Woa there cowboy (um..). You should make an effort to read what I said before resorting to provocative acronyms (rofld, but seriously gtfo). First of all, when I recommended those two majors, I was not addressing the issue of law school admissions. I was addressing the issue of employability.
Second, it was my opinion. While I did not major in English, I would imagine that it teaches you to write correctly. This is good, and writing correctly helps with LRW, no?
you can't be serious in asserting that English is more attractive at OCI/EIP (i.e., employability) than a science major. that crap doesn't even matter. by then it's all about grades/ you're ability to calm down you assburgerz. even then, with a hard science background you get nice avenues open up that aren't available to degrees in the humanities.
Well, its true that an English major writes in English. That is helpful. They write a lot in English developing bad habits of excessive, flowery language with an emphasis on syntax as much as content. The difference is that the science writer has to dig through databases through strategic searches to write a cogent argument that persuades the reader that her interpretation of the data is the correct- replace data with "statute" and you can hand me my money.
Your opinions are stupid and misleading for 0L poasters.
ETA: When 350/400 people in your class majored in English/History, you stand out for employers by majoring in something different. Just a shame that this difference won't help get you into lawl school in the first place.
You're acting really immature so I'm not going to argue with you. But I leave you with 2 things:
1. A science background is only attractive to something like patent law, whereas English appeals to a much broader scale of employers.
2. It's spelled
" Sorry, that was just bugging me.