Medical Student here looking to jump ship... Forum

[MysticalWheel]

This thread is screaming for a meme-ing. Please, somebody.

Lol- I hope note, for Ragged's sake.

MW

[MysticalWheel]

Law does not have to be an "end", and I am not arguing that it is one. My argument is that law is a necessary component to the development of every single facet of human civilization, including medicine. That makes it more important and more valuable, in the long run. And as far as “people not expecting to die,” it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the American colonists who revolted knew and expected casualties would occur. This alone lends support to the idea that they were willing to risk their lives for an ideal, and that is exactly what they did. I can provide you with many other examples where individuals have made much clearer conscious decisions in sacrificing their lives for higher causes than the example of the American Revolution. You originally stated that “health always supersedes legal security.” Not only is this in odds with my American Revolution example, it is in odds with numerous events in history that testify to the contrary. Another example could be the Civil War in the United States: the North could have abandoned its pursuit of reunification with the South, but it chose to engage in a bloody war that claimed more than half a million American lives, and for what? To have its own conception of what the law should be become the dominant doctrine of the land.

Ultimately, your counterargument regarding individuals “not expecting to die” is a deflection: it fails to neutralize my original point that health does not ALWAYS trump legal security. In doing so, your original statement of “health concerns trumping legal security” is defeated.

Biological need of life is not always paramount. At this point, you seem to have started repeating your central thesis through paraphrase. I’ve already cited several examples where individuals knowingly risked their lives to secure ideals that are not directly (or indirectly) “biological.” Also, you seem to contradict yourself here: you state that biological life needs are always paramount, yet you admit in your opening paragraph that individuals sometimes do consciously sacrifice themselves. This is yet another fatal problem in your argument.

You continue by providing an example of a hypothetical individual who gets hit by a motor vehicle, who then chooses to visit a physician first, and then an attorney. This is another deflection that does not address the heart of my argument. My thesis states that for medicine to develop and flourish to any consistent efficacy, law is necessary to establish security and standards of interaction. If either a hermit, living alone in a lawless state, or a citizen of a country living under law become injured, it is reasonable to expect that they will tend to their injuries so that they are able to survive. But the reason your example is a deflection is because in the circumstance of the person who is hit by the motor vehicle, there is nothing else greater at stake asides from his injuries. For the American Revolutionary, who has been shot 5 times on the battlefield and yet continues to load his musket against the advancing enemy, bleeding profusely, there is something greater at stake. Does he, like the present-day person in your example who gets hit by the motor vehicle, say “Wait!” to the advancing British so that he can go visit the doctor? No, he does not. He fights on, dying, sacrificing his life, knowingly, just for the chance to be able to win something greater than just being alive, something greater than just a pulse. That is what the law grants: the power to be secure, to be free, and to live without fear of imminent death or loss. Your motor-vehicle-accident example does not answer my argument, and thus, it fails as a counter.

Your last example is that of a car company. In reading it, I am now certain that you simply cannot comprehend the logical fallacy behind your polemic. My original thesis, once more, stated that law allows for things such as medicine, agriculture, and any of the other sciences to develop. It allows for every facet of human society the opportunity to arise and to mature. Once these disciplines have developed, they begin to function as sub sections of human civilization, developing their own conventions and rules, their own methods of calculation and function. Hence, it is perfectly reasonable to state, as you have, that the engineers are more important, overall, to the car company than its accountants or marketers. But in stating this, you are essentially parroting my argument back to me, without realizing it. To complete the analogy, consider the following: imagine that society is the car company. Law is its engineers. Without law, society dies. Without engineers, the car company dies. In effect, your argument is in support of my position, but because you do not realize your fallacy, you have presented it in opposition.

To reiterate, I am saying that law is necessary for medicine to develop, and not the other way around. Your counterarguments, thus far, have been either failed attempts at deflection or contradictory expressions. Doctors may deal with “more important things” in the immediate present of a person’s physical well-being, but in the long run, law is more critical and more fundamental to human society. Without law, medicine cannot develop.

