<p>About a quarter of your classes could be Prelaw, while the other three quarters could be more relevant to your major.</p>
<p>Business is a fine prelaw major, for whoever said it wasn't.</p>
<p>A quarter of your classes should be pre-law?</p>
<p>I heartily disagree. In fact, anything that smacks of being pre-law in some way is probably a bad idea. Take classes that are interesting and challenging. Do well in those classes. That's about all that you need to do to get into and be successful in law school. You show interest in attending law school by preparing for and taking the LSAT once and doing well, and by applying to law school with a well put together and thoughtful application.</p>
<p>I did not say SHOULD I said COULD. I also used the word 'About', as some classes dealing with law ideas are great for pre-law students who are taking non-law undergrad majors.</p>
<p>Try reading posts before you disagree with them.</p>
<p>I agree that you should avoid any "pre-law" courses. Trying to use a pre-law course as the basis for your interest in law school is absolutely not going to help you.</p>
<p>I agree as well thats stupid to have a degree in pre-law</p>
<p>Wait, quick question. What's P/NP?</p>
<p>"Try reading posts before you disagree with them."</p>
<p>In fact I re-read your post and still completely disagree with you. Nothing that you do as an undergrad should have anything to do with pre-law except for preparing for and taking the LSAT. You should focus on a major that interests you and do well in that major, as well as taking classes outside of your major that expand the breadth of your knowledge and learning. That is absolutely the best preparation for law school that you can find.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Chapman University
Columbia University
Georgetown University
New York University
Santa Clara University
University of California-Berkeley
University of California-Davis
University of California-Hastings College of Law
University of California-Los Angeles
University of Southern California
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Notice that Harvard, Yale, and Stanford are not on the list.</p>
<p>Generally, when it comes to most law schools, major does not really matter. When it comes to the top three, however, I am strongly convinced that the admissions climate is entirely different.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, I'm a Mass Communications major and I plan on going to a top law school. The reason I chose that particular major?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No offense, talkell, but regardless of the reasons for which you chose that major, it is still widely regarded as a joke. Those "acceptances" should be taken as exceptions to the rule, not as rules themselves. I think a top 14 law school wants to see students in rigorous majors, or some kind of hook from students who are not in traditional major.s You will definitely find a performing arts major at YLS, but you will also probably find that she did something extraordinary with that major.</p>
<p>"hmmm, I'm feeling a bit discouraged here, guys. Any advantages to majoring in a foreign language ? Regarding the skills/capabilities one acquires with a certain major (History - analyzing, reading English - writing), what kinds of skills can you acquire by majoring in a FL ? Seems like no law students ever major in FL. I know we should all do what interests us, but 1) would you recommend against majoring in FL ? and 2) compared to other majors, how marketable/(dis)advantageous is FL when trying to find a job at a firm ? (Let's say we're talking about a difficult language to learn)."</p>
<p>Do what you enjoy...I do hear that it does have an advantage for hiring if you're fluent in a language. Of course it depends on the type of law you want to practice.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do what you enjoy...I do hear that it does have an advantage for hiring if you're fluent in a language.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The reality is that, at his age, reaching fluency in any foreign language is near impossible. The best he can hope for is near-fluency, but that does not require a major. I am now near-fluent in German after a year at Georgetown and one summer session at Middlebury College. That I have this capability in such a short time attests to the fact that one does not need to major in a language to become fluent in it.</p>
<p>Typically, in language majors, little time is spent actually learning a language; more time is spent on using it in analysis and discussion. Think of your typical college English classes: you are discussing various literary works and writing essays about them. Now think of the same classes, but in a different language.*</p>
<p>Then, when it comes down to law school admissions, think about whether English is actually perceived as rigorous. The answer is clear. Now apply that answer to the foreign language major; it should be the same. I am not saying that foreign language majors are not rigorous; it is just not as rigorous as a lot of other majors.</p>
<p>*This shift is focus is reflected, I think, in the way Middlebury structured their language program:
Level 1: Two hours of grammar, one of culture, and one of literature per day.
Level 2: The same.
Level 3: One hour of grammar, one of culture, and two of literature per day.
Level 4: No grammar, two hours of culture, and two of literature per day.</p>
<p>Notice the shift from a grammar-focused to a literature-focused curriculum.</p>
<p>Sure, a 3.9 in EECS would be great, but a 3.9 in English (along with a high LSAT score) will obviously not kill you from getting to YLS.</p>
<p>what about film, theater, and music majors?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think a top 14 law school wants to see students in rigorous majors, or some kind of hook from students who are not in traditional major.s You will definitely find a performing arts major at YLS, but you will also probably find that she did something extraordinary with that major.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Somehow I doubt that these law schools really want rigor that much. They may SAY they want rigor, but it doesn't seem that they really want it. I know some MIT engineering students who want to go to law school but can't get into any good law school despite having solid LSAT scores. The problem is simple - their grades are just not that high. But that's what happens in engineering at MIT. Maybe the adcoms will compensate by 0.1 or 0.2 of GPA, but probably no more than that. Trust me, there is far more than a 0.2 GPA difference of difficulty between the grading in MIT engineering and the grading at other schools. At the end of the day, law schools are going to choose the guy with the 3.7 in a creampuff major at a no-name 4th tier school over the guy with a 3.0 in EECS from MIT, even though the second guy probably worked harder and has more talent.</p>
<p>Yes sakky, I do agree with you. You major doesn't matter, it's the GPA. Law schools won't really care if you majored in engineering vs. english, as long as you have a 3.8+</p>
<p>If law schools really cared about rigour, they would evaluate LSAT, major, school, and GPA - roughly in that order. So long as LSAT and GPA are the determinative factors, it's all lip service to wanting tough majors.</p>
<p>I think that's a real shame because many engineers who want to go to law schools are probably some of the more well-rounded engineers. </p>
<p>I'm an engineering major who's considering law school as a possibility, but since I already messed up my freshman year GPA, it's a pretty though uphill.</p>
<p>It's not IMPOSSIBLE, I guess just a lot harder. I met a guy who was some type of engineer from Cornell, and he went to Harvard Law.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If law schools really cared about rigour, they would evaluate LSAT, major, school, and GPA - roughly in that order. So long as LSAT and GPA are the determinative factors, it's all lip service to wanting tough majors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This response is directed to AA and Sakky:</p>
<p>I agree with you both entirely, but with one exception... or rather three: Yale, Stanford, and Harvard. While GPA certainly prevails above rigour for most law schools, I truly believe that the admissions climate at the foregoing schools is entirely different, different in the sense that rigour actually counts much more. This is not to say, of course, that GPA is demoted in importance (so that is why MIT students would not have a chance); I am merely arguing that the rigour of one's courseload factors much more in the admissions processes of such schools.</p>
<p>Well, wouldn't it take the law schools a really long time to figure out where exactly each course stands in the university? (is the class easy or is it hard?)</p>
<p>Is it really that hard to know that Rice grading is tougher than Chico State grading? Is it that hard to figure out that an engineering major is a lot harder than theatre?</p>
<p>The fact that you don't know every course doesn't mean that you can't try to make some judgments. </p>
<p>I think Sakky once suggested having transcripts with two grades on them: your grade and the median grade in the class. That, combined with some common sense (i.e. MIT has better students than your average community college), would allow law schools to compensate for rigour.</p>