<p>As much as I hate to say it, nspeds is 100% right here.</p>
<p>So does a political science major provide a good background for law school?</p>
<p>To the OP -- It certainly can, as can a wide variety of other majors. For the very last time (I felt the need to jump in here since this thread has gone so far off track), you should major in a subject you find interesting and exciting. You will almost certainly do better if you enjoy your classes. Don't hesitate, though, to take a broad range of classes outside of your major as well. Successful law students and lawyers have studied every imaginable major and every imaginable subject, and there is no reason to think that any one major is better preparation for law school and a career in law than any other major. The only possible exception exists for someone who is thinking of patent law -- make sure that you take a sufficient number of science classes to provide a background for the career may want to pursue.</p>
<p>Shiboing Boing: My aunt has an Art History degree from Berkeley (albiet a graduate degree) and she has no problems getting jobs</p>
<p>First of all, in terms of major, it depends on where you are going to school and what you plan to do. If you go to a third tier college, there is more pressure to major in engineering, business, education, or related preprofessional/practical/vocational fields. If you are going to an Ivy or one of their competitors, that is simply not the case. The major employers of Ivy League (and schools that compete with the Ivies like MIT, Stanford, Duke, Georgetown, etc.) are Investment Banking, Consulting, and non-profit employers like Teach for America, the Peace Corps, etc. All of these organizations accept students regardless of major, because a major is essentially three courses per year out of 8 to 10 usually that a student traditionally takes, which is isn't enough to become a specialist in the field. Though Economics tends to be popular for Ivy League alumns that go into banking, that is primarily because students majoring in economics tend to be more interested in pursuing that route relative to students majoring in say Visual Studies at Penn or History and Literature at Harvard (i.e. the plurality of APPLICANTS major in certain fields, but that DOES NOT suggest that those fields give you any advantage in getting these types of jobs). The point of college but elite colleges in particular is getting a broad-based liberal arts education - taking a wide variety of courses in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences (and depending on the school, perhaps pre-professional classes like engineering or business or public policy); this is what distinguishes them from, say, ITT Tech (this is actually consistent throughout the western world - more selective, prestigious schools tend to be broad-based in nature in terms of the educational philosophy at the UNDERGRADUATE level). Also, many students go on to scholarships like Marshall, Fulbright, Rhodes, programs and end up going to graduate school and getting a job as a professor, or depending on the field, political analysts/advisors, researchers, quant jobs in finance, etc., etc. A large portion of these graduates end up heading off to law and medical school, or after some work experience at places like Merrill Lynch, McKinsey, BCG, Morgan Stanley, GS, etc. getting an MBA and staying in the afformentioned fields or going on to senior management positions at Fortune 500 companies or cushy marketing jobs. Of course there are also the trust fund/development admits that already have the connections necessary through family and their social circle to land high-paying jobs after graduation, even if they end up at the bottom of the class at Princeton, Columbia, U Pennsylvania (Wharton or not Wharton), Dartmouth, or Duke.</p>
<p>Remember, though people continue to remain ignorant of this fact, Investment Banking and Consulting firms regularly higher Ivy League (and their peers) alumns REGARDLESS OF MAJOR for the reasons mentioned before, given that they have relevant coursework in analytical methods/calculus/intro econ (though even this is not an expectation or a requirement). As someone whose parent is a senior investment banker, I personally know many associates and analysts from places like Harvard and Yale with degrees in East Asian Studies, Government, Politics/Ethics/Economics, Art History, English/Literature, foreign languages, etc., and the same goes for places like Brown, Cornell, Princeton, Stanford, and other places. Employers recognize that your coursework in college, no matter what you take, will not prepare you for the reality of the actual work you will be doing as an analyst at Bain, Jefferies and Comp., or Bank of America Securities. And remember, these are the highest paying jobs (when you consider the full packages) for graduating seniors out of college including fields in engineering, nursing, or other preprofessional areas. Employers want bright students that have challenged themselves, present themselves well, that have diverse perspectives and educational backgrounds b/c you need that sort of vibrant, mecca of ideas for these high-intensity corporations to flourish. There is a reason why coming from Podunk State w/ a degree in chemical/aeuronautical engineering (and a 4.0) won't get you a callback why a varsity lacrosse player from Williams with a 3.1 majoring in History will definitely have a shot at the previously mentioned places.</p>
