<p>it is also the way in which the subject is taught.</p>
<p>the profs in law school arent' there to lecture you as to what the material means. they are there to try to get you to think like lawyers and learn how to understand the case law yourself. you read a case and think you understand what its saying. you get to class and find that everything you or anyone else says is picked apart by the professor. a slight change in the facts and you no longer seem to understand. you go and do the next day's reading and think you know what the prof wants only to once again discover there was so much more.</p>
<p>for the most part during first year and especially at top schools, you aren't studying black letter law -- ie what the law actually is. you are studying common law cases that show how the law has been decided over time -- and it may not always be clear why the law changes over time.</p>
<p>the type of study habits that worked in college often don't work in law school. its not a matter of memorizing facts or understanding general principals. slight factual changes can be incredibly significant and you simply can't always unerstand that by reading what the case "says."</p>
<p>
[quote]
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'?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can think of two differences:</p>
<p>First and foremost, the way you are evaluated. If you are an undergrad, you are evaluated in various ways, depending on the class and/or subject: You write papers that are graded, you take tests that have problems on them, etc.</p>
<p>In law school, your grade is typically based on one examination at the end of the semester in which you are given scenarios in which you must spot and analyze issues. It's really not that big of a deal, but it's the game that needs to be played. And it's not a game that you practice in the typical undergraduate class.</p>
<p>Second, your "competition" is a lot smarter. A smart person can coast through undergrad and get good (or even excellent) grades. You need to work harder in law school to end up at (or near) the top.</p>
<p>while no major specifically helps you in Law School, I think some outshine others in terms of preparation for the LSAT: Math and Philosophy. Furthermore, LSAT correlates well with 1-L performance. So somehow, Math and Philosophy might also help out in law school (although very indirectly!). These two majors also boast an average LSAT of 160 or so vs the general average of 150. Whether that is self-selection (smarter people go to these majors) or actual preparation is up for you to decide.</p>
<p>I do think prep is part of it though.</p>
<p>The LSAT has three sections:
-Reading Comprehension
-Argument Analysis
-Logic Puzzles</p>
<p>I think Philosophy helps out with RC and Argument Analysis. Math helps out with Argument Analysis and Logic Puzzles.</p>
<p>Your law school admission depends largely on GPA and LSAT, so taking a major that will help prepare for the LSAT is very advantageous.</p>
<p>So bottom line. If you want to get into Harvard, Yale, or Stanford do a double major in Philosophy and Math :P.</p>
<p>Engineering is another good choice (particularly for Electrical) because Patent Law probably has the best employment prospects after Law School, and Engineering is a pre-req (although you can satisfy the patent-law requirements with Engineering electives).</p>
<p>If you want to get into such schools you basically need a very good GPA. Math is not known for giving such things in general, and the same is true (to a slighly lesser extent) in philosophy.</p>
<p>DRab interesting comment. I'm sure lots of problems arise in philosophy with a self-selecting student pool. Not too many average or below-average students choosing to major in philosophy.</p>
<p>People can't seem to understand it. Choice of major is NOT a factor in law school admissions. Pick what you want to do. Every major, save most fine arts ones, will (theroretically) improve your critical thinking and or writing skills...chemistry, math, political science, Asian Studies all do. But even that doesn;t matter really. I know someone who majored in violin performance and got a 180 on her LSAT and is now attending Yale. Major doesn't matter. Period.</p>
<p>I'm a transferring Poli Sci major to UCLA and I don't really like it that much.
I get good grades in Poli Sci but I'm much more interested in communication studies. </p>
<p>Would switching to Comm Studies be all right for law school too?