In conclusion, I believe you may have some basic bias or perceptive skew that is preventing you from realizing the logic of my argument. I say this in light of the examples you’ve provided because they show a pattern of thought that is trapped in a single-dimensional line of reasoning: you’re considering only the present context but you fail to understand what provided for the present context, and what continues to provide for it. It is law, and without it, no medicine, no agriculture, and certainly no Hollywood would have developed into lasting and effective institutions/disciplines.

On a side note, are you seriously arguing that medicine is more important than law on a forum that is dedicated, in a manner of speaking, to the legal profession? Not only are you wrong, but what nerve!

MW

Brilliant.

Much appreciated .

MW

[whymeohgodno]

Does anyone actually read those huge walls of text?

[Alyosha]

I love how all the 1Ls and 2Ls in this thread are arguing against law school, and a lot of the 0Ls are encouraging him to drop med school and go to law school.

Exactly. 0L is bliss.

Is your handle a reference to Brothers K?

It is. My favorite book of all time.

[BruceWayne]

I love how all the 1Ls and 2Ls in this thread are arguing against law school, and a lot of the 0Ls are encouraging him to drop med school and go to law school.

Exactly. 0L is bliss.

Is your handle a reference to Brothers K?

People are making this way too black and white. If he genuinely wants to be a lawyer, I would wholeheartedly recommend going to HYS for law over any med school. The other thing is that a lot of the 1L and 2L's in here fail to realize that the truth is that there is traditional profession where it's all roses--period. If that's what you are looking for you are living in a dream world. As a previous poster mentioned, doctors spend years in residency only making 40-50K while they have to make payments on 200K + loans. On top of that medical school is 4 years and downright grueling. People keep pointing out lawyers low job satisfaction, the reality is that modern day doctors are experiencing the same thing. On top of that unless you are a specialist (which is becoming extraordinarily competitive) the money in medicine isn't nearly as "models and bottles" as many of you are making it out to be. I've got a family friend who's a doctor who is just plain getting exhausted with it. Between sky high malpractice insurance, constantly having to take tests to stay certified, and the hours that can come with the truly big dollar doctor positions (ie surgeons) it's not all roses like many on here think it is.

I can also tell that a lot of people in here don't realize just how much more difficult med school is than law school--it's absolutely grueling. The material is much more difficult. The most important thing that people are missing is that medicine is supposed to be an altruistic profession--almost a calling. If someone has doubts about being a doctor, even moreso than if they have doubts about being a lawyer, they shouldn't do it. The last thing people need is doctors who don't really love what they are doing and who are doing more for the money. It's one thing to be a lawyer or a business man for the money, it's something entirely different to be a doctor and have that as your motivation;You are handling people's literal lives.

[MysticalWheel]

To reiterate, I am saying that law is necessary for medicine to develop, and not the other way around. Your counterarguments, thus far, have been either failed attempts at deflection or contradictory expressions. Doctors may deal with “more important things” in the immediate present of a person’s physical well-being, but in the long run, law is more critical and more fundamental to human society. Without law, medicine cannot develop.

I can buy some of that, although not to the degree that you are proposing. Even in a chaotic society there would still be people who help others get better. Some form of medicine will exist so long as people keep getting sick - it arises from neccessity and demand for it, law or no law. I agree with you that a just legal environment facilitates the progress of all human industries including medicine, but saying that law is an absolute prerequesite for the development of medicine is misguided.


Whether law>medicine or medicine>law in a long run is a difficult, and I would say, an unnecessery question. Asserting one or the other position would be challenging. One thing is for sure, and that is that both will exist as long as there is a society. One deals with our very existance and satisfies our most pressing needs, the other arises as a response to an unfortuonate cosequesnce of our nature.

