Hi,
How hard in terms of (workload, difficulty of classes, balancing ec’s, school/life balance) is pre-law compared to engineering?
What majors do law schools look for?(which ones have the highest admission rate)
What other skills or activities, aside from grades and lsat do law schools look for?
Thank You
Pre-law is not a major. It’s not even really a specific sequence of classes, since law schools don’t have prerequisites the same way medical schools do. Some colleges have a recommended course sequence for students who wish to attend law school, but they’re just recommendations - not requirements.
The majors with the highest admissions rates aren’t necessarily the ones law schools are “looking for.” You can major in anything and go to law school. Different majors have different rates for all kinds of reasons: some majors attract students who are likely to do well on the LSAT; some majors have large numbers of students (including unqualified ones) applying to law school, which drives down percentages; some majors may have on average lower GPAs, which makes it harder to get into law school.
The Law School Admissions Council (LSAC) keeps a list of majors by LSAT scores, average GPA, percent admitted and percent enrolled [url=http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/applicants-by-major]here[/url]. The last year they have data for is the 2015-2016 admissions year (which makes sense). If you open the Excel file (.xlsx) you can order the list by different data points. From that, you will see that the majors with the highest LSAT scores are math/statistics, physics/astronomy, classics, linguistics and some engineering disciplines. And the majors with the highest percentages accepted were inter-American relations (100%), nuclear engineering (93%), marine studies (93%), classics (91%), environmental sciences (89%), and insurance and risk management (88%).
There’s probably some kind of bidirectional effect with LSAT scores. The LSAT tests logical reasoning, reading and verbal skills. Majors like math, statistics, physics, astronomy, classics and linguistics tend to attract students who are already strong in those areas, but they also emphasize teaching content and skills that will further strengthen the area. So while majoring in math, physics, or classics probably would strengthen your potential for the LSAT, the students whose potential is strengthened the most are the students who were already interested in and inclined to do well in those types of majors.
Even the LSAC itself says
would you say that an engineering or business degree would help with good background for the lsat and law school?
I’d put “business” in the same category as “prelaw” or “criminal justice”. Don’t do those majors if you want to go to law school.
Law schools look for grades and LSAT scores, first and foremost.
For grades, major in something that you like and are good at (and is marketable, in case your plans change).
For LSAT scores, major in something that requires logical thinking, and study a LOT for the LSAT.
You will need good reading and writing skills in law school and law practice; I don’t see that business or engineering would give you either. I majored in literature, in a foreign language, which taught me to research and write and focus on the meaning of every single word in a sentence; these skills have served me well in law practice.
@HappyAlumnus ^^ what majors would teach you logical thinking? Also, would you say that everyone in law school is outgoing,outspoken and extroverted? Was there anyone that you knew that was either shy/reserved or did not really speak out? Does law school help you practice these skills?
@Floraldress, law school admissions is very heavily grades/LSAT score-based. People get good grades and test scores by being holed up in a library for years. Thus people in law school are generally introverted and not as socially polished as people in business school. Lawyers are predominantly creative-class, bookish types. In my law school, the “cool”, good-looking, extroverted types really stood out.
@HappyAlumnus i love reading and writing and always have and have no problem spending time with books and laws. i believe that history-based subjects are my strong suits and i do well in them. i just consider myself almost too quiet and uncomfortable with confrontation/conflict and more reserved. in your opinion, did people like that srtuggle in law school or do these skills come with the school and build up? thanks
@Floraldress1, lawyers are generally introverted (and thus quiet) and a lot of them cannot stand conflict. Do corporate law or IP law or something if you’re that way and you’ll be totally fine. Being nice and soft-spoken and collaborative is often the best way to do work if you’re a transactional lawyer. Loud, conflict-loving people are litigators, in my experience.
Law school can be painful for introverts. The man who came up with the Socratic method should be … [CC won’t let me use words like that – just joking]. I would not agree that “[l]awyers are predominantly creative-class, bookish types.” Trial lawyers are performers – the extroverts of the profession. IP lawyers are the tech geeks. And so on. These are obviously generalizations. In my law school, the extroverted types who spoke too much were known as gunners and rather despised. There is a happy medium. If you are comfortable speaking in seminars, you’ll be fine in law school, because the teaching method boils down to a conversation: there’s just often a lot of other people listening.
60% of lawyers are introverts, in one study.
I thought that law school was perfect for an introvert. If the classes are huge, if you say 1 comment all semester, you’re fine.
@Floraldress, remember that for most lawyers, your job is to find ways to make things work for people who want to do things (start a business, win a dispute, etc.) but who face obstacles. Fighting can be the worst way to achieve what you want–rather, you spend time engrossed in documents and learning and so often then work collaboratively to find solutions. Litigators fight, but only some lawyers are litigators; I’m not.
I know lots of trial lawyers. Many are introverted. Few trial lawyers spend that much time in actual trials. Most of trial is spent on discovery and motion practice for which showmanship is generally a negative.
I know lots of trial lawyers. Few are what I would call introverted. All are performers, which does not mean the same thing as showmanship. Politicians are performers. Good debaters are performers. Heck, good professors are performers. You try to keep the attention of 100 sleepy 18-years-old at a 9 am lecture. I wouldn’t even try. 
Are lawyers always dealing with face to face contact on every case? Is there less conflict/confirmation in fields like environmental law? I don’t mind reviewing and reading up on ways to find a way of working the problem of a case out but it makes me kind of uncomfortable arguing with people. But I assume not all lawyers deal with this kind of situation and that if anything law school would teach you this stuff. I’m looking for a field that has little to no arguing/fighting or anything like that.
I don’t know any trial lawyers; I know litigators, corporate lawyers and a few in-house ones.
Litigators are the ones who fight in a courtroom.
The rest of us never set foot in one, and the rest of us negotiate things all the time, but it’s usually over the phone or by email and rarely contentious. You have to work with the other side to get things done, and if you fight, then that kills all chance of things going smoothly and the client (who pays you) will be mad.
@HappyAlumnus in your experience which fields of law do you think do most of the paperwork side?
Also do they teach you how to negotiate and stuff in law school?
I know a number of corporate/patent attorneys. If that is the direction of law you choose - which is extremely different from trial law - a STEM major can be very helpful. Majors such as history and philosophy are historically popular for law students, since law school includes significant amounts of reading and interpreting what is read. But depending on what you want as your practice, a specific discipline such as chemistry or engineering can be incredibly valuable. However, you still need skills in reading, writing, and critical thinking.
Patent law includes a lot of research, attention to detail, and ability to spot minor discrepancies. It may or may not include arguing or taking depositions. But it typically requires some scientific area of expertise - engineering, computer science, chemistry, or such. You need to understand at some level the patent arguments you are researching.
Reaching out to some law firms to see if you can job shadow can be incredibly enlightening. My son was sure he wanted to pursue patent law with a chemistry undergrad until he spent a week at a patent law firm. He realized it wasn’t the right fit for him and is now pursuing engineering with a goal of being an engineer rather than a lawyer.
I know several very successful lawyers who went into law with Engineering degrees, including my husband. Only one went on to practice patent/IP law. The others were in a range of practice areas from Corporate to Litigation to Tax. I think it’s fairly dismissive to assume that Engineering grads are incapable of handling the reading/writing/research that is necessary as a law student.