Political science as a preparation for law school

Graduate School Law School
1

<p>I've been reading this forum for a while, and it seems to be generally agreed that poli sci majors do not have an advantage when they get to law school. Why is that so?</p>

<p>Here, I'm not talking about what major will be looked upon most favorably by law school admission officers, since I'm aware that law school has no distinct preference of any particular major. </p>

<p>Rather, I'm wondering why a major that prepares its graduates to write well(or at least a lot during their course of study!) and sometimes deals directly with the subject of law (such as constitutional law) would not serve as a better preparation for law school work as compared to other majors. </p>

<p>Would taking some American politics courses, especially ones related to constitutional law, help better prepare one for the rigor of law school or at least alleviate the initial shock of having to read a lot of abstruse court cases?</p>

2

<p>
[quote]
Would taking some American politics courses, especially ones related to constitutional law, help better prepare one for the rigor of law school or at least alleviate the initial shock of having to read a lot of abstruse court cases?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>simple answer -- no.</p>

<p>because -- the way in which constitutional law is taught in college is nothing like how constitutional law, or anything else, is taught in law school. if anything, it will lead you to a false sense of thinking you are ready for law school and result in you focusing on things that are not what you should be.
and i write this as someone who majored in poli sci before going to law school -- because i was interested in the subject. i felt it in no way gave me any advantage over any one with any different background in law school. </p>

<p>and the type of writing you do in college is also very different than the type of writing you do in law school -- any courses that make you feel more comfortable writing may not be a bad thing just because it makes you feel more comfortable writing -- but don't think anything will prepare you for law school.</p>

<p>law school is simply different than college -- no matter what you study in college. so study what you want and just be prepared for law school to be something entirely different.</p>

3

<p>The only thing a political science degree prepares you for is a soup kitchen line.</p>

<p>If you're incredibly lucky, you'll be qualified enough to get a PHD from a top 5 school and actually be useful to society.</p>

4

<p>^^ that goes for really any liberal arts degree, though</p>

5

<p>Hahah no, not at all, people. And do you even know that the liberal arts includes the sciences? </p>

<p>
[quote]

  1. the academic course of instruction at a college intended to provide general knowledge and comprising the arts, humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences, as opposed to professional or technical subjects.

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal+arts&x=0&y=0%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal+arts&x=0&y=0&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

6

<p>DRab, congratulations for knowing that, but it is <em>gasp</em> common knowledge.</p>

<p>On to more relevant things...
Law school IS extremely different from college...law isn't the same as politics and in fact I'd think a poli sci degree would be pretty useless no matter what grad school you're thinking of going to (not saying it's BAD or anything, obviously a lot of law school students did poli sci because it's just what so many people do)</p>

7

<p>Sadly, it's all too uncommon. Many people on cc and in the world do not know it. Many people think science degrees are practical and that liberal arts degrees are "useless," so when I show them that science is in the liberal arts, they should conced that at least some liberal arts degrees are not useless.</p>

8

<p>Science degrees in general are pretty useless as well. </p>

<p>Biology majors make nothing. Biochemistry, chemistry, physics major are generally theoretical in nature and provide no substantive training for most jobs. The reason chemistry and physics majors tend to make more money than the rest of the liberal arts is that science majors are known to be very rigorous and weed out the bad or less bright students. As such, companies realize a person with a 4.0 in chemistry is highly trainable, much more so than a person with just a 4.0 in political science.</p>

<p>In general, liberal arts degrees are worthless.</p>

9

<p>What do you mean when you say a degree is useless, or worthless?</p>

10

<p>DRab, no point arguing with someone who's obviously in need of a reality check. Omg, let's all bow to the amazing science majors, because everyone knows that if it's not science, it must be BS!</p>

11

<p>So then what is not worthless? Only engineering degrees?</p>

12

<p>There are a ton of liberal arts majors on this forum in this world so I won't be winning any popularity contests.</p>

<p>In general a liberal arts degree has negative expected value (thereby the worthless monicker). Expected value is a concept that only the more substantive, quantitative fields teach so its no small wonder most students liberal arts students don't understand why their major is useless.</p>

<p>All you need to do is look at how many unemployed liberal arts majors there are in America and how little they make in comparison to their college peers. Its no small wonder. They breezed by in college, taking easy classes and adding little if anything to their own human capital for the most point. There are successful liberal arts majors but they are successful not in any part because of their degree.</p>

<p>To be fair, I also have dual liberal arts degrees too. In retrospect, getting a b.s. (in anything) would've been far more valuable in general. So I'm only being honest with my own experiences and statistical data.</p>

<p>In general, most liberal arts majors are useless because they are not particularly rigorous and do not test for skills desired in the modern workplace. Companies would be inefficient if they didn't hire the smart liberal arts majors; those who spent their college years well to develop quantitative skills and rigorous problem-solving skills.</p>

