Does Difficulty of Courses Taken Matter?

[UCLAhopeful5211]

<p>Does anyone know if we should be concerned with taking courses considered to be "challenging" which may hurt one's overall gpa, or is it okay to stick with "easier" coursework? I've already completed my major requirements, so how would admissions look at my taking random and easy (i.e Art History, Language) summer school and fall semester courses?</p>

[EKS]

<p>what’s your major and current GPA?</p>

[schiesser]

<p>Hard sciences get a slight boost in GPA. Other than that, it’s a soft factor so it doesn’t count as much as the actual GPA itself.</p>

[UCLAhopeful5211]

<p>Communication (its actually the hardest major to get into at my school, but I doubt that admissions would know this) my LSAC gpa is a 3.3 (With an upward trend- this year my avg gpa was a 3.7)</p>

<p>so, would it be okay to take some “easy” classes that aren’t in my major to boost my gpa this summer (like art history, for example)?</p>

[sybbie719]

<p>i would suggest purchasing 2 books:</p>

<p>Anna Ivey - THe Ivey guide to law school admissions
Richard Montauk- How to get in a top law school</p>

<p>The Montauk book the book is approximately 500 pages and gives a very comprehensive overview of the college process and discusses applications, essays, LSATs, majors, etc</p>

<p>Chapter 8 of his book discusses Making the Most of Your Credentials, Montauk states:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Your specific major matters less than the type of major you choose. What matters is that you choose a serious major. Schools are leery of pre-professional subjects such as business, and those that reward performance talents such as acting. There are some majors that admissions counselors cringe at seeing; communications, criminology and pre-law (even though theoretically pre-law is not a major)</p>

<p>Any subject that requires serious analytical work and dedication attract at least a reasonable % of the best and brightest will meet with approval.</p>

<p>The ideal undergraduate record would thus include all of the following:</p>

<p>Top quality school</p>

<p>Demanding course load (no path of least resistance) advanced work in a second unrelated (to your major) filed is particularly helpful</p>

<p>Top grades throughout (with few courses taken pass/fail) but especially in junior & senior years</p>

<p>Courses requiring substantial reading, strong writing ability good research skills and analytical prowess</p>

<p>Courses developing useful substantial knowledge for your future legal field.</p>

<p>When posed with the question: What factors do you consider when evaluating an undergraduate record admissions officers at various law schools state :</p>

<p>What ever the major, there should be variety including some clearly demanding analytical courses. There is not set preparation for law school, but some majors may be of less value than others (for ex. Pre-law) I examine the undergraduate transcript very closely. I look at what the applicant has done both in and outside of their major- Faye Deal, Stanford</p>

<p>What we are looking for is both breadth and depth. We favor applicants who come to us from broad liberal arts education. They learn about human vision from the arts, how the world works from math and the sciences and the human condition from philosophy and history. We don’t want academic dilettantes however; we want applicants to have taken the most analytically rigorous courses in their field- Jim Mulligan, Columbia</p>

<p>Not all UGPAs are created =. Swat and William and Mary, for instance have refrained from inflating grades; their averages are between 2.8 & 2.9. At the other end of the spectrum, Stanford and Yeshiva have mean GPAs over 3.4- Mulligan, Columbia</p>

<p>The GPA number is just a starting point. Our first concern is how rigorous the course load has been. We look at academic letters of recommendation, which are particularly helpful if they address the difficulty of the course load ex: the grading policies of professors from whom the applicant took multiple courses. Other factors we c examine is whether there were substantial barriers to performance such as the need to work many hours per week- USC</p>

<p>I know what the strongest and weakest programs are at some 50 to 60 schools. At some smaller commonly seen schools (and programs) it can be helpful for the student to provide detailed information. –GWU</p>

<p>We see a # of pre-med students who did poorly as pre-meds but then did well in their next field. The key for them is to make sure they get out of pre-med early so they can fully demonstrate their talents.- UCLA </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>another helpful thread</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/law-school/547496-pre-law-criminal-justice.html?highlight=richard+montauk#post1060812296[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/law-school/547496-pre-law-criminal-justice.html?highlight=richard+montauk#post1060812296&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[sybbie719]

