<p>I frequent these boards a lot, but I still haven't decided whether Chicago is right for me.</p>
<p>I love learning about the things I'm interested in, usually liberal arts stuff. I come from a HS in which everyone has a very elitist/stupid attitude towards college and takes part in activities only if they help them for college. For example, UCD is regarded as a "bad school." I admit, I have done these things sometimes, but I HATE my HS's environment in general. But usually, I do things because I am interested in them for ex, circuit debate and stuff. I fondly recall spending many hours working on cases and cutting cards. So overall, I learn since I value intelligence and education for what they are and don't think it is some sort of stepping stone. However, at the same time I am kinda lazy towards subjects that I don't really care much for (chem>_>). Also, I do have some of that pre-professional blood in me; as in, I do have aspirations to go to a T14 law school and I sometimes do put my "career" plan ahead of pure intellectualism. So on balance, I'm really confused.</p>
<p>First, I'm with you all the way to the pre-professional bit. We've talked before about how math and science core is pretty easy compared to the rest of core, and what you will find in math and science core is not more difficult than what you've encountered in high school.</p>
<p>Though I don't really have a "pre-professional" mindset (though I know what sorts of oportunities I want to pursue after graduation and I have an idea of what I want to be doing in the long run, it's not something my U of C diploma will help me out with) there are people here who are motivated towards a certain career track.</p>
<p>What wanting to go to a "T14" (I don't know what "T14" even means) law school translates to is that you'll probably be very conscientious about the quality of work you're putting out in the way that you'll be thinking a lot more about what grade you'll be getting back.</p>
<p>I think Chicago (or any college, almost) is harder to enjoy when you're concerned about grades, but that's the tradeoff for being selected for a very prestigious position.</p>
<p>hey no quarter, im a 2012'er with aspirations of a T14 as well. when i went to chicago this year they told me that stanford, uchicago, and harvard law schools all come recruit at the college. uchicago is a great place to be for a potential law major since law schools value the Core.</p>
<p>Okay, excuse me for a little lameness, but...:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Furthermore, according to Harvard Magazine, Classics majors (and math majors) have the highest success rates of any majors in law school. Believe it or not: political science, economics, and pre-law majors lag fairly far behind. Even furthermore, Classics majors consistently have some of the highest scores on GREs of all undergraduates.
<p>Why do I think classics and math majors do so well? They are two of the hardest majors, and it's very difficult to "BS" or fake your way around a translation or a proof. They have a lot of information that you need to be accountable for, but at the same time neither is based on rote memorization-- you have to THINK.</p>
<p>With a core curriculum, we'll be encouraging you to think more deeply and in different ways (I say "encourage" because I think phuriku's opinion of the success of the Core is more pessimistic than mine; but the texts are there and the profs should and will challenge you) and this expansion of the mode and depth of your thinking can only help you in the long run.</p>
<p>Why? There is a horrible selection bias. A math major who gets the 3.8+ to get into HLS, SLS or YLS is simply going to be smarter than a soft social science major who garnered the same GPA. </p>
<p>Same goes for classics. Think what UG schools actually generate classics majors in noticeable numbers that go on to attend T14 law schools. Yale, Chicago, Columbia, etc. Not surprisingly, if a certain major is loaded with elite college graduates, then their performance down the road is likely to be better than the stock of say history majors, which will contain many a graduate from Big State U's who finds the learning curve / workload at their T14 to be difficult. </p>
<p>The truth is, the average math major does quite poorly vis-a-vis the grade inflated humanities and social sciences majors when it comes to law school admissions. Its all a trivial numbers game; some schools even adopt a strict mathematical formula to take out any perceived sense of bias. College adjusted GPA + LSAT= JD program. The rest is basically meaningless. School's may talk up the "whole person" philosophy, e.g. we really value peace corps graduates, but when their admissions officers go to the private admissions consulting arena and start talking, you see how cut and dry their decisions are.</p>
