Rigorous Coursework for undergrad transfer, then coast 4.0?
Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 12:14 am
Background listing at end of post.
So I have done a few searches before posting and wanted to ask about my situation. A student interested in transferring from a two-year institution to a much better University or Liberal Arts College has it in their best interest to show a rigorous course-load for a major leap of a transfer. This seems to be the consensus in undergrad admissions for transferring, anyway. The interesting concern afterwards comes in wanting to attend a T-14. The way I have it understood; Take up rigorous coursework to transfer to a T-10 LA college or university, and then for junior and senior year concentrate on that GPA (not the courses) and train for the LSAT until your ears bleed.
Am I correct in this assumption?
Lately I've been approached by the prospect of going to grad school before law school to really beef up my logic/reasoning and intensive writing skills. Although I'm not sure if this would be the best choice, it would be great to know how the course-load should be for someone considering law school after grad-school; if the coursework helps getting into grad-school at all, for example.
Random observation: LawSchoolNumbers.com seems like a nice resource, but I worry about how often those who were dinged in the 'sea of green' decided not to report. I'm sure braggers wanna brag, the incentive to report having a dream shattered isn't so high. I mean, maybe that's me. My point is I'm kind of wary about how so much is leaned on for those stats. The idea that my GPA is very significantly more important than my course for junior and senior year rubs me the wrong way. I understand the logic, but it still seems 'too easy' of a solution; "The schools worry about their numbers, so if you get into the sea of green zone for anything but YS, you're in."
Background: 27 y/o with background in IT and volunteering/ethical involvement, no undergrad at all.
I'm starting my undergrad freshman year at my local two-year college (extremely high change of full-ride scholarship, where everyone except the committee itself has gone above and beyond to assume me I'm a shoe-in without promising). I have planned and financially prepared for all possibilities related to school that I could think of, come across, or research into for a few years while I've worked. So far the plan is two-year college, then Amherst or another nice LA college (hopefully without needing to take the SAT, but it seems likely so far) and major in Philosophy and maybe mathematics (seems analytical/logical), and after that stem to a grad school for a Master's and/or Ph.D with a final destination dream goal of HLS.
So I have done a few searches before posting and wanted to ask about my situation. A student interested in transferring from a two-year institution to a much better University or Liberal Arts College has it in their best interest to show a rigorous course-load for a major leap of a transfer. This seems to be the consensus in undergrad admissions for transferring, anyway. The interesting concern afterwards comes in wanting to attend a T-14. The way I have it understood; Take up rigorous coursework to transfer to a T-10 LA college or university, and then for junior and senior year concentrate on that GPA (not the courses) and train for the LSAT until your ears bleed.
Am I correct in this assumption?
Lately I've been approached by the prospect of going to grad school before law school to really beef up my logic/reasoning and intensive writing skills. Although I'm not sure if this would be the best choice, it would be great to know how the course-load should be for someone considering law school after grad-school; if the coursework helps getting into grad-school at all, for example.
Random observation: LawSchoolNumbers.com seems like a nice resource, but I worry about how often those who were dinged in the 'sea of green' decided not to report. I'm sure braggers wanna brag, the incentive to report having a dream shattered isn't so high. I mean, maybe that's me. My point is I'm kind of wary about how so much is leaned on for those stats. The idea that my GPA is very significantly more important than my course for junior and senior year rubs me the wrong way. I understand the logic, but it still seems 'too easy' of a solution; "The schools worry about their numbers, so if you get into the sea of green zone for anything but YS, you're in."
Background: 27 y/o with background in IT and volunteering/ethical involvement, no undergrad at all.
I'm starting my undergrad freshman year at my local two-year college (extremely high change of full-ride scholarship, where everyone except the committee itself has gone above and beyond to assume me I'm a shoe-in without promising). I have planned and financially prepared for all possibilities related to school that I could think of, come across, or research into for a few years while I've worked. So far the plan is two-year college, then Amherst or another nice LA college (hopefully without needing to take the SAT, but it seems likely so far) and major in Philosophy and maybe mathematics (seems analytical/logical), and after that stem to a grad school for a Master's and/or Ph.D with a final destination dream goal of HLS.