<p>
</p>
<p>I am under the impression, based on my only talk with a law school admissions officer, that it is actually smart to avoid the typical “pre-law” majors, such as those that you list.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am under the impression, based on my only talk with a law school admissions officer, that it is actually smart to avoid the typical “pre-law” majors, such as those that you list.</p>
<p>Ah, finally got my laptop back. I’ve been on my iPhone all day. Hopefully I haven’t made too many grammar or spelling errors. I know I wish I could have wrote more than I did, but whatever.</p>
<p>
I suppose I was operating under the belief that you guys would be able to correctly interpret/infer what I meant. I never intended for my absolutes to be taken literally – it was more of a way for me to make my points more clear/obvious. You were the only one who took my comments as literal, bluedevil and cob did not. I suppose I could refrain from absolutes in the future, though. </p>
<p>
Naive, simple-minded, etc. Bluedevil and cob both understood, with ease, of what I actually meant. You didn’t. No biggie.</p>
<p>P.S. - It appears as though we got on the front page. Apparently we did something right, silverturtle. Bluedevil and cob both had great input as well.</p>
<p>
It depends. If you can pull a 3.7 in both Poli Sci and Engineering, it would probably be smart to go with Engineering. However, if you’re gonna get a 3.7 in Poli Sci and a 3.6 in Engineering, go with Poli Sci.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t consider easily and “correctly” (i.e., with respect to your intention) interpreting what you wrote to necessarily be a good thing, nor do I consider doing so to be indicative of simple-mindedness. There’s a big difference between *one’s undergraduate college doesn’t matter at all, and I’ll emphasize this with the absolute adverb “completely”<a href=“as%20you%20conveyed%20but%20didn’t%20mean”>/i</a> and *one’s undergraduate college matters, but not as much as some other stuff<a href=“what%20you%20evidently%20meant”>/i</a>. Neither interpretation is any simpler than the other, so I don’t think that either interpretation should reflect negatively upon one’s cognitive faculties, as you seem to believe. </p>
<p>…Unless, of course, you were being non-literal when you said “Naive, simple-minded.”</p>
<p>
Slightly sarcastic actually. =P Though, I get your point. And point taken.</p>
<p>
Going back to the OP: I would advise against majoring in Legal Studies and Criminal Justice and I’d put Political Science on the long list of candidates based on your own academic strengths/interests. Combining what silverturtle and boston said, if you’re going to pull out the same grade majoring in math as you would in polisci, take math, but the ultimate goal is to pick a major that will warrant the highest gpa. I know someone that majored in lepidopterology (the study of moths and butterflies, but using the actual term makes me feel oh so much smarter) and cruised into Stanford Law. I agree with pretty much everything else freaklocz14 had to say.</p>
<p>
What school did your friend go to? o.O</p>
<p>Heh, she was a UFL transfer to Cornell</p>
<p>I am a parent of a current law school student. Based on my experience, this is my recommendation. I certainly wouldn’t major in pre-law, since that really isn’t considered to be a major. Get the highest GPA you can, get into the honor societies associated with your major, and get the top LSAT scores. Work on that application essay to distinquish yourself from others who match you on grades and LSAT Scores. LSAT is key. Take lots of practice tests, time yourself, and enroll in courses if your score is not in the mid to high 160’s. The entrance stats are a guide only. You can have a GPA of 3.8+ and an LSAT Score of 165 and be weight listed or rejected at schools that you would consider to be your safety schools. With the economy not recovering and in my opinion still in a tail spin, be sure that you can handle the debt. Scholarships/ fellowships are out there, but with the cuts in aid they may be few. For example U of Minnesota Twin Cities, could not offer scholarships in 2009 -no money!</p>
<p>Also do not waste your time going to a school that is not in the top tier. Aim fro the highest ranked school that you can get into. Employers seek out those students first. Law School is expensive and current students are scrambling for job opportunities. In addition Law School is intellectually demanding and very much different than what you may have encountered as an Undergrad. Be prepared to work very hard and angst over grades since your final exam is your grade. </p>
<p>Be sure to visit the schools after you have been accepted. Make sure that you feel comfortable at the schools where you will be spending the next three years. Read any blogs on the schools if available. </p>
<p>I know of NYU (a top school) students getting offers and employment being deferred last year. I caught the US NEWS Graduate School edition that was recently issued and they pretty much agree with my thoughts. GOOD LUCK!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s just not true at all. Where are you even getting this from?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think this is important. I think it’s a mistake to treat law school like college 2.0.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Visiting a law school is not quite like treating it like “college 2.0.” You need to be comfortable with your surroundings and atmosphere, as it’s in the one most suited for your personality in which you will perform best. For some, this doesn’t really matter. For others, myself included, it definitely does. If you’re in the latter camp, visiting the school is absolutely necessary.</p>
<p>boston1993</p>
<p>I’m curious as to how someone who is 17 years old can presume to talk so authoritatively about law school admissions as you have been doing so in this thread and in this forum. Perhaps you could stop diverting this thread with poor arguments and flowery prose, and leave it at the original advice given by more experienced posters?</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/high-school-life/970994-lets-see-your-height-guys-3.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/high-school-life/970994-lets-see-your-height-guys-3.html</a></p>
