Top Law Schools

what do law schools think of triple majors?

LSAC GPA will only count the first one

Not as important as a high GPA.

they are all simultaneous...so none is really first....and gpa is very good 3.9 but im just wondering what the schools will think
of it as a soft

fearthefork wrote:they are all simultaneous...so none is really first....and gpa is very good 3.9 but im just wondering what the schools will think
of it as a soft

Eh. It's probably a good soft. How good probably depends on the majors in question. If you triple majored in biomechanics, nuclear engineering and theoretical mathematics, that would probably be more than just a tiebreaker soft. If the majors are nutrition, sports administration, and general studies...not so much.

its in biochemistry math and econ

also what do you mean by more than a tiebreaker? im kinda new to how this process works

fearthefork wrote:also what do you mean by more than a tiebreaker? im kinda new to how this process works

Conventional wisdom is that most softs are just tiebreakers. As in, between two applicants with near-identical LSAT, GPA, URM status, etc., a tiebreaker will give one applicant the edge over the other. Pretty much everyone has softs, and most softs are average. There's a spectrum of prestige and rarity, ranging from membership in a campus club at the low end to Rhodes Scholar/Olympic medalist/best-selling novelist at the high end. The low end is just resume filler. The high end can help someone outperform their numbers. In between is a range of tiebreakers.

interesting...and so, in your opinion, where would a triple in math econ and biochem fall on that spectrum?

fearthefork wrote:interesting...and so, in your opinion, where would a triple in math econ and biochem fall on that spectrum?

i would put it in the middle of the spectrum.

fearthefork wrote:interesting...and so, in your opinion, where would a triple in math econ and biochem fall on that spectrum?

Oh, I dunno, maybe at the 60-65% mark.

Your LSAT score will be far, far, far more important. You could still get beat out by a 3.9 basketweaving major if their LSAT is better.

ok...so basically its a nice thing to have on my resume that will be able to solidify me as a candidate if my numbers meet the standards they need to for a given school but wont be making up for deficiencies in those numbers

haha and yeah what little ive learned so far pretty much seems to indicate that its all about the lsat...but ive done some practice tests and i did great so im pretty optimistic

fearthefork wrote:ok...so basically its a nice thing to have on my resume that will be able to solidify me as a candidate if my numbers meet the standards they need to for a given school but wont be making up for deficiencies in those numbers

Yep.

Think of it like this: unless you have a totally game-changing soft factor (like literally an Olympic medal), your softs make up about 5% of the total impact of your application package.

ok well unfortunately since i dont think ill be qualifying for these olympics i should prolly focus on the lsat haha...thanks that was really helpful

rinkrat19 wrote:

fearthefork wrote:ok...so basically its a nice thing to have on my resume that will be able to solidify me as a candidate if my numbers meet the standards they need to for a given school but wont be making up for deficiencies in those numbers

Yep.

Think of it like this: unless you have a totally game-changing soft factor (like literally an Olympic medal), your softs make up about 5% of the total impact of your application package.

Nice opinion.... I like it.

I doubt its a strong soft at all

I was a triple major and had a pretty ordinary cycle. Unfortunately I don't think it is a huge deal to admissions. It definitely won't hurt you though!

American universities are too easy these days. So many people are getting double and triple majors. There's some data suggesting that back in the day, undergrad courses required a significantly greater amount of day to day preparation.

Undergrad should be much closer to law school in terms of workload. I came out with a high GPA from a large state school having usually studied only the night before or the two days before an exam. And having done almost no daily preparation for most classes.

fearthefork wrote:its in biochemistry math and econ

Are you sure you wan't to do law?

By no mean am I trying to dissuade you, I had an econ and hard science background myself, but if you like those subjects, your success in undergrad will give you some good options (including some PhDs that they pay you to get if you are wanting to go back to school.)
If you do go to law school, just make sure you know you want to be a lawyer first. Congrats on a good UG resume.

Mick Haller wrote:American universities are too easy these days. So many people are getting double and triple majors. There's some data suggesting that back in the day, undergrad courses required a significantly greater amount of day to day preparation.

What does easiness have to do with it? At many schools, a major is just completing a certain number of hours in a certain field. If a major only requires 40 hours and you need to take 120 to graduate, you could easily triple major so long as you don't have to complete any gen eds (and at my university, you didn't). The amount of preparation you put into a course isn't suddenly more or less because some of your courses are in a different discipline than other courses.

cinephile wrote:

Mick Haller wrote:American universities are too easy these days. So many people are getting double and triple majors. There's some data suggesting that back in the day, undergrad courses required a significantly greater amount of day to day preparation.

What does easiness have to do with it? At many schools, a major is just completing a certain number of hours in a certain field. If a major only requires 40 hours and you need to take 120 to graduate, you could easily triple major so long as you don't have to complete any gen eds (and at my university, you didn't). The amount of preparation you put into a course isn't suddenly more or less because some of your courses are in a different discipline than other courses.

This. Also, I don't think it's fair to claim that all schools are like that. Sure, I had my easy classes, but they were far outweighed by the 150-page paper classes.

Mick Haller wrote:American universities are too easy these days. So many people are getting double and triple majors. There's some data suggesting that back in the day, undergrad courses required a significantly greater amount of day to day preparation.

Undergrad should be much closer to law school in terms of workload. I came out with a high GPA from a large state school having usually studied only the night before or the two days before an exam. And having done almost no daily preparation for most classes.

Hello, out of fucking nowhere opinion. How are you today?

shredderrrrrr wrote:

cinephile wrote:

Mick Haller wrote:American universities are too easy these days. So many people are getting double and triple majors. There's some data suggesting that back in the day, undergrad courses required a significantly greater amount of day to day preparation.

What does easiness have to do with it? At many schools, a major is just completing a certain number of hours in a certain field. If a major only requires 40 hours and you need to take 120 to graduate, you could easily triple major so long as you don't have to complete any gen eds (and at my university, you didn't). The amount of preparation you put into a course isn't suddenly more or less because some of your courses are in a different discipline than other courses.

This. Also, I don't think it's fair to claim that all schools are like that. Sure, I had my easy classes, but they were far outweighed by the 150-page paper classes.

This is retarded. While you need 120 hours to graduate, upper level classes required by majors are traditionally much more difficult (or by Mick Haller's argument should be harder) than Gen Ed requirements. How could you possibly suggest that each credit hour is created equally?

At my UG, we were required to have something like 130 total credits, and about 80 of them were general requirements although some general req's could count toward a major. You could conceivably earn a double major by going slightly over the total credit requirement, but to earn a triple major in four years, you'd have to be taking 18-19 credits per semester, which was totally feasible since the classes were so easy.