and the need to be didactic at every turn. This isn't the Department of Arts and Sciences at Harvard, this is a place where scared little teenagers seek advice on how to increase their chances for admission to _____ school. Instead of judging the intentions of certain posters without knowing a thing about them, let's refrain for a second and ask ourselves whether it's necessary to shake thou noble index finger. To all you self-righteous posters out there, please, your time for parenting will come some day- no worries. As for the rest of us, I think we'll get by just fine if given the advice that we seek without being put down at every corner.</p>
<p>Thank You.</p>
<p>GPA inflation is so rampant. Goddamn USNews and the ******** US media and their shallow rankings.</p>
<p>I think my clarification was meaningful- graduate and professional schools are different things. I also dont think I was being holier than thou when I said academic disciplines care about other things than GPA, often making the bulk of their decisions off of these. Sure, I was snide with introducing the concept of studying what you enjoy, but Im okay with that. Im sick of seeing whores who do what they want for money or because they think it will advance them in some other way. I will share my opinion that people who are acting a certain way for whatever reason are acting that way, that they should occasionally be reminded of that, and if they cant deal with it, they should change the way that they act.</p>
<p>My Thats too bad was genuine, in that it is too bad that he cannot get an A in the class, and secondarily, that its such a big deal. But really, it doesnt seem like a huge deal to him, far bigger than your post, or my post in response, should be. </p>
<p>I dont know what bball has heard in his life, if anyone has suggested to him or her that studying something enjoyable to him or her is worth more than getting into a top 15 law school. I dont think its sad- I do think that its unfortunate. I understand it, but dont encourage it, and I think that my post reflects that. Perhaps its too reprimanding, but it was fairly unexceptional in my opinion. </p>
<p>I dont think I need to ridicule or put down students for being grade-mongers. I would like to encourage them otherwise. I dont think he was asking for advice on how to get a better grade, but instead, wanted our sympathy and commiseration that he or she might get an A-. Thats fine. A good grade is only an A? If thats your belief, then fine, but that makes so many students poor, even some of the best. I think most of my posts are helpful to somebody, and at the very least, they allow me to express something. I dont think Im generally offensive, and your reaction to my couple lines in much bigger than what it deserved, but you acknowledge that. </p>
<p>I think its fine to encourage people to act certain ways, and I dont think Im being holier than thou when I say studying something you like is more rewarding than studying something for easier grades. There is some chart that one could follow, and certainly there is a point where studying something you dont enjoy is far more beneficial than studying something you enjoy- there are limited returns. But some people arent even aware of this point on the graph. </p>
<p>I dont think saying study something you enjoy is being politically correct. Be a grade-monger if you want. Its your choice. I dont think Im judgmental and didactic at every turn. If I can show some scarred little teenagers that going to some law school outside of the top three is okay, and that you can study something you love and not end up at the top five, and most people dont, then Im okay with my posts. I try not to judge intentions, but some seem fairly obvious. I dont think Im particularly noble, and Im okay with advising other people, even if I dont know them, even if they arent my kids. I dont put down everyone, and often to provide very helpful advice, do I not? Im fine with how I act in this regard, dont see myself as holier than thou, and understand the drive to get a higher grade, but will continue to do what I do.</p>
<p>In light of all of the debate about grades, I think it is important to ask, how much can experience weigh against GPA? I remember not long ago Yale put out an article about the class of 2008, featuring all of the various acheivements of matriculants. The article was not meant to show off how exclusive and competitive admissions was in terms of statistics, rather it seemed to highlight integrity of the class of 2008. All of this talk about GPA suggests that there are very competitive people who do well in school, in part because of their courseload, but what does this say of their qualities as a good lawyer? Without a doubt the most important traits of a good lawyer is to clear understanding of law, think logically, and be able to procure strong, persuasive arguments. I am sure my inexperience with being a lawyer caused me to leave out other traits. No matter, I am sure many applicants have these basic qualities, regardless whether they have 3.6's or 3.9's. Experience, indeed, must mean something in order for a law school admissions committee to select the best from the applicant pool. But precisely to what extent can experience with anything from working for famous lawyer to lobbying for certain bills to pass Congress or from having a slew of impressive internships to volunteering and resolving real issues among communities, doing what you can to ensure safety in dangerous places, like the West Bank affect admissions chances with different law schools?</p>