I mean, I would think so, but just asking...</p>
<p>I wish I'd known that political science wasn't a great preparatory major. :(
People, and counselors, always told me it was.</p>
<p>I agree... study what you want...I was a poli sci major (and phil)...didn't have much to do with law school. Study what interests you...college is a perfect opportunity to do just that.</p>
<p>It's far better to take on a major you're more interested in and do better naturally than feign interest in another in hopes of impressing adcoms and consequently underperforming.</p>
<p>The major doesn't make you, you make the major.</p>
<p>Ok at the risk of getting too cheesy, there isn't something magical about majors that makes you smart or dumb. The difference however, is in how majors tend to self-select.</p>
<p>For example, I go to UT. People who do their research realize that certain majors have better job prospects here (Business, Engineering). Smarter people generally aim for majors that will help set them up with a career, or a route into a good grad school after they graduate. Business doesn't inherently endow you with intelligence and money-making prowess, however its reputation for a solid post-grad career makes it very competitive thus ensuring only the top candidates get in, thus continuing the cycle. Smart students think a program is better, natural selection only lets the best get into the limited program, the "best" will garner higher salaries and thus further enhancing the reputation of the program. Same thing goes with the Business honors program here, I honestly think the extra 3-4k in salaries aren't from the "added value" of the program, but simply because the handful of kids who get in are already the cream of the crop.</p>
<p>Ok but what about those smart kids who don't simply take a major for its job prospects? Well, we have distinctive honors programs for those kids as well, Plan II, Dean's Scholars, Liberal Arts Honors. By the time you throw in these programs (most are their own major), most "smarter" students have realized the need to be challenged and fill most of the slots for these programs.</p>
<p>What's left then? You have a small number of highly intelligent students grabbing major with "poor reputation" and a very large number of poorer students who simply took those majors because they didn't know better, or because they couldn't compete with the quality of candidates trying to get into the more "prestigious" majors. The reality is that these other majors get filled to the brim with dull students, which in turn reduces the expectations of the professor from the class, etc... and creates the perception that certain majors are "useless". </p>
<p>The small difference in the marketable skills between majors become greatly
inflated when you bring in a competitive student body.</p>
<p>Study what you want. And in terms of liberal arts major being worthless, they are. At least by themselves. </p>
<p>You can only teach or write about your liberal arts major (with some exceptions like some polisci majors go into lobbying). If you go to a graduate school then that is different.</p>
<p>You can argue that any major is useless. (Some) Hard science majors only give you a benefit for very specific fields. Beyond that they are not specifically useful outside of certain areas. Five years of engineering requirements are only useful in a few instances. Many liberal arts majors are the same way; you can use them for grad school and a few specific jobs. In business your major is only moderately important in getting an entry-level job. Beyond your first and second job, major is irrelevant. It takes a metaphysical debate to decide what values determine a major's "usefulness." If flexibility is the measuring stick of a
major's "usefulness" then neither a hard science or a liberal arts major is specifically "useful," (with the possible exception of economics). If one believes that the development of quantitative skills is the most important factor in determining "usefulness" then it would seem that some liberal arts majors are less useful than some hard science majors. However, there are a number of liberal arts majors which emphasis approaches to analysis over simply knowing hard facts; many hard sciences tend to emphasis the hard facts over the methods of analyzing an issue. Math , economics, philosophy and even English comes to mind. Also, it is unlikely that everyone will develop best under the teachings of hard science. Some individuals deal with theory better than just using empirics. For this reason the most useful major in terms of development varies for each person. Therefore, the best approach is for an individual to choose a major that they will enjoy learning and that will challenge them. Simply taking a major to challenge themselves is illogical; as Plato once said, "knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind." One needs to be interested in their major for there to be a change in their thinking patterns. Also, it is not as though a communications major can't take courses that stretch their thinking. You can dabble in linear algebra, o-chem and physics is you wish.</p>
<p>Don't you realize that for some people learning is not about money. Knowledge is valuable for it's own sake. To study something you are passionate about would is what I think is best for law school. Some people are happy not making much money and there are tons of people who make large amounts of money who are miserable. Also I would have to see iron clad statistics before I accept that liberal arts are useless anyway. My point is that your arguments are silly and unsubstantiated.</p>
<p>The only time your major really means anything for Law is if you want to go into patent law. You need a hard science background to take the patent bar which is a requirement to become a patent lawyer.</p>
<p>I majored in history in college, but had more credits in foreign languages than in history.</p>
<p>I also had a reasonable number of credits in English, political science (known as government in one of my two undergraduate institutions), philosophy, and economics.</p>
<p>My ability to think, and my ability to write, improved markedly when I was an undergraduate. I went to a T-14 law school, and have practiced law for 22 years; I have worked for high tech companies as an in-house attorney for the last ten years.</p>
<p>My advice: major in whatever subject interests you. Good lawyers think and write well, and people who take seriously their study of the liberal arts usually graduate with enhanced writing and thinking skills. If you're drawn to political science, go ahead and major in political science.</p>