PolSci Major in Undergrad Forum

[Fish127]

Surprised this thread is still going.

I understand where a lot of people here are coming from, but I also reject the notion that you should structure your undergraduate degree purely based off of job prospects. Of course if you take out loans for UG then something like Polisci, Philosophy, English, etc, is a bad idea, but a lot of people are able to pay for their bachelor degree without going into debt. If you're not in debt and you definitely planning on further schooling after UG, be it law school or a second bachelor at a more prestigious college, I don't see the problem with studying something that you enjoy for your first college experience.

[Danger Zone]

Surprised this thread is still going.

I understand where a lot of people here are coming from, but I also reject the notion that you should structure your undergraduate degree purely based off of job prospects. Of course if you take out loans for UG then something like Polisci, Philosophy, English, etc, is a bad idea, but a lot of people are able to pay for their bachelor degree without going into debt. If you're not in debt and you definitely planning on further schooling after UG, be it law school or a second bachelor at a more prestigious college, I don't see the problem with studying something that you enjoy for your first college experience.

Please be flame. Dear God.

[Cicero76]

Poly sci, history, and English? Scrap all that useless bullshit and get a STEM degree. Or B school if you are so inclined.

This is a terrible idea. Not only will a STEM degree likely hurt your GPA, and thus your LS chances, it doesn't even have better job statistics if you choose not to go to law school (unless it's engineering, which doesn't sound like something you'd be successful in). Business degrees are even worse for law school, because the top schools (at least the professors here) see them as a joke. Ivies don't even offer business.

Pick whichever of those degrees will interest you the most so that you can get good grades. I'm partial to English, but whatever floats your boat.

[Danger Zone]

Poly sci, history, and English? Scrap all that useless bullshit and get a STEM degree. Or B school if you are so inclined.

This is a terrible idea. Not only will a STEM degree likely hurt your GPA, and thus your LS chances, it doesn't even have better job statistics if you choose not to go to law school (unless it's engineering, which doesn't sound like something you'd be successful in). Business degrees are even worse for law school, because the top schools (at least the professors here) see them as a joke. Ivies don't even offer business.

Pick whichever of those degrees will interest you the most so that you can get good grades. I'm partial to English, but whatever floats your boat.

The key is to not go to law school. You shouldn't be setting yourself up for more school, you should be setting yourself up for a career. Law school doesn't give you a good shot at one.

[Dr. Mantis Toboggan]

Surprised this thread is still going.

I understand where a lot of people here are coming from, but I also reject the notion that you should structure your undergraduate degree purely based off of job prospects. Of course if you take out loans for UG then something like Polisci, Philosophy, English, etc, is a bad idea, but a lot of people are able to pay for their bachelor degree without going into debt. If you're not in debt and you definitely planning on further schooling after UG, be it law school or a second bachelor at a more prestigious college, I don't see the problem with studying something that you enjoy for your first college experience.

Shitboomer spotted

[NYC-WVU]

Surprised this thread is still going.

I understand where a lot of people here are coming from, but I also reject the notion that you should structure your undergraduate degree purely based off of job prospects. Of course if you take out loans for UG then something like Polisci, Philosophy, English, etc, is a bad idea, but a lot of people are able to pay for their bachelor degree without going into debt. If you're not in debt and you definitely planning on further schooling after UG, be it law school or a second bachelor at a more prestigious college, I don't see the problem with studying something that you enjoy for your first college experience.

This is a nice idea. But most people don't get a diploma because they are interested in learning. They get a diploma because it is an investment in their career. I suppose if you are weatlhy, school for the sake of learning is a nice idea, but it's a luxury most people don't have. [I would love to spend 4 years studying art history just for shiggles.] And if you really are interested in learning for the sake of learning, why not wait to enjoy that luxury after you already have a career. Obviously, if you end up as a lawyer, you could have spend four years of UG with the luxury of just learning for fun. But your suggestion of getting a second bacherlor's degree at a more prestigious college just doesnt make sense to me. In fact, I'm not even sure if you can do this. Can I go to Harvard undergrad now that I already have a BS?

Anyway, I hope you saw my post about taking a practice lsat NOW, as it could really open your eyes about your future possibilities. You can find sample tests for free online and it's only three hours that could seriously change your perspective. (For example, if you realize that you will rock the LSAT and can major in whatever you want, or if you realize that there is little chance of going T14.)

[Danger Zone]

Surprised this thread is still going.

