Can I get into Columbia with a 2.9 in Aerospace Engineering? Forum

[Chem_PhD]

This debate comes up a lot in college. I got a 3.9 in Philosophy and Political Science (I actually thought Philosophy was a billion times harder than Political Science...besides the point). I love how people in the School of Business and the Engineering would imply, "Well, your GPA is so high because you're a Liberal Arts major."

But these same people have a 2.6 in engineering. It is not the GPA that makes them look foolish...its the fact that they were dumb enough to take something you're not good at. If you have a 2.6 in Engineering but it is good enough to get an engineering job...GREAT. But don't knock on us because we actually took something we can do well in. It was your choice to take engineering. If law school was an option, you should have researched the importance of grades before choosing it. Why should we be punished because we were smart enough to avoid something we would get a 2.6 in?

The average GPA at my engineering undergrad was a 2.6 while the average GPA at a liberal arts college it is usually 3.2-3.4. Thus, you cannot compare the GPAs directly since the two programs are obviously curved differently. It's not that engineers aren't as good at engineering as you are at polisci, but that the programs are graded differently.

One of the large differences in difficulty between science/engineering and liberal arts is the difficulty of the Gen ed courses required. For science/engineering, the math gen eds were generally Calc I, Calc 2, Calc 3, DiffEq, and Linear Algebra while the liberal arts majors could take fluff math (i.e. "Qualitative Business Statistics") and have it count. The same is generally true for science gen eds, as science/engineering majors have to take calculus-based Physics 1 & 2 and Chem 1 & 2, while liberal arts majors can take "Rocks for Jocks." IME, the liberal arts gen ed requirements were usually more consistent across the board, consisting of classes such as "Freshman Composition" and "Introduction to Literature."

Regardless, the OP isn't going to Columbia with a 2.6/158.

[lolitsluis]

Hi there, I was wondering if your dreams of patent law came to fruition?
I too am an Aero major(@ Texas A&M) and am looking to pursue patent law, I know it's been two years since the last post,but I would like to see what the outcome became

[xyzzzzzzzz]

.

[09042014]

I think the real questions is why are there so many engineers who want to go to LS? Seriously, if you go to a top 5 engineering program, why wouldn't you want a job your degree could offer?

1) They don't like it/like law better
2) Money is better in patent law. (This can be argued).
3) They aren't good at engineering.
4) They got shit grades, and got shit tracked.

Engineering isn't like law, school prestige is much less of a factor.

[quadsixm]

Dear Engineering Kids,

Please explian to me why if half your gpa is from general ed, and another fourth from lower division, you are sure you would smoke anyone else taking another major, despite your 2.x gpa? I mean even if you got all c's in your upper division engineering, you should still be pulling near all A's in all other course work if you are so smart. Is their something I just don't get, about engineering as a major.

For me, GE's were much, much less than 1/4. Tested out of english (got a 5 on the AP exam in HS), tested out of Foreign Language, tested out of biology (AP exams again). So, I was stuck with fewer than 7-8 non-engineering classes over my undergraduate career.
Lower division engineering is absolutely not any easier than upper division; as a matter of fact, it might be harder, to "weed" people out. I should have gotten the message, but I was stubborn and decided to press on.

[thecilent]

I got to a ridiculously hard school and I take a ridiculously hard major. Please don't call me a flame. I doubt your 3.8 in Economics or History would fly at my school.

LSAT my friend, LSAT.

[thecilent]

Maybe its true that all the dumb 3.8 Econ majors couldn't hang with you and your 2.9 in GT....

....but your 159-163 wouldn't be hanging with the big boys in the top 6 law schools even if you had a 3.9.

GG, thanks for playing.



PS - I really am sorry about your lamentable LSAT performance, bro.

You'd better stick to building planes so that the future high powered attorneys of America have something fun to purchase in a decade or two.

HTH!


PPS -

Just for the record, this was pretty terrible

Wow. So well put.

[rayiner]

I think the real questions is why are there so many engineers who want to go to LS? Seriously, if you go to a top 5 engineering program, why wouldn't you want a job your degree could offer?

Engineering is great for the first 10-15 years of your career. Assuming a person goes straight through (which is atypical these days, but helps the JD in the comparison), a conservative calculation might be:

CS/EE:
23 - $60k
24 - $70k
25 - $75k
26 - $80k

JD:
23 - (-$65k)
24 - (-$68k)
25 - (-$71k)
26 - $160k

The JD comes out making twice as much, but in that same time the engineer has earned as much as the JD has borrowed. With interest, the JD will be down around half a million from the engineer. Cumulatively, he won't have out-earned the engineer until at least five years after graduation (esp. considering he'll probably transition to a non-biglaw legal job after three years or so). Finally, when he achieves parity in his early 30s, he'll have worked 50% more hours to have made the same money.

