<p>I heard from my guidance consular that you can go to Law School with a Drama Degree, MT or Acting.
Is this true?</p>
<p>Can I do this?</p>
<p>I know of 2 lawyers with drama degrees -- one was a BFA, the other a BA.</p>
<p>I have asked a similar question with some response. The answer is yes. But I am curious as to the answer to the following question. Assume two students applying to law school. Both have the same GPA and LSAT score. One has a BA in acting from Syracuse. The other has a BFA in acting from Syracuse. Will the BFA be looked upon differently? Assume, by the way, that both worked in the acting field for 3 years, gave up, and are now applying to law school.</p>
<p>I'm curious why someone would go to the trouble of earning a BFA in acting if the ultimate plan is to go on to law school.</p>
<p>Because they like Theatre? Get an undergrad in something you like.</p>
<p>Well for me, I want to pursue Theatre, but if I do not succedd. I need something to fall back on.</p>
<p>A law school may (but not necessarily) look more favorably on a BA, as the undergraduate degree has a more "academic" focus. However, I don't think that the difference in how a school looks at the degrees is big enough to determine either admissions or which degree you should pursue as an undergrad. (And, by the way, acting is a great background for law, especially litigation. You're an actor when you're in front of a judge or jury - of course, the difference is that you've also written the script, and the other side doesn't know his or her lines!)</p>
<p>My hypothetical suggests that the student really, really wants to be in theater, but given the reality of making a living and realizing that they may not be able to make it, decides to pursue another path. The ultimate desire/plan is acting/MT, but the adjusted practical plan is law, or an MBA, or some other professional degree which does not require specialized undergrad coursework.</p>
<p>Chedva: I assume the same. MBA programs would likely be intrigued by a BFA in theater (of course, you may have to do some remedial coursework the summer before you begin the MBA - calculus)</p>
<p>The interview can be a strong component of any admission, and certainly the command of self achieved through the study of acting would be helpful. That which makes a courtroom attorney successful depends on a sense of drama and timing. If the grades and scores are good and the undergraduate degree is not so limited and specialized as to call to question the ability to do the work for a law degree, it should not matter. Make no mistake, however, study for a law degree is difficult and requires a different set of skills than the arts practitioner. An LSAT review course would probably be essential.</p>
<p>I'm presuming that given Brian's scenario the real difference would be in whether the law school applicant is coming directly from their undgraduate program or from 3-5 years of pursuing professional theatre work.</p>
<p>I don't know whom the law school would favor... but I know people with BFA acting degrees who have gone on to law school, so it is possible. There are people with BA degrees who may not get into the law school of their choice.... the same with BFA degrees. I think that the LSAT is a pretty significant componant to law school admissions. College is expensive, and it is important to weigh all of the options, plan for changes of course in life as much as one can, but unfortnuately I don't know if it is really possible to answer the question unequivocally.</p>
<p>The LSAT is THE most important component of law school admissions today. While it varies from school to school, there are students with college GPA's of between 3.0 and 3.5 who get into respectable law schools based on LSAT scores. Of course, you can't tank college and expect to get into law school on LSAT scores alone. And the better your grades the more competitive you are, obviously.</p>
<p>The major you have in college is usually irrelevent to the admission process. Putting aside the weight given to grades as opposed to LSAT scores, law schools are less concerned with your major than with whether you reflect serious commitment to a serious course of study and respectable grades. Any major that teaches you a process for analytical thinking will serve you well in law school. (Script and scene analysis anyone?)</p>
<p>It's interesting that some of the more popular continuing legal ed courses that meet mandated continuing ed requirements involve theatre for the courtroom taught by theatre professionals.</p>
<p>When I began practicing law more than 28 years ago, things were different. As I now explore the law school admissions process with my son, it is almost paradoxical that such emphasis is being put on high standardized test scores while attitudes have loosened greatly about what constitutes a legitimate college career. (Oh man, after finishing this grueling MT process with my daughter, there is just no rest for the weary :) )</p>
<p>Thanks for your input; an amusing aside. I was once a Prof at an SEC University. I am an Org. Psychologist, but did most of my research in the area of psychometrics as applied to employment law. I served as a professional witness and one of my publications is was being used in legal cases. I decided, on a whim, to apply (with my legal publications) to an SEC law school nearby. I took the LSAT stone cold, not even looking at the instructions before taking it. I did not do very well. I was rejected.
