Better prep for law school: philosophy/political science or philosophy/history?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As general information, Hamilton's law school planning guide offers recommendations on course selection:

Law - Law School Planning Guide - Hamilton College https://share.google/DlRcHWwDDo33ATYTT

As one scenario based on the goals suggested in your original post, consider a major in public policy — which relies on courses in political science, economics and philosophy for its foundation — along with a second major or minor in history.

Hamilton's course recommendations emphasize those in
philosophy, math, history, government and English. It seems a pre-law student (at any college) with an inherent interest in any of these academic disciplines might benefit from considering some combination of majors or minors from among them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a law professor and have been for a long time. My best students over the years have come from very different backgrounds. Some went to highly ranked undergrads, others went to schools that I literally had never heard of. Majors also vary...some of my best students have been history, engineering, political science/government, and English majors. The best students don't get lost in the weeds, have the ability to think logically/rationally, have some intuition about human behavior/motivation, have the ability to draw inferences, and can see both sides of arguments. So whatever major teaches/hones those skills are the best ones.

This is so well-said!

I had law school friends who floundered all the way through because they were lacking in multiple areas listed above.

One way to learn how to avoid getting “lost in the weeds” is to take undergrad classes that require you to read, analyze, and synthesize A LOT of material between classes. Heavy, heavy workload where you learn to sort and prioritize content and ideas out of necessity. History and English can be really good for this.

Public Policy can be good for this, too - maybe less volume of material compared to history, but there’s a rigorous focus on goal clarification, prioritization, and efficient analysis. It’s great training for law school, even if your goal is not to go into policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As general information, Hamilton's law school planning guide offers recommendations on course selection:

Law - Law School Planning Guide - Hamilton College https://share.google/DlRcHWwDDo33ATYTT

As one scenario based on the goals suggested in your original post, consider a major in public policy — which relies on courses in political science, economics and philosophy for its foundation — along with a second major or minor in history.

Hamilton's course recommendations emphasize those in philosophy, math, history, government and English. It seems a pre-law student (at any college) with an inherent interest in any of these academic disciplines might benefit from considering some combination of majors or minors from among them.

Hamilton's page includes a caveat, which also may be worth highlighting:

"Study what you love: it’s no secret that students perform best when they are engaged in the material. Law schools care less about what specific area you choose to concentrate in, and more about the fact that you are engaged in meaningful study and are performing well. One note: if you decide to major in a 'pure' art, such as theater, dance, studio art or music performance, be sure to have another major or, at the least, significant work in substantive academic courses."

[Anonymous]

Law schools train you to "think like a lawyer." So everybody starts at ground zero, not major gives an advantage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of the best lawyers I know majored in disciplines that demand and cultivate analytic skill, like chemistry, math, and music.

+1 patent law is a big thing in DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whichever major will help your kid get the highest GPA and best recommendation letters.

Agreed -- unless the kid does an unusual major which can help differentiate in law school admissions and in future employment. It can be helpful to have a resume that stands out from all the other philosophy/english/poly-sci/history majors.

I'm the theater major at 17:26. I don't know for sure, but I think this contributed to lots of law schools wanting me.

Tell me you became a litigator who wins over juries with your flashy style!

I did become a litigator, lol. I'm a fed, and I do go to court, but probably 95% of my work is written. I was described by an opposing counsel as "colorful in the courtroom" once, but I had to beat him up pretty hard and he didn't like it, so that may be where that is coming from.

😁😁

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Law schools train you to "think like a lawyer." So everybody starts at ground zero, not major gives an advantage.

Untrue. Majors that require a lot of reading and writing give students an advantage. Law school requires the ability to distill large amounts of reading to key arguments, as well as the ability to articulate those points with clarity and precision. Students who need help writing, or who are not used to reading or writing, will be at a disadvantage. That being said, some of the best law students come from STEM fields, but presumably the fact that these STEM majors are applying to law school suggests that they already have a penchant for prose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do any of you who went to law school feel like advising in college made a difference or was helpful? Every school we visit has some kind of pre-law advising. What do we look for?