I understand where a lot of people here are coming from, but I also reject the notion that you should structure your undergraduate degree purely based off of job prospects. Of course if you take out loans for UG then something like Polisci, Philosophy, English, etc, is a bad idea, but a lot of people are able to pay for their bachelor degree without going into debt. If you're not in debt and you definitely planning on further schooling after UG, be it law school or a second bachelor at a more prestigious college, I don't see the problem with studying something that you enjoy for your first college experience.

This is a nice idea. But most people don't get a diploma because they are interested in learning. They get a diploma because it is an investment in their career. I suppose if you are weatlhy, school for the sake of learning is a nice idea, but it's a luxury most people don't have. [I would love to spend 4 years studying art history just for shiggles.] And if you really are interested in learning for the sake of learning, why not wait to enjoy that luxury after you already have a career. Obviously, if you end up as a lawyer, you could have spend four years of UG with the luxury of just learning for fun. But your suggestion of getting a second bacherlor's degree at a more prestigious college just doesnt make sense to me. In fact, I'm not even sure if you can do this. Can I go to Harvard undergrad now that I already have a BS?

Anyway, I hope you saw my post about taking a practice lsat NOW, as it could really open your eyes about your future possibilities. You can find sample tests for free online and it's only three hours that could seriously change your perspective. (For example, if you realize that you will rock the LSAT and can major in whatever you want, or if you realize that there is little chance of going T14.)

The LSAT is a learnable test. No one should be deciding whether to go to law school based off a practice test they took as an undergrad.

[NYC-WVU]

Surprised this thread is still going.

I understand where a lot of people here are coming from, but I also reject the notion that you should structure your undergraduate degree purely based off of job prospects. Of course if you take out loans for UG then something like Polisci, Philosophy, English, etc, is a bad idea, but a lot of people are able to pay for their bachelor degree without going into debt. If you're not in debt and you definitely planning on further schooling after UG, be it law school or a second bachelor at a more prestigious college, I don't see the problem with studying something that you enjoy for your first college experience.

This is a nice idea. But most people don't get a diploma because they are interested in learning. They get a diploma because it is an investment in their career. I suppose if you are weatlhy, school for the sake of learning is a nice idea, but it's a luxury most people don't have. [I would love to spend 4 years studying art history just for shiggles.] And if you really are interested in learning for the sake of learning, why not wait to enjoy that luxury after you already have a career. Obviously, if you end up as a lawyer, you could have spend four years of UG with the luxury of just learning for fun. But your suggestion of getting a second bacherlor's degree at a more prestigious college just doesnt make sense to me. In fact, I'm not even sure if you can do this. Can I go to Harvard undergrad now that I already have a BS?

Anyway, I hope you saw my post about taking a practice lsat NOW, as it could really open your eyes about your future possibilities. You can find sample tests for free online and it's only three hours that could seriously change your perspective. (For example, if you realize that you will rock the LSAT and can major in whatever you want, or if you realize that there is little chance of going T14.)

The LSAT is a learnable test. No one should be deciding whether to go to law school based off a practice test they took as an undergrad.

Good point Danger Zone. OP, don't listen to me. You shouldn't take a practice LSAT to have some kind of idea of how much of an uphill battle you will have to get T-14.
You definitely don't want to know that you can score a 165 without any studying at all, and thus can have a reasonable expectation of getting T-14 so long as your grades are good, which would let you be at ease about studying art history or whatever. You also don't want to know if you would score a 148 without any studying, and will need a 25 point improvement for your T14-or-bust law school plans. It would not be an informative data point for deciding whether your current major is a bad idea.

[Mal Reynolds]

I probably would have scored a 140 or 150 on the LSAT if I had taken a cold practice test. I had no trouble getting a good score or into t14 schools. This is a really dumb advice. NYC guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Danger Zone]

Is it any surprise that the poly sci major thread is full of opinionated retards?

[NYC-WVU]

I probably would have scored a 140 or 150 on the LSAT if I had taken a cold practice test. I had no trouble getting a good score or into t14 schools. This is a really dumb advice. NYC guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

Reynolds is a good example of why you might not want to study poli-sci. People in fields like poli-sci think having extra data points to make decisions is a bad idea.
Note, both Reynolds and Danger Zone aren't saying that the practice test won't really tell you very much (which is absurd anyway, because it is at least a useful indicator that you will perform well if you practice well), they'are actually telling you NOT to take one. Extra information? Bad idea. I guess you should study science or engineering, where you will learn that more information will allow for better decision making. Apparently this isn't taught in social sciences.

[Mal Reynolds]

Dang you're pretty dumb bro.

[NYC-WVU]

I try.

