Political science as a preparation for law school

Graduate School Law School
81

<p>
[quote]
But not engineering.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I thought we went over this? Enough with the "engineers are so godly and wonderful." Some engineering is "worth less"...as a previous poster put it. Including Civil, Mechanical, and in future Computer. Yes, due to outsourcing, and civil and mechanical are paid in the 40Ks, which isn't exactly a large pay-off.</p>

<p>
[quote]

If you haven't done it, don't say you can

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Fine, I took up to Multivariable and I pulled A's. I didn't go further because I didn't need to nor was it that exciting. I was actually better in math as a kid. And when did I say I could do engineering? (Quote me on that please...) I'm saying OTHER kids who are in engineering boast about it yet THEY can't do it. And they pulled C's in Economics too, which, c'mon, is a joke compared to engineering right? </p>

<p>
[quote]

Bragging about having a much higher starting salary than a liberal arts major? That's pretty much true regardless of GPA.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you have a 2.0 from Berkeley engineering, you won't get a good job. Companies do ask for your GPA at job interviews and those with 3.6+ get the best, highest paying jobs. </p>

<p>
[quote]

If someone gets a 3.3+ in Engineering it is a good academic and intellectual achievement at the undergrad level. It requires a decent amount of study and a broad understanding of many different technical topics. Is bragging in poor taste? Most certainly. It doesn't negate the achievement though.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Fine, so the MAJORITY of engineers should not brag then? Because the average GPA for engineering is in the 2's, meaning uh "shut up because you haven't achieved anything?" Is that it? Sure a 3.3+ in engineering is good, but below that, you're saying they should shut up?</p>

<p>In addendum: The engineers whom I've met that have bragged the most are the ones who have GPAs below 3.3, meaning they feel the need to compensate by reminding us they are taking difficult classes. The ones who actually do really well feel secure enough to not mention it in every conversation.</p>

82

<p>
[quote]

I think that too few people on this board, perhaps out of lack of experience, value the notion of ENJOYING what you do. I'd give up tens of thousands of dollars to actually have a sense of accomplishment and happiness in my life.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's probably because their parents are so conservative and tell them exactly what to do & what is "good and respectable" so that they are too narrow-minded to actually try anything else out to see what exactly brings them happiness. For example, I told my parents I'm moving abroad and travelling for a year post-graduation, and my father said I'm living in an idealistic, dream fantasy world. My mother says I can do what I want. But you know what? I'm really going to do it as it has always been my dream. Some people never actually truly enjoy life, but merely live within confines set by their parents. I'm not advocating doing illegal activity, but I'm saying for example, doing something out of the box for once. People don't have to live and die in their hometown you know. It just makes life humdrum. Then again, maybe some people dislike change and like living within set confines. Maybe it never occurs to them to actually enjoy what they do, or maybe they equate joy with walking on a set line firmly established by their parents since birth. But whatever floats their boat. It's not my problem.</p>

83

<p>Mr Payne: I remember your scores and you seem to be one of the brighter engineering students. Your peers are not all as smart as you, and they do boast often enough in real life. So I am not merely "dissing what I have not done" but pointing out that your peers can't do it, so they should not boast about failure. You may be an exception, because you probably do well in engineering and hence you are warranted for some degree of arrogance, as long as it does not permeate into diurnal life. However, not all of your fellow peers do as well as you, in fact the majority don't do well, and many of them still boast time and time again.</p>

<p>Peace.</p>

84

<p>I think we're also fussing a lot over GPA, as if it's a sure sign of intelligence.</p>

<p>It's not. The world has plenty of intelligent lazy people in it as well. Or people who see college as an opportunity to do things besides study. Saying, "I have a 3.8, therefore I'm super smart!" is silly.</p>

<p>I mean, I know that all of us who chose to go into careers that we enjoy are just blood-sucking leeches draining the economic lifeblood of all those wonderful technical types, but I see nothing wrong with wanting to be a doctor, professor, teacher, or even ::GASP:: a lawyer. And you know what? I even respect them!</p>

85

<p>Our S breezed through 2 university calculus courses while still in high school( never got less than an A ) , plus pulled easy As in bio and chem( uni courses too) . He also took humanities' and poli sci courses and had to work MUCH harder to get As in them. He WANTS to major in PoliSci and Econ because these things interest him greatly. The simple mentioning of engineering makes him want to vomit.</p>