I don’t think this was a thing at my school back in the day. It all sounds unnecessary to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I definitely see the value of philosophy: no area of study in the humanities and social sciences does better in teaching students to think critically and analytically. At least a minor in philosophy is useful. But in terms of political science or history, which is better as a background? Political science focuses largely on how institutions work and obviously understanding the workings of the state is helpful (but make sure to take some political theory courses too). History is good in terms of constructing narratives and careful documentation. Thoughts?

Philosophy + BS in finance from a good B school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Law schools train you to "think like a lawyer." So everybody starts at ground zero, not major gives an advantage.

Untrue. Majors that require a lot of reading and writing give students an advantage. Law school requires the ability to distill large amounts of reading to key arguments, as well as the ability to articulate those points with clarity and precision. Students who need help writing, or who are not used to reading or writing, will be at a disadvantage. That being said, some of the best law students come from STEM fields, but presumably the fact that these STEM majors are applying to law school suggests that they already have a penchant for prose.

Fair point. Not all majors are equally represented. 18% of law school applicants majored in political science while political science majors represent about 2% of bachelor's degrees conferred. 4% majored in history, vs. less than 2% of bachelor's degrees conferred. 3% majored in philosophy vs. only about one half of a percent of bachelor's degrees conferred.

https://www.yu.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/applicants-by-major-2018-19%20%283%29.pdf

[Anonymous]

Ironically criminal justice and "legal studies" majors perform worse on the LSAT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster. Thanks to OP and others. I have actually found this thread very helpful (for my current college sophomore Math major and my high school junior) even though posters seem to be contradicting each other.

The takeaway seems to be: where you went to undergrad and what you majored in really don't matter for law school admissions (there's no gatekeeping as long as you get excellent grades and esp a strong LSAT) BUT both of these can make a difference in your experience in law school (critical thinking, writing, high rigor are a big part of law school).

The one contradiction I am left unsure about is the poster who said that since Covid, you need a compelling narrative. Is this true? I have heard from 99 different people that there is no such thing as holistic admissions.

You can read the transcript from a Spivey Consulting podcast with a person who worked in Admissions at Harvard Law for the past 7 years here:
https://www.spiveyconsulting.com/podcasts/sam-parkers-top-admissions-advice

A couple of quotes:

"The strategy of law school admissions has evolved ... with regards to personal statements, but it very much has developed in the direction of, 'Okay, no, you really need to be getting into, what are your actual motivations for going to law school, for becoming an attorney,' in a way that wasn’t necessarily the case before."

"This cycle, I don’t know why, but we saw hundreds and hundreds of applicants who had graduated and they did not pursue full-time employment, and it wasn’t obvious from their resume or their application form that they were up to anything else. No volunteer work, nothing going on with their family. We chose to pass on most of these applicants. ... Reason being, again, work work experience is tantamount.

It also shows that you’re developing professional maturity and professional skills that you’re going to bring to the law school classroom. It means you’re exploring potential interests that you might want to explore in law school. You’ll probably have a better idea of what you wanna do with your law degree if you’ve worked beforehand. You’ll have more context to bring to the classroom. You’ll be more employable. Experience going into law school matters more now than ever before."

But you can decide for yourself who you want to believe, a Harvard Law Associate Director of Admissions or message board experts who haven't been involved in the law school admissions process for multiple decades

lol, they are basically saying they passed on the people who had been out of school and yet seemed to have been doing literally nothing with their lives.

Exactly. She’s saying that ifyou take a year or two after college and have zero to show for it - no work experience, no volunteering, no substance - then yes, you are a crappy candidate for law school.

This is not the same as saying that law school admissions are holistic or that they expect a hugely compelling story like T20 undergrad admissions.

Bottom line: Don’t bother applying to law school if you can’t put together a basic essay that (1) offers a simple and clear reason you want to go to law school; and (2) connects that reason to some life experience or job or club/activity or volunteer experience you’ve had in the past year or two. It’s a LOW bar, but you need to make the basic effort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ironically criminal justice and "legal studies" majors perform worse on the LSAT

Those majors are rarely offered at top colleges and universities.

So I’m guessing, on average, kids who choose those majors attend less selective colleges and universities … and on average came in with lower high school GPAs and/or SAT scores, which are better predictors of LSAT scores than choice of major.

Put another way, if there are any T20 schools that offer criminal justice or legal studies majors, I’m guessing that students who chose those majors would do as well on the LSAT as their classmates who chose other majors. It’s not the major that’s the problem here.