<p>Last, though people will continually not recognize the validity of these comments, starting salary does not really mean that much (with the exception of paying off those cumbersome college loans). What matters is the long term careers that students end up with. People majoring in the liberal arts end up doing just as well (and often better) than their peers 10-20 years later, as evidence by numberous career survey conducted by OCS at the Ivies and other top schools (this is particularly true in comparing the salaries of, say, graduates of Wharton/Engineering/College students from Penn). Penn college alumns end up doing just as well if not better. </p>
<p>Top jobs for humanities majors that graduate from top schools pay horribly at first, but end up being incredibly rewarding and interesting later on (think screenwriters - the writers for the Simpsons, Friends, etc. are almost exclusively Harvard alumns; other elite LAC's and universities dominate the most sought after positions in journalism like places like the New Yorker, the Economist, the National Review, the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, etc., etc.). These places are basically off-limits to students who graduate from third tier institutions (though, of course, there are always exceptions to this).</p>
<p>There is a lot of ignorance on this board (and I don't mean to be condescending), but I'm just trying to educate some people.</p>
<p>In response to your question though, you can major in any field and get into a top law school and get that prized BIGLAW firm/government/clerkship/humanitarian job that you want. Though some admissions officers will adjust GPA (not formally or literally, but they will take it into consideration) based on the rigor of your field. I remember hearing from a U Chicago adcom that they know, for example, that Social Studies at Harvard is considered a kind of slacker major, for example. Certain programs are known for their rigor like Cornell Engineering or Sociology at U Chicago, etc. They know which schools are cracking down on grade inflation (Princeton, U Pennsylvania) and which schools aren't (Brown, Yale) and which schools don't need to (UC Berkeley, Cornell, Georgetown). You will be viewed as an individual, but the most important two factors are LSAT and GPA followed by work experience/essay. Good luck!!!</p>
<p>That Post Is Totally Worth Reading (fyi)!!!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Top jobs for humanities majors that graduate from top schools pay horribly at first, but end up being incredibly rewarding and interesting later on (think screenwriters - the writers for the Simpsons, Friends, etc. are almost exclusively Harvard alumns; other elite LAC's and universities dominate the most sought after positions in journalism like places like the New Yorker, the Economist, the National Review, the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, etc., etc.). These places are basically off-limits to students who graduate from third tier institutions (though, of course, there are always exceptions to this).
[/quote]
How many years out of school are you?</p>
<p>I find that hard to believe. You are arguing that top humanities majors from <em>top</em> colleges are well paying. Do you really want to talk about top tech jobs from top colleges? Tech, at almost every stage of the game, will <em>bury</em> humanities (unless you get into professional school).</p>
<p>How many years of school I am personally is totally irrelevant to the discussion. And, read thoroughly, I said "incredibly interesting and rewarding." Obviously, some of the jobs listed in that particular citation are difficult to come by, but they are significantly easier to get coming from an Ivy League school or one of their peers. TOP writers in entertainment and journalists are all making six figures or more, but more importantly, the type of work/environment/quality of life for those jobs tend to be much better than sitting at cubical and crunching numbers all day. Read the whole post. I think my positions are clear. </p>
<p>It also seems that the "elite" of the acting world tend to be coming from top colleges more and more often now (there was an article I read about this somewhere; I think it was New York Magazine).</p>
<p>Edward Norton (Yale)
Reese Witherspoon (Stanford)
Ron Livingston (Yale)
Brooke Shields (Princeton
Candice Bergen (U Pennsylvania)
David Duchovny (Princeton)
Jake Gyllenhaal (Columbia)
Natalie Portman (Harvard)
Angela Basset (Yale)
Lauryn Hill (Columbia)
Angelina Jolie (NYU)
Sirgourney Weaver (Yale)
Liev Schriber (Yale)
Maggie Glylenhaal (Columbia)
Peter Sarsguard (Washington U in St. Louis)
Megan Muhlally (Northwestern)
Julia Luis Dryphus (Northwestern)
Laura Linney (Brown)
John Lloyd Young - 2006 Tony Winner for Best Actor in a Musical (Brown)
Meryl Streep (Dartmouth/Vassar/Yale)
Jennifer Connolly (Stanford/Yale)
Jodie Foster (Yale)
