Worst Pre-law major?

Graduate School Law School
41

<p>
[quote]
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?)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Like AA said, it wouldn't take that long to figure out certain trends, as they are so blatantly obvious that you would have to be willfully ignorant to not see them. Just because you don't know the height of every single player in the NBA doesn't mean that you can't safely say that the average height of the players is above the national average. You may not know the physical strength of every single NFL player, but you can safely conclude that he is stronger than the average man. </p>

<p>Certainly no adjustment scheme would be perfect. But it would be better than the current situation, which is to basically do little if anything. If you have bad eyes, eyeglasses may not give you perfect vision, but you'll still see a lot better than if you had no glasses at all.</p>

42

<p>
[quote]
I think Sakky once suggested having transcripts with two grades on them: your grade and the median grade in the class.[/qutoe]</p>

<p>If you attend Dartmouth, this is exactly the kind of transcript that you get. Personally, I would rather see a mean grade in addition to the median grade.</p>

43

<p>While I don't see how the idea could hurt, sadly, I doubt that it would help much. That's because I don't think it's so much the case that the adcoms don't know how difficult certain majors and certain schools are. It's more like they don't care. Anybody with a half-a-brain ought to know that majoring in EE is more difficult than majoring in, say, Leisure Studies. I think it's not that the law school adcoms don't know, it's that they don't WANT to know. For this, I blame two things. #1 - A lack of accountability on their part. Seriously, if a law school adcom was not doing a good job, how would anybody really know that? If a company's sales force consistently produces poor revenue, or a company's engineering department consistently produced shoddy products, then eventually the manager of that department, as well as probably much (maybe all) of the division will be fired. Market discipline isn't perfect, but it's better than nothing at all. On the other hand, if an adcom were to consistently admit seemingly good (but actually bad) students, how would anybody know that until perhaps year after the fact when those admittees actually turn out to be bad lawyers who tarnish the brand-name of the school? Yet by that time, those officers who admitted them in the first place are probably safely retired, so they dont' care. The second aspect is that the law school rankings incent the adcoms to just admit by the numbers, regardless of whether the numbers are meaningful. </p>

<p>That's why I think the REAL solution is for engineering programs to simply inflate their grading. For example, they can provide 2 transcripts. One is sent out to engineering employers, engineering grad programs, and basically organizations who can be trusted to understand the information provided. The other transcript, a 'cleansed' transcript, will have better grades (perhaps by simply deleting bad engineering grades) and will be sent to organizations who cannot be trusted with the real information. Such as the law school adcoms. </p>

<p>Lest you think this is somehow unethical, I would point out that MIT currently has 2 transcripts for each student. The "internal" transcript can only be seen by MIT. The "external" transcript is what is sent out to third-parties that request it. Certain pieces of information are deliberately hidden in the outside transcript. For example, if you fail a class in your freshman year, that fact is shown on your internal transcript, but is not shown on your external transcript. If you drop a class after a certain date, that fact is shown on your internal transcript, but not on your external transcript. In other words, if you're an MIT undergrad student who's apply to MIT for grad school, the grad school committee will see your internal transcript. But if you apply to another school, that other school will only see your external transcript, which hides certain pieces of information. My idea of dual engineering transcripts is a simple extension of the MIT internal/external transcript system.</p>

44

<p>Okay, this would give a context for each student's grade. However, the context is still poor, for multiple reasons. First, just the mean and median really just says if the student was better or worse than most (or the average). For top schools, knowing that a student was above average still won't be sufficient, right? So we should also include standard deviation, and then why not just sent out a little histogram, with all the data? But even then, if you provide absolutely full transparency on the performance of all students in a class, this information still has multiple significant flaws. First, and most in line with previous comments, getting a grade that's only slightly above average in a course where the students are highly self selecting (or selected), this doesn't give a clear picture of the actual abilities of the student. If you perform 1.5 standard deviations above the mean in a course which most people aren't willing to take because it's known for being very difficult, then that 1.5 probably doesn't give a very clear picture of the student's abilities. Secondly, many courses aren't properly designed to give grades that would work with this scheme. Even if you added in a complete histogram of grades for the course, we all know there are professors who design their courses such that most students can get an A -- and thus even the top grades look a lot like the average, just because the grading scale tops out to soon. </p>

<p>Really, I think (and I've spent a lot of time thinking about this), that if we wanted to institute a grading system which provided truly valuable results between institutions, we should establish a system in which all classes are graded in a way that consistently gives rise to a normal distribution, and then test each course against controls. If it were effectively impossible to get anywhere close to the top or the bottom of the grading scale, and you then got a control group that was designed to be representative of the average of all college students, and both histograms (the control group and the class) was reported, then adcoms could see where a student stands relative to his peers, and relative to students nationwide. The costs, both financial, and in terms of the educational opportunities that would be lost because of the difficulty of putting together a course that was truly normalized, would be disastrous. An imperfect, and in fact nearly useless, hodge-podge of grading systems is the price we pay for flexibility within the system.</p>