The predictive validity of the SAT, LSAT, GRE, etc. is horrible, and this statistical relationship is based upon the relationship of test scores with GPA in the professional schools. I wonder what the statistical relationship would be if measured with actual practice? I suspect that the relationship would approach null (an alternative hypothesis is that the error of prediction is not random, but systemic in the sense that the tests narrowly sort based upon cognitive style - whether that style is functional or dysfunctional is worth debating, thus leading to the 'state' of some of these professions today). These tests only have to predict at a rate slightly greater than random selection, and that is not much. 100 years from now our grandkids will consider these psycho-technologies the same way that we now chuckle at predicting intelligence/aptitude by evaluating the contours and shape of the skull. That they are weighed so heavily is due to their cost (the applicant pays to take the test) and that universities' image/brand ID is tarnished by admitting students with low test scores.</p>
<p>The law schools are also looking for easy, convenient ways to distinguish apllicats. A dopey test score doesn't require much thought on the part of an admissions committee. And you are right, the LSAT is a poor excuse of a way to predict who will do well in law school. It is even a poorer way to predict who will be a competent practioner. I wonder how long the LSAT would last if law school professors were required to take it as a condition of tenure. For that matter, I wonder how many law school professors and successful practicing attorneys could pass the bar exam of their state 10 years out. The fact is, legal analysis and good lawyering have nothing to do with multiple choice questions and essays with contrived facts. But that's another story for a different forum.</p>
<p>Here's another funny aside. I was an experimental social psych major in college. Lots of data sets, statical analysis, charts, graphs etc. When I took the LSAT, there were graphs on the exam that I not only had never seen the likes of in my life but which I couldn't make a bit of sense out of. I skipped them. Yeah, that had predictive value!</p>
<p>Predictive value or not, that's the way it is today for law school applicants. A high LSAT score and a high GPA are what is needed to have the best chance at gaining admission to law school. I don't think I've ever met anyone who has gone from a BFA in MT or drama to law school. Although, it's generally thought that the major of the undergrad degree matters little, I think MT grads going on to law school are few and far between.</p>
<p>What kids need to be aware of for success, not only in gaining admission, but in succeeding in law school and, in the future, in the practice of law, is the ability to write well and to think logically. Depending on the particular BFA program they attend, these abilities may, or may not, be developed during the undergrad years. Yet another reason to carefully examine the curriculum offered at the schools they're interested in attending.</p>
<p>It is quite common for kids to apply to med school with undergraduate degrees in "easier" majors such as English as opposed to Biology or Chemistry, so I would assume that one could get into law school with almost any type of degree as long as your Law School Admsission Test scores were decent enough. I have to agree with the person that asked "Why would someone go to the trouble of obtaining an MT degree and then switch to Law? Seems like the hard way to me!</p>
<p>Ahem, um, I have to take exception to the characterization of an English major as being "easier" than, say, one in Biology or chemistry. As a former English major, I am admittedly biased. But I am not sure that most people would call analyzing and studying and writing about the work of the greatest writers in history as "easy." ;) When you said that, I felt the way my D feels when kids who are not into MT say to her "Oh, all you do is sing and dance all day! How hard is that?" when, in reality, anyone involved in MT and acting knows that good actor training is extremely rigorous, quite intellectual and very similar in many ways to the study of literature. In addition, this former English major seriously toyed with the notion of going to law school and was told by several law school professors that English majors often score the highest on the LSAT and make the best lawyers because they generally are articulate, know how to read and write well, and know how to condense volumes of information. (Lulu'sMomma, I did not seriously take offense at your comment. :) But I did want to bring another perspective to the table and speak out in defense of the English major, which I adored and which has brought me lifelong pleasure. Regardless of what other people say, I think it is a very useful major and confers skills that are useful in a variety of disciplines. They sure have been for me!) Peace. :)</p>
<p>Oops, sorry, NotMamaRose. I really didn't mean to imply that an English or History major was "easier" per se than any other subject chosen, and my phrasing certainly could have been better! What I was trying to convey was that one doesn't necessarily have to have a degreee in Organic Chemistry or Applied Mathematics to get into medical school, as one would usually assume. My chem and advanced math classes were much more difficult for me than the English or history, but I am one of those REALLY right-brained people and at a really advanced level, I think that more people find it much harder to deal with the math and science courses. I don't find it a bit odd that English majors would score higher on the LSAT than others, but I wonder what happens when it comes to the MCAT? All of this sprung from a conversation with a Guidance Counselor at my D's school who was told by admissions people at 2 different Ivy League schools that they thought the "easier" degrees (and they specified English) were a better route to go than "beating your head against a wall struggling with Physiology". I thought is was an odd thing to say and wonder if that really is the case (although this is the wrong Forum for this topic)- do medical schools really accept more students who have majored in the sciences than in the humanities? If anyone has the stats I'd love to know more about it.</p>
<p>My friend went to UM (MT) and I was asking her about her classmates. She said two went to law school after college.</p>
<p>I am a lawyer since 1988. I was a biochemistry major at a highly regarded college and got lousy grades (probably a 3.0 max) but scored at the top of the LSAT range (99.9) and got accepted at a lot of schools. One dean even interviewed me to make sure it was the same person for the grades and the LSAT. I don't think things have changed too much since then.</p>
<p>Even though biochem is not the usual major, it served me in good stead. I now do patent litigation and prosecution. My D wants to be on Broadway and will be applying as a BFA or similar, but wants law as a backup. No reason it can't happen.</p>
<p>With regard to the English major, I completely agree. My best associate was an English and Journalism major. She was a great writer and legal analyst.</p>