<p>form Montauk’s book:</p>

<p>Section does it Matter what a candidate Major is?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>We do not give any advantage to those who major in political sciences, philosophy or history. The reason we have a lot with these majors is they self-select.- Columbia</p>

<p>I like unusual majors. I like math majors, philosophy majors, because you have to read and think critically, challenge your personal views and analyze a wide range of materials engineering and sciences, because these are tough across institutions- you know you are getting some one who had to work hard to perform- Duke</p>

<p>When I see some majors, I shudder: criminal justice, elementary ed. Music (performance) theater arts (performance) hotel/restaurant management, leisure studies,. At some schools these are solid programs, but not many- GWU</p>

<p>We want diversity. We have so many applicants who do the “right “things (majoring in poli sci, history or english, taking a semester or year abroad, doing political internship) all which are perfectly fine, but to stand our you have do so something a bit different, such as taking courses out side your area of interest. We want to see courses that require substantial writing, research and analysis-the skills necessary to succeed in law school- Penn</p>

<p>IF you major in hard sciences or in business, be sure to take a few classes that involve lots of writing as well as some that involve reading and interpreting text- Yale</p>

<p>Students should favor a curriculum that requires them to read dense, complex primary source material, analyze it closely and present reasonable conclusions in writing- UVA</p>

<p>Weak majors vary by institution. I do not favor narrowly vocational non-academic majors; PT, culinary arts, hospitality mgmt, etc. but I also worry about some accounting and engineering programs that allow little opportunity to develop skill sin reading and writing at a sophisticated level- UVA</p>

<p>There is a rebuttable presumption that certain majors are suspect; communications, criminal justice, which are popular majors for people who don’t want to work hard, even though it can be rigorous at some places.- Duke</p>

<p>In general we like t see people writing a senior thesis. It requires commitment and self discipline. It gives them a sense of intellectual ownership of a topic. The process engenders real growth and development- Columbia

</p>

[The_Brian]

<p>i’ve taken general education reqs for pretty much my entire first two years and i’m currently in my third year now taking mostly upper div political science classes.</p>

<p>i know a challenging courseload is preferred, but i don’t see where space for these classes exist within the mold of certain majors. what exactly is “challenging” anyway? i haven’t encountered a political science class i’d say is particularly challenging or demanding, though i’d concede an intro calc course would probably be the end of me.</p>

[taxguy]

<p>I should note that not all “business” majors are equal for law school admissions. Accounting is liked especially the school has a tax law concentration available. I think what is important is that regardless of the major, some courses that require critical reading and writing should be taken as an undergrad.</p>

[jonri]

<p>taxguy, you’ve said that over and over. Which law school is it that has “a tax law concentraton available” and LIKES accounting majors? I’m not being snarky; I’d really like to know. Most of the top law schools I’m familiar with have the attitude of the UVa admissions office quoted in post 6. Majoring in accounting HURTS your chances at the top law schools I’m most familiar with. I don’t mean it kills your chances, but you’d be better off with an English, history or poli sci major. If it actually HELPS at some law schools, please say which.</p>

[flowerhead]

<p>sybbie: Are you allowed to post that much of an excerpt from the book?</p>

<p>Everyone else: Except for maybe a handful of schools (Yale, Stanford, Boalt), it really doesn’t matter. At the end of the day, law school admissions deans will dignify their decision-making process in multiple ways, but the truth is that 99% of the law schools are number-freaks. If you have the numbers, you’ll do fine.</p>

<p>Now, I’ll admit, that for borderline applicants, having a stronger major will help. That’s about it. In my 1L class, I had classmates from all corners of academia (think American Studies, Vocal Performance, etc.). Did I have many classmates who did Political Science, Philosophy, History, English, Government or Economics? Sure, but I think that’s more self-selection than anything else.</p>

<p>We cannot confuse arguments here, though. I suspect people in this thread are trying to make the more subtle point that a strong undergraduate major prepares one better to take the LSAT and handle the rigor of law school. I think this claim is certainly true (though people in the aforementioned underrepresented law school majors did very well in the class), but I wouldn’t conflate this with a preference for such majors by law school admissions officers. It just doesn’t matter.</p>