<p>For those who say that some liberal arts majors prepare one for professional school (i.e. law school), it is a simple matter to say that it is a pareto dominant solution for many students to major in something more worthwhile and then apply to law school mainly because they will have more options. For people who make the gpa argument (as in they would fail if they majored in engineering), I would say the LSAT is more important and a smart student will do well in any major. If they receive a 4.0 in a podunk major, in many cases they will do very badly once their real skills are put to the limit.</p>

<p>In general, those that do well in useless majors and go to top professional schools and do well there as well, have been anecdotally, smart enough to do well in any major. They merely majored in the podunk major to optimize their time in order to achieve their ultimate goal in Med School, Law School, or whatever else they wanted to do.</p>

13

<p>
[quote]
Expected value is a concept that only the more substantive, quantitative fields teach so its no small wonder most students liberal arts students don't understand why their major is useless.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>We’ve already established that the sciences are in the liberal arts, and so are the social sciences (as are the humanities). Fields that cover expected value and do not fall into the liberal arts would in my mind include nothing more than business and business related engineering fields. The most likely field that would cover it, economics, falls within the liberal arts. Feel free to make unsubstantiated and nonsensical insults- you haven’t been stopped so far.</p>

<p>
[quote]
All you need to do is look at how many unemployed liberal arts majors there are in America and how little they make in comparison to their college peers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Correlation equals causation? Didn’t you take a stats class?</p>

<p>
[quote]
They breezed by in college, taking easy classes and adding little if anything to their own human capital for the most point.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I love unsubstantiated generalizations.</p>

<p>
[quote]
There are successful liberal arts majors but they are successful not in any part because of their degree.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Unlike the technical or vocational majors?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Companies would be inefficient if they didn't hire the smart liberal arts majors; those who spent their college years well to develop quantitative skills and rigorous problem-solving skills.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So the only worthwhile skills are quantitative and problem solving. Whatever you want to believe. But if you think that, why do you have philosophy so much? That’s what it is- problem solving and quantitative skills. Your beloved analytic skills.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If they receive a 4.0 in a podunk major, in many cases they will do very badly once their real skills are put to the limit.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Shiboing, what is a Podunk major? Cow tipping? And why don’t you say “in my experience” (or more likely, hope and guess) instead of “in many cases.” In many cases, do the non Podunk majors not also do very badly?</p>

<p>
[quote]
In general, those that do well in useless majors and go to top professional schools and do well there as well, have been anecdotally, smart enough to do well in any major.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, I can see how great law school performance could translate into one thinking they could have done well with very quantitative fields such physics or cs, for instance.</p>

<p>shioboing, why don't you talk about the humanities/social sciences/sciences/technical disciplines instead the liberal arts/non liberal arts? It's clear that you really just hate the humanities and to a lesser extent the social sciences, not the liberal arts.</p>

14

<p>Defend your podunk major if you want. People that are making the real salaries in America laugh at you.</p>

15

<p>Feel free not to respond to my arguments and instead insult me if you want. It just makes me look even more correct, and you and your red herring more pitiful.</p>

16

<p>career.berkeley.edu</p>

<p>Look at the expected salaries of students from the "liberal arts" majors. They are on the whole less than those from more substantive quantitative majors. Employers want compotent workers. Not people who wasted their years arguing about Focault.</p>

<p>There are numerous surveys out there that prove my point. Liberal arts majors make less coming out of college and have worst career prospects than those who majored in engineering or got a BS.</p>

17

<p>Wow, you know that a person named Michel Foucault (check the spelling) actually existed. This is almost as great as when sakky quoted Nietzsche. But I bet you didn't know the philosophy department in Berkeley (and most around the country) aren't big fans of him or his style of philosophy? I wouldn't expect you to know about the analytic vs continental philosophy distinction. You have enough trouble with knowing which fields are in the humanities and which the social sciences. Foucault is read in the rhetoric department, and to a very mild extent the philosophy department, and Berkeley has more continental stuff than many departments (such as Dreyfus).</p>

18

<p>So in essense, your criteria, Shiboing Boing, for determing whether or not a major is "podunk" is the money that may be gained from it post-graduation according to Berkeley's carreer center and the students who chose to respond?</p>

19

<p>"Many people think science degrees are practical and that liberal arts degrees are "useless," so when I show them that science is in the liberal arts, they should conced that at least some liberal arts degrees are not useless."</p>

<p>What does a biology or chemistry degree really do for you? Get you into med school? Maybe I shouldn't have said ANY liberal arts degree, i'm sure you could find one that is, but the point is, most liberal arts degrees are not that 'useful' without grad school</p>

20

<p>A chemistry degree is useful in a wide variety of fields. Physics degrees don't seem to do badly either. I know plenty of Chem majors working for oil companies and Physics majors working for banking firms. </p>

<p>A biology degree is pretty useless though.</p>

<p>The career center was just one source of info that highlights the earning differential between different majors. </p>

<p>I get tired of arguing with Berkeley people. Just accept the fact that most of you just aren't as good as those that went to better schools (or you probably would've gone to those schools), and as such you are less able to major in crap subjects and expect to get a good job. The same is true for most lower ranked universities.</p>