The difference comes into play when the JD and engineer are in their late 30s. The JD has settled into an in-house counsel job making, say, $200k/year, and the engineer into a senior role making say $135k/year. The engineer's job security becomes tenuous. Nobody wants to pay that kind of money for what they view as obsolete skills. The engineer is forced to go into a corporate/management type position, where he might top out at $175k and do absolutely soul-sucking work. The lawyer still has career growth potential ahead of him, he can move up the corporate ladder, lateral, etc. His skills and contacts become more valuable as time goes on, not less.

[cinefile 17]

.

[Azmatt]

This sounds like the OP was convinced to take the LSAT on a drunk bet at a frat party. Now, he thinks he did well and will be big time lawyer without doing any kind of actual research...




Go read everyone of these responses. You'll find your answers to your questions and answers to questions you should be asking yourself...

.. and if you don't then you're a tool and I hope Cooley rejects you.

[nickwar]

Straight forward, there's no chance you get into Columbia with a 163/2.x There's not even much of a chance you make it into a top-30 with those numbers.

That being said, what's the point of this thread? You haven't taken the LSAT, and that's all that matters. You could get a 165+, which MIGHT let you crack the top-30, or you might bomb, in which case you're not going anywhere.

In the end, however, don't settle for law school just for the sake of law school. If you make around a 160, you'll be looking at a lower-end, top-100 school more than likely. It sounds like you already have debt, so chances are you don't need anymore to fight into a shitty legal market. Why not just use your engineering degree? A lot of lawyers/students would kill for such an instantly valuable degree.

If not, I would advise aiming for somewhere like Georgia State if you are a Georgia resident. A 16x would likely get you in there with its ridiculously low in-state tuition. If you do well on the LSAT (166ish, maybe) you'd have a shot at UGA, which also has a low tuition and is known for being generous with scholarships. Either way, DO NOT shell out $40,000 a year to go to a bottom-100 school. In no way is that a good move.

But don't think (and it doesn't look like you are with your conservative LSAT estimate) that you'll be able to ace the LSAT just because you took a hard major. The LSAT is a completely different animal. Work your ass off on practice tests, because I promise you won't do well if you try to brain your way through it.

Good luck.

[Bildungsroman]

This thread is two years old.

HTH

[skaklight]

This thread is two years old.

HTH

I don't know why you had to ruin it. That was hilarious to watch people rag on some guy from 2008 who is surely long gone.

Oh, and for the record, I hope he's not gone.

[Azmatt]

This thread is two years old.

HTH

I don't know why you had to ruin it. That was hilarious to watch people rag on some guy from 2008 who is surely long gone.

Oh, and for the record, I hope he's not gone.

I suck at this.

[lolitsluis]

I think the real questions is why are there so many engineers who want to go to LS? Seriously, if you go to a top 5 engineering program, why wouldn't you want a job your degree could offer?

1) They don't like it/like law better
2) Money is better in patent law. (This can be argued).
3) They aren't good at engineering.
4) They got shit grades, and got shit tracked.

I would like to address your questions and wisecracks because I feel there is a lot of hostility on this thread.

A.1) I have always had an ecclectic taste in academics, a sort of renaissance man, I am majoring Aerospace, but also have minors and certificates in:physics, math, geography, international engineering and relations, and ecology.I have always had an interest in law since I was a young kid. I figured I would continue my education in grad school or law school since I have a strong passion for learning.

A.2)I don't care about money. If that were the case I would be doing petroleum engineering as opposed to Aerospace. Aerospace engineers don't make much compared to other engineering disciplines despite the more intense course load. I don't care what your majors are I'm not one for dick measuring but I feel that you guys have been a bit disrespectful to neglect to difficulties in being "a rocket scientist". I think we can all be proud of our accomplishments despite GPA's and such.

A.3) I would say I am quite proficient at engineering, I have interned with nasa and I feel I was a positive contribution to their teams.

A.4) I may have a mediocre GPA (3.1), but despite what you think trying really hard isn't always enough. Engineering, like many other majors, is a constant reminder of "You're best doesn't seem to be good enough". I can't tell you how many days I have studied only to get a "b" on an exam. I have known some of the brightest people in my department, and they sometimes need at least a week to prepare for the exam and do well.

This sounds like the OP was convinced to take the LSAT on a drunk bet at a frat party. Now, he thinks he did well and will be big time lawyer without doing any kind of actual research...

The reason I ask is that despite doing research, actual experience matters a lot. I was wondering what his experience was like to compare what I should face and not rely solely on statistics.

Back to my original post; I was wondering if he made it to law school after all. I don't care to go to Columbia or one of these uber elite schools, to me it is more about learning and expanding my mind. I am perfectly aware that prestige matters, and I would like to go to a decent school. You see, I have always liked technology and how it affects people's lives. I want to do patent law, IP, w/e fancy name you want to call it,also because I take my school's honor code seriously. I feel that protecting intellectual property is an honorable thing to do.

Ultimately I didn't want to write an catharsis on my opinions and thoughts for law school, but I wanted to shed some light onto the situation since many of posts here seem to be scathing generalizations of engineers. I know the forum is about "top law schools" but I didnt see any "mediocre law school" forums. I would like it if I could get some direction as to where to look. I know U of Houston is a good school but I am not sure how out of my league it is. Thanks for your time reading this.