86

<p>I said it was "often" not always or even the majority of such cases.</p>

<p>Sure you may know people that are passionate, but you probably also know plenty of people that just couldn't cut it in a harder major or premed regime and had to switch to something easier.</p>

<p>Without statistical data its hard to tell but plenty of people only major in something because its the only place they can get a good gpa or be able to graduate.</p>

87

<p>Wow, and without statistical data its hard to tell but plenty of people only major in something because it contains subject matter that really interests them. Just because someone is a comparative literature or art history major does not mean that they couldn't cut it in chemistry. Yes, people may choose majors that play to their strengths, but it doesn't mean that they couldn't make it in any other field. I'm sure that there are plenty of math and engineering majors out there who would have a really tough time doing even the most basic creative writing or comparing and contrasting writings from the Russian revolutionary period with those with the French revolutionary period. There are also probably plenty of math and engineering majors who might consider those kinds of assignments enjoyable and challenging. I think that there are plenty of well rounded individuals in the colleges across America. For those who are not well rounded, what could be more important in their lives than finding and developing areas of strengths for them? Not everyone can be a renaissance man.</p>

88

<p><em>shrug</em> All I know is my experiences and almost everyone I know in poli sci and other liberal artsy majors at Berkeley are almost always dumber than those in engineering and science disciplines. </p>

<p>Maybe there's some kind of correlation. And as someone who thinks of himselves as well rounded, my "liberal arts" classes were almost always much less objective in grading and rigorous than my math and science classes. I could almost make a good grade by sucking up to the GSI and gleaning their world view and aping it in my papers.</p>

89

<p>Define "dumber."</p>

<p>Dumber is an awfully loaded term that isn't necessarily easy to quantify.</p>

90

<p>Shiboing, so if I understand you correctly, all of your statements about science versus liberal arts type majors is based solely upon your own personal experiences at Berkeley?</p>

91

<p>There are virtually no engineering majors in law school and the few scientists I knew in law school did not outshine the humanities majors by any means -- it is filled with humanities majors, and the overwhelming number of lawyers at the top law firms are former humanities majors -- so much for the idea that humanities majors are inferior...</p>

92

<p>
[quote]
There are virtually no engineering majors in law school and the few scientists I knew in law school did not outshine the humanities majors by any means -- it is filled with humanities majors, and the overwhelming number of lawyers at the top law firms are former humanities majors -- so much for the idea that humanities majors are inferior...

[/quote]
Anecdotal evidence is rarely worth anything - from you or engineers.</p>

93

<p>sallywp, it seems the answer to your question is "yes."</p>

<p>
[quote]
And as someone who thinks of himselves as well rounded, my "liberal arts" classes were almost always much less objective in grading and rigorous than my math and science classes. I could almost make a good grade by sucking up to the GSI and gleaning their world view and aping it in my papers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are we talking about GPA, or well-roundedness?</p>

<p>Let's not forget about the social science majors- they're also present in law schools, particularly via political science and economics (and some would say history also counts as a social science, or at least some history, and some would say philosophy, or at least some philosophy).</p>

94

<p>I majored in political science and philosophy. It did not help with law school, which is an entirely different beast. Reading con law in college is very different from reading cases in law school. To be a lawyer, one needs to write well, speak coherently, analyze well, research well and read carefully. I think a working knowledge of corporations is necessary in order to work in corporate law...and they don't teach that in law school. Most of lawyering is learned on the job...so major in whatever interests you, develop your communication skills and intern with a law firm to make sure lawyering is for you.</p>

95

<p>You know, part of the problem with this thread is that the meaning of a "Liberal arts" education has been twisted to mean mainly the humanities to most people.</p>

<p>Traditional, getting a liberal arts education meant getting a very well-rounded education--that includes math, science, philosophy, etc.</p>

<p>Nowadays there are too many people that are specializing in one thing such that a college education doesn't quite mean what it use to. Too be concise, it probably is in evereyone's best interest to have the most well-rounded education they can get in college. Employers love having versatile workers, and being well-rounded is something that is unique to western workers. In fact, the "well-roundedness" of American workers is the reason why outsourcing helps the American workers more than it hurts them, and a reason why much of the work American college graduates do simply can't be outsourced to the third world (Indian engineers can program simple code well enough but all the designing is still done by Western Engineers).</p>