<p>By the way, what do you guys think of cognitive science as a major? Say, with a computational modeling specialization? I keep wavering on whether it's good, or horrible. On the one hand, the study program I'm planning, heavily supported by related electives, incorporates the analytical and logical abilities required for computer science, a little analytic philosophy, with bits of psychology (case study), and a smattering of analytic linguistics, and formal modeling material, demonstrating an ability to handle formal systems, and think logically about complex systems. However, at the same time, much of the details of what goes on in cogsci is still obscure, and it doesn't include specific knowledge or skill sets which might contextualize portions of the law school curriculumn, in the way that econ, business or history might.</p>

45

<p>"Sure, a 3.9 in EECS would be great"</p>

<p>what is EECS?</p>

46

<p>computer engineering</p>

47

<p>EECS is electrical engineering and computer science.</p>

48

<p>Let's not forget that whether or not you agree with the methodology used in the admissions process with respect to evaluating GPAs of candidates (or what you think those methodologies are), the vast majority of graduates of T14 law schools do go on to very successful careers in a wide variety of areas. Given the fact that the system "works" to admit highly qualified candidates, why would the admissions staff at law schools change what they do. </p>

<p>I understand that there are many on this board who believe that the admissions staff at top law schools look at GPA and LSAT scores without considering other factors. I have to disagree. If that were true, how would so many engineering and organic chemistry majors have been in my law school class? For that matter, there were several MDs in my class whose grades were probably a mixed bag too. I certainly didn't have a 3.9 GPA in my application file. What the people in my class did have were a mixed bag of specialties, expertise and life experiences. Several of my classmates were married with children. Several had military experience. Many (almost half, I think) had full time work experience before going to law school, and they worked in a very diverse set of jobs ranging from investment bankers and paralegals to museum curators and veterinarians. In any event, I highly doubt that one candidate versus another is admitted or rejected solely based upon two or three tenths of GPA. </p>

<p>I'm fairly certain that the T14 law schools could easily fill their incoming classes with no one who didn't score at least a 170 on their LSATs and at least a 3.8 GPA. That's not what happens, though. Don't forget that when you look at the 25/75 percentage LSAT scores and GPAs for any given school, that a full 25% of the class got a lower LSAT score and GPA than anyone in that range. Plenty of law students do other things that make them shine in the admissions process. Certainly excellent grades and LSAT scores are a tremendous help in the process, but a student who has something else in their application that makes them stand out always has a chance. Someone who has taken challenging classes in a difficult major will be noticed (though a 2.0 GPA coupled with a 155 LSAT, no matter what the major, will probably give you a steep ladder to climb). </p>

<p>This is not a college application process where you win if you have a 4.0 with a 2400 and 42 extracurricular activities. Do something outstanding. Write an honors thesis in college that shows your passion for something -- anything. Work and put yourself through school while maintaining good grades. Start a community service group to provide literacy lessons in the community around your college. Run your first (maybe even your second and third) marathon. Learn how to sing eight part harmony. Work full time in the real world for a year or two or three before applying to law school. These things will all serve you well both in the law school application process and in the job interview process (having something interesting to talk about is not to be underestimated). </p>

<p>It is not always the very best students who make the best lawyers or who make the largest contributions to their communities or to the world at large. I can't imagine that law school admissions professionals don't realize so obvious a fact.</p>

49

<p>sallywap, just curious, what did you major in?</p>

50

<p>As much as I want to believe your post Sally, my anecdotal experience from talking to friends shows that Law School Admissions is far more numbers oriented than the college admissions process ever was for me or my friends.</p>

<p>I had a perfect SAT and a top 3% ranking and a ton of EC's and ended up at Berkeley. I had a much worst GPA in college and less activities in general, recs from profs that didn't know me nearly as well as my high school teachers did and got into Columbia Law, probably based on my LSAT score alone.</p>

<p>Numbers matter much, much more.</p>

51

<p>anything science/math oriented, unless you are a brain with those things.</p>

52

<p>I'm not suggesting that law school admissions is not often numbers oriented. However, there are always plenty of people with excellent LSAT scores and high GPAs who do not get into any/every T14 law school applied to, and there are lots of people with lower LSAT scores and/or GPAs who do get in. For the applicants with high scores/grades who got rejected and the applicants with lower scores/grades who got accepted, there must be something else going on. </p>

<p>Shiboing, perhaps you did get into Columbia Law solely based upon your LSAT score. However, in all probability, Columbia rejected other applicants with the same LSAT score as you achieved, so why the distinction? Based upon just the tiny amount that I know about you, I would suggest the fact that you were also geographically diverse (Berkeley) from many in the Columbia applicant pool may have played a part too. Perhaps despite the fact that you didn't know your professors as well, your recommendations were outstanding. Don't underestimate the boost that a well written application, including personal statement, can have on an applicant's chances. Give yourself a bit more credit.</p>

53

<p>"sallywap, just curious, what did you major in?"</p>

<p>I've already revealed far too much about myself here, so suffice it to say that I didn't major in any kind of "traditional" route-to-law-school kind of major. I will note, though, that I changed my major more than once as an undergrad, and took many classes well outside of my comfort zone in diverse areas while in college.</p>

54

<p>the worst would be any kind of engineering or high level science (biochem, physical chem,...) or a blow-off major like wolrd arts</p>

55

<p>So what do you guys think of English as a major?</p>