Is there a specific major that would help me best prepare for law school? I have planned to major in history. Would this be a wise choice?
Some say you should major in something you love and will do well in, because law schools care greatly about GPA. So that may be history for you. Some say history, political science, and English prepare students well for law school. But law schools like to have a diverse class with diverse backgrounds because that adds so much to the class discussion, and for that reason it may help your chance of admission to have a unique major. If you major in history, you will be competing for a spot in the law school class with many other history majors. I think potential law students should major in whatever they want to do for a career if law school doesn’t work out because they may change their minds about being a lawyer or may not get accepted to law school. In my case, a very unique major and 5 years of experience working in that career probably helped me get accepted and helps me in my law practice now. So these are some things to consider. Regardless of your major, study hard! GPA matters!
It doesn’t matter what you major in as long as you take the necessary pre-reqs. History would be a good choice.
No specific undergraduate major is required for law school, although some areas like patent law can benefit from some types of undergraduate majors.
Math and philosophy majors do tend to do well on the LSAT, probably because the LSAT’s logic puzzle section is similar to what they do in school. Whether that is a selection effect (people good at logic major in math and philosophy) or treatment effect (math and philosophy majors get plenty of practice at logic) or both is another question entirely.
@TheDidactic, as far as I know, there are no “pre-reqs” for law school, other than for those hoping to practice patent law. Do you know of law schools with “pre-reqs”?
@ucbalumnus, not only do areas like patent law “benefit” from certain majors, it is practically required for patent law. Students with engineering degrees will almost always meet the requirements to sit for the patent bar. Some science degrees will meet the requirement (mine did). It would be very rare for a student with a non-technical degree to meet the requirements to sit for the patent bar.
@Jimmy2times or any future law students, a business degree would also be a good choice for an undergrad degree, if that interests you (of course it would be a terrible choice if that would bore you and you would not perform well). Once you are accepted to law school, that history degree will be fine. The history degree training to research, think and communicate effectively will serve you well.
I was an English major and am now a lawyer. I loved reading and writing (still do!) so it seemed logical. Didn’t really think about law school til after undergrad graduation but it really worked out well. No wrong major, I don’t think, but definitely look beyond just Poli Sci. . . just my two cents.
And I was a pysch major.
If you could create your own major, if your college has that option, then something that combines English, Econ, Poly Sci, Philosophy (deductive logic!), History, psych, sociology, communications, and some hard sciences would be beneficial for both the long and short-term.
If you could create your own major, if your college has that option, then something that combines English, Econ, Poly Sci, Philosophy (deductive logic!), History, psych, sociology, communications, and some hard sciences would be beneficial for both the long and short-term.
No law school recommends or requires a specific path, however a more traditional approach includes a variety of courses within history, English, philosophy, political science, economics or business, as said on the American Bar’s website: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/resources/pre_law.html
Here's a perfect blurb from Harvard's website:
“The Harvard Law School faculty prescribes no fixed requirements with respect to the content of pre-legal education. The nature of candidates’ college work, as well as the quality of academic performance, is taken into account in the selection process. As preparation for law school, a broad college education is usually preferable to one that is narrowly specialized. The Admissions Committee looks for a showing of thorough learning in a field of your choice, such as history, economics, government, philosophy, mathematics, science, literature or the classics (and many others), rather than a concentration in courses given primarily as vocational training. The Admissions Committee considers that those programs approaching their subjects on a more theoretical level, with attention to educational breadth, are better preparatory training for the legal profession than those emphasizing the practical.”
- Law schools do not care what your major is. History majors do not compete with history majors, they compete with everyone. Law schools care about GPA and LSAT, not major.
- There are no prerequisites for law school. It helps to have taken US history and basic economics, but you should have covered that in high school. If for some reason you didn't, you could always just read a book instead of taking a class.