<p>Humanities majors in and of themselves are not useless. It is useful to have a historical perspective or to know how to read and write well enough to educate a large audience. My main gripe with the humanities is that they are often the most grade-inflated major at any college. Standards are simply lower and professors just don't expect as much from humanities students compared to a student in a biochemistry or engineering class. Aside from the intangible differences between different subjects, the simple fact is that humanities majors are graded on a much easier curve than their peers. A 3.0 in an engineering major usually means someone who is compotent and capable. A 3.0 in political science can mean a slacker who took easy classes or sucked up to a GSI. </p>

<p>People can obfuscate this fact as much as they want. "Many Engineers have a lot of trouble writing well and consequently doing well in political science classes." Etc., etc. Anecdotally this may be true, but when the average gpa in political science is 3.7 at most schools and the average gpa in engineering is 2.7, you know something is up. Other fields are simply held to a higher standard and tested as such. Not knowing something for an engineer could lead to a design flaw and cost a company millions of dollars. Not knowing the the exact causes of the industrial revolution will hardly cause any concern within most workplaces. </p>

<p>The lack of rigour in typical humanities majors is a main reason they are derided by other students in much more grade-deflated majors and a reason why employers compensate such degree holders less.</p>

96

<p>Wow, Shiboing, you managed to write something without sounding totally like a pompous arse.</p>

<p>And I can't really disagree with you for the most part. Though I do think that if we were to actually do a long-term analysis of income by major, we'd find that outside of specialized fields, major probably has a very low correlation with salary after a few years. Most job skills are learned on the job, and most of the highest paying jobs aren't interested in theoretical physics OR English. They're interested in skills that you can really only get in the marketplace...and a few things you can get at schools.</p>

97

<p>I also applaud your tone and content.</p>

<p>One major thing: you quickly link the ideas of rigor and grading standards, and essentially imply that they are basically the same thing. I don't think it's the case that the harder something grades, the more rigorous it necessarily is. I hear UGBA 10 grades really harshly at Berkeley, with each point (out of a fairly small number) making a significant difference in the final grade, but I would most certainly not call the course rigorous. Certainly grade and rigor are related, but there’s a lot more to rigor than just average grades given. To me, just because a large number of low grades are given out in a course does not necessarily mean that it is rigorous, and just because a large number of high grades are given out in a course does not mean it isn’t rigorous.</p>

<p>There’s no reason to leave out the concept of the social sciences when you use them as examples (poli sci) when explicitly talking about the humanities. Group ‘em together if you like (certainly in some ways they should be grouped), but let’s not forget we are, as you pointed out, talking about more than just the humanities.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Anecdotally this may be true, but when the average gpa in political science is 3.7 at most schools and the average gpa in engineering is 2.7, you know something is up.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are these unsubstantiated guesses, or do you have some data?</p>

98

<p>For what it may be worth, I am an engineering major who went to law school. There were not many of us (about 5%), but I think a lot of that is because people with technical skills typically have interests and options that lead them elsewhere.</p>

<p>I doubt that any particular college major better prepares one for law school. If you want to be better prepared for law school, I would sit in on a couple classes at a nearby law school and review the old exams and model answers in the library.</p>

99

<p>why is law school soo different from undergrad?
i know its hard to answer this briefly..but can anyone give me the major reasons why its such a different 'beast'?</p>

100

<p>Law school is narrower than college, but deeper, if that makes sense...during the first year, a student learns about contracts, constitutional law, torts, criminal law and property. Case law is a "beast" of it's own. Pick up a law book and flip through it. You will learn how to read a case, including those all important footnotes. You will learn about case law, statutory law, constitutional law...and you will learn how to read and apply all of it. Legal writing is more structured than writing one does in college. You will learn about slippery slopes, slippery floors and burned and hairy hands. There's criminal intent, negligence, malice, and all sorts of bad things people do to each other that you will need to know.
In a nutshell, it has a much narrower focus than college, but you will need to learn a lot about each area...deeper rather than broader, as is common with most grad school. So it gets pretty intense. The second year, there's corporate law, securities, trusts and estates, tax...the good times keep rolling...</p>