<p>If you think HYPS grads ace out state U grads in elite law schools, you have another think coming. As best I remember, the top of my class, in descending order, at a "T3" law school, had the following undergraduate institutions: Cambridge, Missouri, Stanford, UCLA, Harvard, Vassar, Reed, Michigan, Berkeley, Yale. Sure, top private universities were well represented, but only about in proportion to their representation in the class. Other extremely successful law students from my cohort had done their undergraduate degrees at places like Albion, Michigan State, Wellesley, SUNY Binghamton, Albright, Carleton, Arizona, Valparaiso, University of New Hampshire . . . .</p>
<p>Of course, some of the state U people did struggle, but some of the HYPS people didn't do so well, either.</p>
<p>There is no doubt that there are plenty of state school graduates that do markedly well. </p>
<p>But at the same time, it been my recent observation (at Chicago as a law RA, and at a T3 as a student) that a higher percentage of elite UG's (given their composition in incoming T14 classes) are represented in Order of the Coif, law reviews, clerkship selections, at Vault 5 firms, and so on. I think this in part may be do to the fact that more undergraduates at these college’s are increasingly there due to merit, compared to even say the early 1990’s, so its not surprising they stay strong in law school. </p>
<p>Again, the point of the post is that there is little evidence to suggest that being a math or a classics major - other things equal - really makes you a better law student. And the latter may very well hurt you admissionswise given it’s a historically low GPA major in a relative sense at many schools. </p>
<p>Ultimately, you should pick the field where you will max out your GPA, since it the long run what you study as a UG at a liberal arts institution has little bearing on your route in or after law school. Obviously accounting (CPA work), engineering (patent law) and so on have their niche merits, but Chicago offers none of these.</p>
<p>DH was an accounting and decision sciences major. All that logic and analysis came in darned handy at his T6 law school. Still does -- there are many, many lawyers who learn to read financial documents and analyze evidence chains the hard way. DH finds that he gets the interesting and complicated, multi-layered, interdisciplinary work because he owns skills across the board, and has the analytical training to support it.</p>
<p>No Quarter-- I really wouldn't worry about your GPA too much. If you're smart enough to get into a tippity top law school, then you're smart enough to do very well here. Say you don't end up at a tippity top law school but you do work conscientiously, your GPA will be thanked and you will have a lot of options open to you. And you would not be able to blame that "failure" on Chicago; you wouldn't be able to tell if you went back in time, chose a different school, major, GPA, etc. whether that would have gotten you in or not.</p>
<p>Also-- Chicago's grade "deflation" is more hype than anything else (though, apparently, not in the math department). Sure, you'll end up working pretty hard at times, sometimes harder than others, but that's usually taken for granted by prospective students. You'll do fine-- lots of good grades you're proud of, *maybe * a few "oops" grades. Just don't make the mistake of aiming for a 4.0. If anything, aim for whatever th GPA cutoff is for graduating with honors in your prospective major. For English, it's a 3.0 overall and a 3.5 in major.</p>
<p>No Quarter my first year son has an eye on T14, there are definitely preprofessionals alive and well at Chicago.(Quirky maybe, but preprofessional nontheless) IMO, Chicago is a perfect training ground for LS, it's rigorous, you'll learn to scoff at such puny human traits like sleep, you'll cry to your mom at least once a quarter, you'll be challenged in your positions by both profs and fellow students ....but you'll be pretty well prepared for anything LS can throw at you. And more than that, all those core courses will bring a variety, balance, dare I say polish, that will help you. You're going to get more interesting.(Though you will grow to look down your nose at the core and scoff that they could have been harder)</p>
<p>As for grade deflation, I'd say it's more that it's not inflated. A solid A is still very hard to come by, A- comes with very hard work.(And about three all nighters a quarter) B+ is a fantastic grade. Could you get a stronger gpa if you didn't have to take calc? Sure. Are the art history courses very very seriously hard? Oh yeah. But it does help in the end. It's not a rare thing for<br>
Chicago kids to go to great/good law schools.</p>
<p>Chicago kids don't like to discuss grades, but to help you, my son had a difficult first year. He was quarantined for a week during winter quarter and his grandmother died at the very end(during finals and papers) of this past quarter. He still managed a 3.7 for the year. </p>
<p>More importantly, he isn't focused on his gpa, he spent his first year having a blast. Lots of parties. Lots of exploring the city. A lot of bonding with his house. Just not a lot of sleeping:)</p>