- @Barfly is right about the patent bar. If you want to sit for it, you need a science undergrad, or [url=http://www.ipwatchdog.com/patent-bar-exam/category-b/]equivalent[/url]. EE is hot in IP right now. CS somewhat is but it's on the decline. It's worth noting that there are few IP-eligible people in the latest applicant pools, so job prospects should be correspondingly better. On the other hand, since you're starting out in history, it's unlikely you enjoy hard science.
@Demosthenes49, I disagree with your #1, at least as far as some law schools are concerned. The dean of 1 law school explained it like this (to me - 1st hand knowledge). When teaching by the Socratic method, and discussing case law, it helps to have a broad range of backgrounds. A law student with a nursing degree will provide insight on a med mal case, a teacher will provide insight on a freedom of speech in education discussion, etc. This law school does not want all liberal arts degrees, and so the history majors are, in effect, competing against students with similar backgrounds. In addition, those students will be attractive to different industries. An accountant and an engineer stand out in the app process, and stand out to different future employers, which brings potential new corporate donors to the law school. So, many law schools strive not just for racial and economic diversity, but also for diversity of undergrad degree. There are many more applicants with liberal arts degrees than technical degrees.
Also, most engineering degrees can sit for the patent bar, but science degrees often can not. There are very specific requirements you can view online. If you do not have a specifically listed degree, then you must fall within one of the 4 options setting out specific numbers of hours in specific subjects. Two of those options are for science degrees only.
I was a film major (JD 1981) and my two children (HLS JD 2013 and UChicago 2L) were sociology majors. Major doesn’t matter.
@Barfly: You are welcome to disagree, but it doesn’t change the fact that major doesn’t matter. USNWR ranks schools by GPA and LSAT. Consumers care a lot about USNWR rank. Therefore, schools care a lot about GPA and LSAT. When USNWR starts caring about major, schools will select for major. Until then, schools do not care about major.
As for the patent bar, I have no idea where you’re getting your information. Category B/C have specific requirements, Category A does not. USPTO currently accepts 32 undergraduate degrees as conclusive. You can find the full list [url=<a href=“http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ip/boards/oed/exam/OED_GRB.pdf%5Dhere%5B/url”>http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ip/boards/oed/exam/OED_GRB.pdf]here[/url]. Some are engineering, some are not.
Oh, and deans lie. Welcome to law.
Does the term, ‘spin’, ring a bell?
Sure, and that just means that a 3.9 rigorous major beats a 3.9 in basketweaving when it comes to ties. But what that does not mean is that a 3.6 broad liberal arts major will beat a 3.9 basketweaving major. In fact the opposite is true: the 3.9 in basketweaving beats the 3.6 (in any major) every time, at least for the unhooked. So in reality, all 3.9 history majors are not competing against other history majors, but every other student < 3.9, regardless of major. If a bunch of history majors have a 3.9 and decent LSAT score, they ~ all get in (absent a police record).
That makes little sense sense. Unlike b-school, corporations do not pack into on-campus recruiting. Sure, some law firms may seek folks with certain underground backgrounds – IP/STEM, for example – but by and large, LS GPA is the first criteria for a call back.
So the ONLY answer to the OP is to major in whatever field will enable you to maximize GPA. If that is history, and history is your passion, go for it. If public health, and you are interested, do that.
GPA+LSAT are 95% of LS admissions. Soft factors – such as major – only count at bit at the few smaller schools: Yale, Stanford and Chicago.
@Jimmy2Times, history is a perfectly fine (and common) major for law school.
Despite the assertion above that majors don’t matter, majors certainly do matter. US News weights GPA only 0.10, but it weights placement double that: 0.20. “Placement” includes bar passage rates, and it’s much more likely that someone who’s sharp will pass the bar than someone who isn’t.
Someone with an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering or something hard is also a more viable candidate for employment than someone with an undergraduate degree in an impractical and fluff subject.
Law schools aren’t dumb; admitting someone whose undergraduate degree shows brains and employability and the ability to pass the bar is much better for US News rankings and otherwise than just letting in someone with the highest GPA.