[bjsesq]

Hey gaiz, GAIZ. Get this: in my department, Poli Sci was the PRESTIGIOUS one. Criminal justice, bitches. Fucking recognize.

[Danger Zone]

they'are actually telling you NOT to take one.

Are we, now?

[NYC-WVU]

they'are actually telling you NOT to take one.

Are we, now?

No. In this regard you are correct. You only said that basing whether you go to law school on a practice test during UG was a bad idea. I whole-heartedly agree with that statement. But, your comment immediately followed my recommendation to take a practice LSAT and quoted my recommendation. So it's reasonable to infer that you thought my advice was bad, or at least that you were trying to convince someone that my advice was bad. Reynolds did actually say that my advice, which was to take a practice test, was stupid.

[Danger Zone]

Speaking of the LSAT, how have you been doing on the reading comprehension section?

[MistakenGenius]

OP, just ignore Rad. He can be a real prick at times. I foed him pretty damn fast. No, your major is not going to make you underperform your numbers. I personally think English , econ, and history are the three most valuable majors because they help you write and/or understand classes better. Yes, Poli Sci is often regarded as one of the easiest majors, but that's neither here nor there. Every major is a real major. Also, anyone who wants to go to law school and does a STEM major is an idiot. Looking at you Danger. They do not prepare students anywhere near as well as other majors and only some kinds of engineering place very well. Nothing is a 100% lock. I personally don't like poli sci but if that's what you like, you're good if a bit generic. Just take some logic and writing classes.

TLDR: Cicero up there knows his shit.

[NYC-WVU]

Speaking of the LSAT, how have you been doing on the reading comprehension section?

I consistently have trouble when one author responds to another but says something that is actually unrelated to the original author's point. I typically infer that the second author is actually saying something related to the point made by the first author.

[Mal Reynolds]

Someone needs to lock this thread before the idiots take over the earth.

[Danger Zone]

Also, anyone who wants to go to law school and does a STEM major is an idiot. Looking at you Danger. They do not prepare students anywhere near as well as other majors and only some kinds of engineering place very well.

--ImageRemoved--

[MistakenGenius]

Someone needs to lock this thread before the idiots take over the earth.

Agreed, Mal has been writing far too much nonsense in this thread. I would take a real shot at you but I love Nathan Fillion. OP, I doubled in Econ and History and loved it. I frankly have no reason to think Econ is higher regarded than Drama by law schools. They just want the numbers. Ignore the people who think STEM's are the only way. They're wrong.

And yes Danger. They don't.

[Mal Reynolds]

Someone needs to lock this thread before the idiots take over the earth.

Agreed, Mal has been writing far too much nonsense in this thread. I would take a real shot at you but I love Nathan Fillion. OP, I doubled in Econ and History and loved it. I frankly have no reason to think Econ is higher regarded than Drama by law schools. They just want the numbers. Ignore the people who think STEM's are the only way. They're wrong.

And yes Danger. They don't.

Seriously you people need to work on your reading comprehension. When did I ever say law schools care about different majors? Poli sci majors are worthless outside of the law school context, you know where you need to get jobs and real income and stuff.

[NYC-WVU]

Someone needs to lock this thread before the idiots take over the earth.

Agreed, Mal has been writing far too much nonsense in this thread. I would take a real shot at you but I love Nathan Fillion. OP, I doubled in Econ and History and loved it. I frankly have no reason to think Econ is higher regarded than Drama by law schools. They just want the numbers. Ignore the people who think STEM's are the only way. They're wrong.

And yes Danger. They don't.

Seriously you people need to work on your reading comprehension. When did I ever say law schools care about different majors? Poli sci majors are worthless outside of the law school context, you know where you need to get jobs and real income and stuff.

Speaking of reading comprehension . . . where did MG say that you said law schools care about different majors?

[Mal Reynolds]

Someone needs to lock this thread before the idiots take over the earth.

Agreed, Mal has been writing far too much nonsense in this thread. I would take a real shot at you but I love Nathan Fillion. OP, I doubled in Econ and History and loved it. I frankly have no reason to think Econ is higher regarded than Drama by law schools. They just want the numbers. Ignore the people who think STEM's are the only way. They're wrong.

And yes Danger. They don't.

Seriously you people need to work on your reading comprehension. When did I ever say law schools care about different majors? Poli sci majors are worthless outside of the law school context, you know where you need to get jobs and real income and stuff.

Speaking of reading comprehension . . . where did MG say that you said law schools care about different majors?

Right here:

I frankly have no reason to think Econ is higher regarded than Drama by law schools. They just want the numbers. Ignore the people who think STEM's are the only way. They're wrong.