[johnstuartmill]

You may get Columbia with a 180- if you have some nice soft factors and I mean nice, outstanding ones!!

If you're talking about breasts, I don't think the OP has any.

Oh, and by the way: they're real, and they're spectacular.

[daesonesb]

Yes philosophy isn't easy... we know. I took a minor in it, and I will admit that getting A's took about a 5-10 hours/week study commitment. A much larger commitment, however, got me a B in Discrete Mathematics last semester. I've always been pretty good at math, but that course was Hard Fucking Work.

As an example of why this Math class was harder than philosophy, consider this:
My friend was in a Phil 300 level formal logic course. They went through formal syllogisms, logical proofs, fallacies, etc., often using mathematical terms. The material was obviously much harder than the "formal logic" they teach you in Phil 101. She, being an econ student who was good at math, got an A. She said that the average in her class had to be scaled, because so many of the philosophy students were failing.

My 100 level discrete mathematics class did all that in our first 3 weeks, then continued on to set theory & operations, algorithms, probability, combinations and permutations, and more. This was prob. one of the the hardest 100 level math classes at my school, but it beat the hell out of the most formal course in logic you could take from the philosophy dept.

From my experience, it is easier to get that A in upper level philosophy than it is in Gen Ed. math classes.

EDIT: fuck..... this discussion is as old as the salmon I ate for lunch yesterday.

[mst]

Zombieee Threadddd! Can someone just answer random-guys question about patent law (which is the reason this thread is reincarnated anyways) so we can put this back in thread hell where people with terrible GPAs in the 2 range and mediocre LSAT scores get offended when you tell them they won't get into Columbia Law School?

[09042014]

I think the real questions is why are there so many engineers who want to go to LS? Seriously, if you go to a top 5 engineering program, why wouldn't you want a job your degree could offer?

1) They don't like it/like law better
2) Money is better in patent law. (This can be argued).
3) They aren't good at engineering.
4) They got shit grades, and got shit tracked.

I would like to address your questions and wisecracks because I feel there is a lot of hostility on this thread.

LOL I wasn't wise cracking, I'm a EE going to law school, and each one of these apply to me. Esp 4.

[clintonius]

an catharsis

Stopped reading.

[AngryAvocado]

an catharsis

Stopped reading.

So you read virtually the entire post? If crappy grammar was the deal-breaker, the 97 commas in the first sentence of point "A.1" should've tipped you off.

Also:

[DGLitcH]

I think the real questions is why are there so many engineers who want to go to LS? Seriously, if you go to a top 5 engineering program, why wouldn't you want a job your degree could offer?

Engineering is great for the first 10-15 years of your career. Assuming a person goes straight through (which is atypical these days, but helps the JD in the comparison), a conservative calculation might be:

CS/EE:
23 - $60k
24 - $70k
25 - $75k
26 - $80k

JD:
23 - (-$65k)
24 - (-$68k)
25 - (-$71k)
26 - $160k

The JD comes out making twice as much, but in that same time the engineer has earned as much as the JD has borrowed. With interest, the JD will be down around half a million from the engineer. Cumulatively, he won't have out-earned the engineer until at least five years after graduation (esp. considering he'll probably transition to a non-biglaw legal job after three years or so). Finally, when he achieves parity in his early 30s, he'll have worked 50% more hours to have made the same money.

The difference comes into play when the JD and engineer are in their late 30s. The JD has settled into an in-house counsel job making, say, $200k/year, and the engineer into a senior role making say $135k/year. The engineer's job security becomes tenuous. Nobody wants to pay that kind of money for what they view as obsolete skills. The engineer is forced to go into a corporate/management type position, where he might top out at $175k and do absolutely soul-sucking work. The lawyer still has career growth potential ahead of him, he can move up the corporate ladder, lateral, etc. His skills and contacts become more valuable as time goes on, not less.

Good breakdown

[clintonius]

an catharsis

Stopped reading.

So you read virtually the entire post? If crappy grammar was the deal-breaker, the 97 commas in the first sentence of point "A.1" should've tipped you off.

Also:

There are just certain things that The Dude does not abide.

[lolitsluis]

an catharsis

Stopped reading.

I'm actually surprised you read that far, I'm glad you caught that. I figured by now you would know engineers don't have the best grammar, and I didn't proof-read I figured the lax nature of a forum would excuse the fact

@ Desert Fox:
Really? How did that go? I'm glad to see an engineer making it into law school.

[09042014]

an catharsis

Stopped reading.

I'm actually surprised you read that far, I'm glad you caught that. I figured by now you would know engineers don't have the best grammar, and I didn't proof-read I figured the lax nature of a forum would excuse the fact

@ Desert Fox:
Really? How did that go? I'm glad to see an engineer making it into law school.

I should say I'm starting in August. But I met several engineers at Northwestern ASW.