Claire Danes (Yale)
Paul Giamatti (Yale)</p>
<p>The list goes on and on...</p>
<p>Perhaps I should ask for the numerous surveys that shows the liberal arts majors <em>matching</em> Engineering and/or Wharton numbers 10-20 years down the line.</p>
<p>I am also a political science major. I have done a little research into what majors are good for law school. However, it depends on WHAT type of law career you want to persue and with what specialization (if you don't specialize, you'll never make it as an attorney).</p>
<p>Obviously, if you want to be an attorney that stands in front of a judge and jury (the cliche concept), then a degree in either communications or philosophy would be ideal. If you are more interested in lobbying, then political science is ideal. If you want to do corporate law, then busisness. If you want to specialize in patents, then a tech degree such as engineering or computer science is more relevant. Etc., etc., etc.</p>
<p>Who does best in law school? I've surfed through a few web sites and found a general consensus that Philosophy majors tend to score higher on the LSAT and do significantly better in law school. That, however, does not mean a thing. I think that philosophy tends to attract smarter students, which has a significant impact on how well they score. The moral is that any major is fine, just keep your GPA up and do well on the LSAT.</p>
<p>I slightly disagree about majors affecting or determining concentrations in law school. The only exception would be patent law, in which a science/engineering degree would be ideal.</p>
<p>I do kind of agree in the superiority of science/engineering/mathematical type majors in the job market. Let's face it, although there are many intelligent liberal arts majors, almost all unintelligent student also major in the liberal arts. So if you are smart, you're still going to be classified with all the other not-so-smart students. That is a major drawback.</p>
<p>If I could redo my college path, I would have double majored in engineering to compliment my political science major. Now I'm going to be stuck in retail sales after college.</p>
<p>Also, simply naming all those people who did well with liberal arts majors does not prove anything. They are merely exceptions. One could just as easily name people that did well without even completing a college degree:</p>
<p>Bill Gates
Steve Jobs
John D. Rockefeller
Michael Dell
Peter Jennings
Henry Ford, etc. etc.</p>
<p>Does this mean that we should not go to college? NO! Therefore, listing people who did well with liberal arts majors justifies nothing.</p>
<p>"Now I'm going to be stuck in retail sales after college."</p>
<p>Huh? I thought you're going to law school?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Let's face it, although there are many intelligent liberal arts majors, almost all unintelligent student also major in the liberal arts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First of all, could you clarify what you mean by intelligence? </p>
<p>Secondly, I'd point out that many people major in the liberal arts in part because they comprise so many fields of study (essentially all of the sciences, the social sciences, the arts, and the humanities). That's a lot of stuff!</p>
<p>I would point to business, one of the most popular majors in the country, as containing many students who aren't the brightest. I would imagine the same is true of nursing, marketing, and journalism. This is not to say that the students in these programs are always dumb or inferior, but I just think that these fields are generally studied at the so-called "lesser" schools which tend to contain students who have significantly lower test scores and GPA than the top schools' students. I think there are a ton of vocational majors containing those who are of about average intelligence. Perhaps you meant that of those in the top 50 or 100 or 150 schools in America, it is the case that "almost all unintelligent student also major in the liberal arts."? Just look at all those majors which provide "occupational or professional skills" (rather than just intellectual skills or those of general cutlural concern) and I think you'll find that, out of the over 3000 schools in America, your statement, at least as it stands, is a little off, but maybe I'm wrong.</p>
<p>Intelligent people can only be found in 3 majors. Math, Physics, and Engineering. Done deal. </p>
<p>Obviously, someone who is a communications majors at Harvard is unintelligent, simply because it is not physically possible for an intelligent person to pick that major. Same with philosophy, political science, business, history, english, biology, chemistry, etc. You can only be considered smart if you got a 2400 on the SAT and have memorized every significant technical proof that has ever been done.</p>
