<p>I've been thinking about double majoring in Political Science + History. I'm declared as a PS major, but am thinking about adding on History too. If I do choose to major in History, then I'd have to pack my schedule pretty tight if I want to graduate by spring of next year. What do you guys think? Is it worth it (seeing as both are social science majors)?</p>
<p>Here is a breakdown of my schedule would be like:</p>
<p>=Summer '07=
Session A: 2 history courses
Session C: 1 history course
2 JC courses in history (to fulfill history pre-req)
- I would plan on taking these for C/NC</p>
<p>=Fall '07=
HIST 97 or 96W
HIST
PS
PS</p>
<p>=Winter '08=
HIST
HIST
PS
PS</p>
<p>=Spring '08=
HIST 191 (the seminar one where you have to write major papers)
PS
PS
PS</p>
<p>The consensus among individuals that I know who double majored is that they say it's not worth the extra time, money and effort. If you think it is, go for it.</p>
<p>In my opinion, you're better off graduating early, getting a job and developing a career/social network.</p>
<p>There are quite a number of pre-law history/political science majors aren't there? I don't know how much this will help but there is this man in an office on the 5th, 6th, or 7th floors whose door is always open. It faces the elevators as you walk out. He has a desk with 2 red-maroon chairs facing him in his leather swivel chair. He is usually occupied with random academics/professors/history-people and there is always conversation reverberating from his room such that it echoes through the rest of the hall. Outside of his office is a poster with information about the honors-history society. I have spoken to him before. He has given me a lot of advice about this major. He was very useful and I appreciated his opinions. He also gave me numbers about the # of history majors there are that graduate from UCLA. I'm assuming that he has information about history double-majors and I'm assuming he has a good amount of information about pre-law students in regards to those majors. I think you should visit him and find out what he has to say. I do not remember what his name was but I recall that had an authority position and has a lot of influence within the department. I recall that he encourages students to visit him to talk about the major. He was once a professor I believe. I cannot be any more concrete.</p>
<p>Graduating early is overrated. For one, one more year of your life to maybe flesh out your academic abilities is oftentimes worth more than one year in the entry-level workplace.</p>
<p>That, and real life sucks. Don't rush into it. </p>
<p>I don't know, however, that a double major is necessary in this case. I would just do the minor, personally.</p>
<p>I forgot to mention that I, too, have noticed a trend of ps/history double majors. As for why I have no clue. Oh, now that I think about it you are talking about Paul Padilla. Man, I'm so out of it today... I just went to visit him this afternoon too. Haha!</p>
<p>Today I just asked him about what / how many courses I needed to complete the history major. I'll give him another visit tomorrow since I have class... Speaking of which, everyone is already on their "vacations" and I am stuck going to school for one more day! Grrrr! Well, we have a guest lecturer coming, so it'll be worth it.</p>
<p>How did you get more posts than me so fast? Didn't you just join CC? :(</p>
<p>So far I am leaning towards NOT double majoring. I can very well do it if GPA wasn't a concern, but unforunately the LSAC likes to see those high index scores. Grrr!</p>
<p>It would be so much better for me if there were a history minor...</p>
<p>How did I get more posts than you so fast? Well, I spam the Bar a lot and spam other threads and create some useless threads at times. That and :rolleyes: is good for one post-ers. </p>
<p>Imagine a history minor! I think what's so difficult about that is that you cannot really go into much depth. For instance, they purposely make you take History 1A/1B/1C or the 20 series (or whatever the series is that involves world history). In option I, you have a survey of mostly European History. In the latter, you have a disjointed view of developments in various countries around the world. Once you get beyond this background you would need to get a bunch of other survey courses in to secure a good general background. This is where you get a difference between the major and the minor. With the major, you have to take a couple more classes within specific regions of the world. With the minor, you might just be left with very watered down survey courses. In the former, you get some specialization in regions. You get to test out where your interests lie or where you are more inclined. I think this is partially why they have a history minor involving medicine. It is a very specific strain. Another example we might look at (which doesn't blatantly involve history) is the music history minor. What differentiates the minor from the major is that it loses all of the technicality that ties the music history major with the music major. Instead, it is a watered down approach or sampling platter of distinct lower and upper (which, in my opinion are arbitrary but not so as much if you're surveying the entire history of opera over 3 quarters such that it would be considered upper division versus taking something like History of Rock and Roll or American Pop music within a quarter... this is a whole different idea and primarily involves large time periods and developments in something rooted farther in the past and consistent across several centuries such that the subject matter is so much more broad and requires that amount of time to study... regardless, I digress...) classes and some aspects of the music history major are pulled out in these seminar/journal-club classes. Essentially, for a history major there is sense of necessity for surveyed background of history in the broadest sense with the specialization with the 2-3 courses required in specific areas and then further specialization with additional upper division courses of your own choosing. This depth would be severely lacking in the history minor. It can, however, be expressed somewhat in something more specific like the music history minor... at least this is what I have inferred by its presence.</p>
<p>Agree with UCLAri about graduating early. You get the rest of your life to work, and even if you stop in grad school along the way it isn't like undergrad. IMHO take the time to enjoy what being a college student has to offer, and if you're not getting enough enjoyment from it then ask yourself why and make the changes so you are!</p>
<p>Well, you take the courses that are required for medical school. You take your English major requirements. As for your questions about minors - look up "cis ucla" and find out the requirements for whatever majors/minors of your interest.</p>
<p>Ive heard that double majoring won't be allowed if you have to stay more than 2 years as a transfer, or 4 years as a freshman. Can someone correct me if I'm wrong?</p>
<p>this may have already been answered, but why do you want to double major??? if it's for your own interest (you are EXTREMELY interested in both) then spend extra time in college to explore. Otherwise, the number of majors you have doesn't mean much. I'm not to familiar with law school admissions (or whether u even want to go to law school), but im pretty sure it doesn't matter.</p>
<p>Should I just major in History then?
I'm confident that I can get a better GPA than if I majored in Poli Sci.
Since I've already taken enough PS classes, I've been thinking about minoring in PS and majoring in History. Yeah, I think I will do that.</p>