Sorry, @Demosthenes49, if my explanation of the patent bar isn’t clear. Let me try again. There is a specific list of acceptable majors. Most engineering degrees are listed. Only some science degrees are listed. Examples of science degrees not listed are Meteorology, Environmental Science and Geology. Other degrees that some might consider science degrees, such as actuarial science/math, neuroscience, kinesiology, are not listed. So I was just pointing out that just because a person has a “science” degree, that does not mean that person automatically qualifies to sit for the patent bar. If you do not have a listed degree (under A), you must then qualify under either B or C. B provides 4 “options”. Option 1 specifies Physics courses (and they must be courses for majors only), Option 3 sets out Chemistry courses (and they must be courses for majors only). Options 2 and 4 set out other courses (and they may be courses for science or engineering majors). To qualify under C, you must prove your practical experience by passing the FE exam.
As far as whether major matters in law school admission, please note that I said “at least as far as some laws schools are concerned”. If anyone disagrees with that statement, then they must think that no law school considers an applicant’s major. I disagree. It is also exactly what we were told on our first day of law school, when a member of the admissions committee gave us the “how you got here” speech. So, perhaps the dean did lie to me, as Desmosthenes49 suggests, although I’m not sure why he would, and perhaps the professor lied to the entire first year class, although I’m not sure why he would either. Or maybe there are some law schools in the country where major is considered in admissions.
@bluebayou, sorry you think the statement “those students will be attractive to different industries” makes “little sense”. But where I practice, the students with technical backgrounds are very attractive to local industries, therefor to local law firms, whose clients are those industries. My first year out of law school, all of us new associates hired for my department (not patent) at a big international firm had technical degrees related to the specific industry which constituted half of the department’s practice. I think law schools understand that those applicants will be highly employable and will often end up at top firms/corps, and that means they may donate to, and come back to recruit at, their alma mater.
Not trying to convince anyone of anything here. Just offering an opinion, based on experience, to be considered (or ignored) by the OP.
Interesting note: Some comments on this forum are snarky. I hope mine are not.
@HappyAlumnus: That’s just silly. [Undergrad major (and undergrad GPA)](http://www.unc.edu/edp/pdf/NLBPS.pdf) are not positively correlated with bar passage. LSAT and 1st year grades are. Schools already screen for LSAT, and it’s physically impossible to screen for first year grades. The LSAT also handily captures being “sharp.” I do not understand where you keep getting this stuff.
You’re right about EEs being more employable, though that’s because of shortages in IP hiring. I haven’t seen any evidence that “harder” majors do better otherwise at OCI. Do you have such data?
@Barfly: That explanation of majors and the patent bar makes more sense. I agree.
Deans lie because they are lobbyists for their schools. Their primary job is raising money. Public school deans have a special motive for lying in that evaluating applicants “holistically” is constitutionally required if they also want to practice affirmative action. The only law school in the country that I know of that selects for major is Yale, and that’s because they’ve already got their pick of GPA/LSAT (and major is almost certainly a distant factor behind other softs). I have seen claims, but no solid evidence, that the same is true of Stanford. That is the extent to which law schools care about major.
No doubt STEM undergrads can stand out in the job pool for those (few) firms that have large IP practices; ditto biz majors for firms that do a lot of IPO work.
But, a: STEM are few and far between (so they will standout to firms anyway, as long as they have good grades in LS); b) they tend to have lower undergrad GPA’s (so they are competing against each other, not the grade-inflated history majors); c: USNEWS does not rank by undergrad major.
Kinda harsh, demo. While undoubtedly some do in fact fabricate, I’d say the masses of Deans tell applicants what they want to hear through “spin”. They have to, if for no other reason, to maintain a diverse applicant pool.
@bluebayou: I don’t know any word other than “lie” for bottom tier schools reporting median salaries of $160,000. Or promising great employment rates. Or, more topically, saying they evaluate “holistically” when in fact they care almost exclusively about GPA/LSAT. Obviously the deans at the top have to lie less because their schools are better, but they’ll still do it when needed. See, for example, the massaging of job stats during the height of the Recession, even at the top schools.