BA/BS/JD Application Procedures
- Review the BA/BS/JD fact sheet (PDF) to familiarize yourself with the program's structure and admission requirements.
- Submit Drexel's application for undergraduate admission, including the required essay.
- All BA/BS/JD applicants must submit a 1 to 2 page essay online. We cannot accept essays submitted on paper. Please write your essay on the topic below.
- Attend an on-campus interview with the BA/BS/JD admission committee. Interviews are granted by invitation only.
Please note that applicants and students in the BA/BS/JD program are held to the same high ethical and conduct standards as law students and members of the bar. Accordingly, applicants and students should refrain from conduct that calls into question their character and fitness to practice law.
Supplemental BA/BS/JD Essay Topic
In December 2006 the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the dismissal of seven United States Attorneys (USAs). Prior to announcing the dismissals, a series of meetings were held to discuss which USAs should be fired, how the dismissals should be handled, and how the dismissed USAs would be replaced. USAs are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and serve at the pleasure of the President. Each USA serves as the chief federal prosecutor for an assigned part of the country, normally a federal judicial district.
The DOJ first indicated that the dismissals were based on job performance. However, it was later suggested that the firings may have been motivated by political considerations. The House and Senate Judiciary committees held hearings on the reasons for the firings. Before, during, and after the hearings, Bush administration officials, including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, offered shifting rationales for the dismissals of the USAs and repeatedly asserted the doctrine of executive privilege to prevent officials from testifying before Congress. Both the Senate and the House rejected the executive privilege claims and threatened to hold those who refused to testify in contempt.
The United States Constitution empowers; thus, the President "...by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments." (U.S. Const., Art. II, §2. Original spelling, punctuation, and grammar.) With few exceptions, appointed Executive Branch officials serve at the pleasure of the President. Congress has broad power to investigate the actions of government officials. This includes the power to conduct hearings and compel the testimony of witnesses. Witnesses generally may not be compelled to testify about matters which are deemed privileged. One widely recognized privilege covers the communications between the President and his/her close advisors.
Please argue one of the following points. Note that the admission committee will not judge you on what position you take, but rather on how effectively you argue your position. Do not conduct extensive research on your topic. This is not an exercise in legal writing and it is not necessary for you to justify your conclusions with legal authority. Rather, you should simply justify your position in a clear, concise, and logical manner.
Argument 1
The Constitution gives the President broad discretion to appoint and remove those who act on behalf of his/her administration. This discretion is necessary to ensure that public policy is implemented and executed in accordance with the wishes of the American people. While political considerations may occasionally influence personnel decisions, such influence is an accepted part of government and serves to further legitimate policy goals. Furthermore, the President, like most decision makers, relies on the candid advice of his/her advisors. This advice informs the President's decisions and helps to ensure that a wide range of viewpoints are considered. Well-reasoned decisions serve the best interests of the American people. Congress lacks the authority to investigate and overturn the firings of the USAs. Nor may the Congress compel the President's advisors to testify about the deliberations that led to the dismissals.
Argument 2
In order for the federal criminal justice system to function effectively, the American people must be confident that criminal charges are initiated and prosecuted only according to the law. Since USAs are responsible for determining which individuals are charged with crimes and what those charges will be, it is important that their charging decisions are made based solely on the facts of each case and the laws that are applicable to those facts. The DOJ's decision to terminate USAs for political reasons threatens this bedrock principle by calling into question the influences to which USAs are subject and how those influences affect the decisions they make. Therefore, the termination decisions eroded public confidence in the integrity of federal prosecutions. It is an appropriate use of Congress's investigatory power to hold hearings on the firings and to compel the testimony of those who were involved in the dismissal decisions.