<p>Steve Jobs went to Reed College and Bill Gates went to Harvard. Both of them got through the admissions process and studied there. It's not the same thing as not going to college or considering it all. They both had significant reasons for pursuing other avenues. John D. Rockefeller was an opportunist and robber barron from the industrial revolution, born in 1839. That is kind of an anachronistic example and he is known to be an exception from his time. I could go on about the other examples, but these are mere anecdotes. The reason why my usage of anecdotes was more reasonable was because my argument was more specific - i.e. that the acting world now is being increasingly dominated by graduates of top colleges. Your argument are that people who don't graduate from colleges can become succesful. That is an obvious reality, but it does not suggest that a degree from a top colleges in the humanities and social sciences is less useful or indeed useless as you have implied which is a far more specific argument.</p>
<p>The comment regarding specialization and majors again is only valid if you are considering lower tier law schools. Top law schools want students who have a broad-based education in the liberal arts and sciences. You can specialize in any field after law school with any major - again, a major is about 3 courses a year out of 8-10 that you will be taking annually, so it is not really about the major. It is about the coursework. You can be an English major and take more Engineering classes than English classes. The major is not what is important. College is supposed to be a place for students to pursue what they are passionate about intellectually in a variety of fields. If an employer does not look at your transcript (which is often the case), you can include the relevant coursework on your resume. But again, the Engineering programs at the Ivies and other similiar institutions are still liberal arts based, not preprofessional or vocational in nature - i.e. they teach theory, particularly at a place like Dartmouth that only offers "Engineering Sciences" as a major and no specialization. Many students who study Engineering at places like Penn or Dartmouth go off to work on wall street after graduation (which is why they are ranked lower than other schools and vastly underrated - US News factors in highly the percentage of alumns that actually become engineers in its rankings).</p>
<p>Remember that the average salary for engineers in the U.S. is $54,439, the average salary for lawyers in the U.S. is $81,930, the average salary for doctors in the U.S. is $149,891, and the average salary for and accountant is $39,651. Though only some admissions offices at law and medical schools officially state this, it is the reality that students are more likely to be admitted with majors in the liberal arts and sciences as opposed to something like Eletrical engineering or Finance, but again I am only referring to top preprofessional schools. Law and medicine are DEFINITELY options for people who major in things like Art History, Near Eastern Civilizations, or Russian. If you think otherwise, please educate yourself.</p>
<p>"Intelligent people can only be found in 3 majors. Math, Physics, and Engineering. Done deal. </p>
<p>Obviously, someone who is a communications majors at Harvard is unintelligent, simply because it is not physically possible for an intelligent person to pick that major. Same with philosophy, political science, business, history, english, biology, chemistry, etc. You can only be considered smart if you got a 2400 on the SAT and have memorized every significant technical proof that has ever been done."</p>
<p>This is a joke right? In terms of my empirical evidence, people who major in those fields tend to be less knowledgeable about issues in a wide variety of fields and generally slow, though they do tend to spend a lot more time memorizing equations and diagrams and facts to regurgitate on exams. The only real brilliance in the three fields mentioned comes after undergraduate studies in those fields because as an undergraduate you are just learning the basic language to navigate the given fields. Math, physics, and Engineering at that level is really about understanding the tools and language necessary to later use in pratical terms. Math and physics though are both highly theoretical in nature. The difference though between scientific/pratical fields and those in the arts/humanities is that the grading is certainly more subjective in the later. It seems also that many people believe that those that illustrate brilliance in the later are "talented" and the in the former that they are just hardworkers. The reality is though it's really about the competition. If you are getting A's at Harvard and Yale in English that means that you are doing better than the best undergraduates in that field and the same is true in the sciences/engineering. What field is more difficult? It really varies. It's probably easier to get a B in History than it is in Chemistry but getting an A in History consistently among professors with very different standards and views on writing is in my opinion a much greater accomplishment than in a more objectively graded field like Chemistry. It's really about the competition because both fields are intellectually challenging. It's obvious though that on an internet board there is going to be a science/engineering bias among posters.</p>
<p>Davida - some of the persons on your list were admitted to those schools AFTER they became national successes.</p>