<p>^ I appreciate your ad hominem, I really do, but you can take it elsewhere.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…and this is where you resume talking about stuff about which you have no knowledge. An “ad hominem” attack, more precisely, is one in which one insults someone else’s intelligence, qualifications, etc. and from that deduces that, necessarily, his or her conclusions are incorrect.</p>
<p>What I did here was say that you should not post in this forum, authoritatively, because you are not qualified. Moreover, implicitly, I posted that your conclusions are probably wrong because of your qualifications. That was an probabilistic inference. Neither the explicit post nor the implicit point committed the ad hominem fallacy.</p>
<p>So, hows about you start college, maybe get into law school first, and then start posting answers? Or, should I go through each and every post of yours in this forum and expose every glaring inaccuracy? Let me know. I’d be happy to put you in your place.</p>
<p>
Incorrect. An ad hominem doesn’t have to insult someone’s intelligence or qualifications, it can be against any trait of that someone. You are linking the validity of my statements with my age, which is an ad hominem. “I’m curious as to how someone who is 17 years old can presume to talk so authoritatively about law school admissions.” You failed to refute anything, you simply pointed out my age and my flowery prose. </p>
<p>
You never said anything of the sort. Still irrelevant anyway.</p>
<p>
Are you reading the same post that I read? You never said anything about my qualifications. Age is not an indicator of qualifications by the way. Regardless, an attack on my qualifications (ie. my age apparently) is the definition of an hominem, as you are not in any way attempting to refute my arguments.</p>
<p>
Tehe. Funny. You are implying that knowledge about law school admissions is linked to whether or not someone has gone through college and law school. How is that even remotely possible? It is not valid in anyway, and I don’t see how my age nor the amount of degrees I have would possibly be linked to knowledge about law school admissions. I’m surprised you’re not insulting silverturtle for the same reason – as he has made a guide to undergrad admissions, and he’s a rising senior just like me. </p>
<p>Example of an ad hominem:
“You can’t believe Jack when he says the proposed policy would help the economy. He doesn’t even have a job.”
“You can’t listen to Bob when he says that law school admissions are X. He’s only 17.”
“You can’t listen to Bob when he says that law school admissions are X. He’s not even in law school.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you know what “etc.” means? They don’t teach that in AP English? I used “etc.” in my original post.</p>
<p>Here are two articles for your edification:
[Philosophy</a>, et cetera: Attacks and Arguments](<a href=“http://www.philosophyetc.net/2005/09/attacks-and-arguments.html]Philosophy”>Philosophy, et cetera: Attacks and Arguments)
[Leiter</a> Reports: A Philosophy Blog: Ad Hominems, InstaIgnorance, and the Case of the Coming Draft](<a href=“http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2004/09/ad_hominems_ins.html]Leiter”>http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2004/09/ad_hominems_ins.html)</p>
<p>I know better than to follow you along a pointless digression about a topic you have no experience with, so this conversation ends here. Good luck getting into Harvard Law School.</p>
<p>Marvelous response my fair lady. I appreciate your eloquent rebuttals.</p>
<p>@flowerhead- You’re trying to say you didn’t commit an ad hominem and your explanation for how you didn’t commit one was that you implied boston was wrong because he was unqualified. Wow. That’s a load of fail.</p>
<p>You then provided links with explanations as to what ad hominem is without exhibiting how it helps prove your point. I’ll go ahead and use the links for you:</p>
<p>
Boston1993 provided his interpretation on law school admissions. You argued that since Boston1993 is 17 years old, his advice is useless. </p>
<p>
What does someone’s age have anything to do with the validity of their argument? </p>
<p>Thanks for the links by the way.</p>
<p>The only reason you gave up was because you have no idea what you’re talking about. You then randomly changed the subject to focus on the definition of “et cetera”. Don’t act like the only reason you stopped is because the argument is beneath you.</p>
<p>Only reason I stopped was that it was useless arguing with a stubborn 17 year-old who thinks he’s right no matter what I said. It’s not productive at all. I’m sorry if I thought you were intelligent enough to connect the dots in my post. I guess my estimation was poor.</p>
<p>My only purpose now is to expose inaccuracies and leave it at that. I will also point out, occasionally, that boston1993 is 17 years-old. The purpose of this is to warn other forum members so they can evaluate his posts more accurately. That is, they can take that information into account of they wish. If you would like to do the same to me, you are welcome to do so. Background: I attend a top 5 law school and summered at a Vault 5 firm in New York City. I also know the definition of implicature, unlike you and boston1993. I also know what an ad hominem attack is, unlike you and boston 1993:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I said his advice is probably useless. A necessary deduction commits the fallacy. A probabilistic one does not. I hope this distinction isn’t lost on you.</p>
<p>Again, I’m done here. If you want to point out and discuss something relevant to the thread, I’ll be a happy party to that.</p>
<p>Again you bring up age. I’d like to see you bring that up as a relevant point in court.
Boston: <em>points at flowerhead’s client</em> “I saw that man kill her”
Flowerhead: “Ladies and gentlemen, there is no way Boston could possibly be correctly identifying my client. He’s 17.”
Client: “Why did I hire this idiot?”</p>
<p>All you know how to do is poison the well bro. Learn to form some logical arguments. </p>
<p>And I’ll take your background with a grain of salt.
“I attend Harvard Law and worked at a big-name law firm. Clearly that’s why I’m still on College Confidential.”</p>