Law is, as you state, an "absolute prerequisite" for the development of medicine. I think you are still stuck in the present day context of what the law is, when in fact, the word "law" can be used much less rigidly to describe much more primitive human societies. No human being has ever survived without at least some assistance from some other human being (infants cannot survive without adult care). This automatically presupposes the existence of a group no smaller than 2 individuals, at some point in time. Furthermore, the intelligence necessary for the development of medicine cannot arise unless the communicative faculties of human beings are employed, which also necessitates a group setting (experiments have been done, not in the US, where infants have been provided with sustenance but have been cut off from communication by adults- they all died). Group settings naturally prompt the immediate creation and development of law, well before medicine. The development of medicine, therefore, because it requires high intelligence, necessitates law. There you go: I just did a very unpolished, rough proof that medicine necessitates law.

In one of your first posts in reply to my original statement regarding law> medicine, you patently disagree with me, implying that medicine is > law. Now you state that the entire debate is "unnecessary" and that the question is "difficult." If you're conceding the argument, please just do so and spare me your histrionics.

MW

P.S. Btw, you did not reply to the entirety of my message that I posted last night. By my count, if you're still interested in pursuing this argument, you have the remaining portion of that argument, my reply to your partial reply this morning, and this post to reply to. Now if you'll excuse me for about 20 minutes or so, I have to go to buy food.

[JazzOne]

I love how all the 1Ls and 2Ls in this thread are arguing against law school, and a lot of the 0Ls are encouraging him to drop med school and go to law school.

Exactly. 0L is bliss.

Is your handle a reference to Brothers K?

It is. My favorite book of all time.

Yes, one of my favorites as well.

[Alyosha]

Law school is so interesting. Here's what I've been reading today:

--LinkRemoved--

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/profe ... tents.html

[Ragged]

To reiterate, I am saying that law is necessary for medicine to develop, and not the other way around. Your counterarguments, thus far, have been either failed attempts at deflection or contradictory expressions. Doctors may deal with “more important things” in the immediate present of a person’s physical well-being, but in the long run, law is more critical and more fundamental to human society. Without law, medicine cannot develop.

I can buy some of that, although not to the degree that you are proposing. Even in a chaotic society there would still be people who help others get better. Some form of medicine will exist so long as people keep getting sick - it arises from neccessity and demand for it, law or no law. I agree with you that a just legal environment facilitates the progress of all human industries including medicine, but saying that law is an absolute prerequesite for the development of medicine is misguided.


Whether law>medicine or medicine>law in a long run is a difficult, and I would say, an unnecessery question. Asserting one or the other position would be challenging. One thing is for sure, and that is that both will exist as long as there is a society. One deals with our very existance and satisfies our most pressing needs, the other arises as a response to an unfortuonate cosequesnce of our nature.

Law is, as you state, an "absolute prerequisite" for the development of medicine. I think you are still stuck in the present day context of what the law is, when in fact, the word "law" can be used much less rigidly to describe much more primitive human societies. No human being has ever survived without at least some assistance from some other human being (infants cannot survive without adult care). This automatically presupposes the existence of a group no smaller than 2 individuals, at some point in time. Furthermore, the intelligence necessary for the development of medicine cannot arise unless the communicative faculties of human beings are employed, which also necessitates a group setting (experiments have been done, not in the US, where infants have been provided with sustenance but have been cut off from communication by adults- they all died). Group settings naturally prompt the immediate creation and development of law, well before medicine. The development of medicine, therefore, because it requires high intelligence, necessitates law. There you go: I just did a very unpolished, rough proof that medicine necessitates law.

In one of your first posts in reply to my original statement regarding law> medicine, you patently disagree with me, implying that medicine is > law. Now you state that the entire debate is "unnecessary" and that the question is "difficult." If you're conceding the argument, please just do so and spare me your histrionics.

MW

P.S. Btw, you did not reply to the entirety of my message that I posted last night. By my count, if you're still interested in pursuing this argument, you have the remaining portion of that argument, my reply to your partial reply this morning, and this post to reply to. Now if you'll excuse me for about 20 minutes or so, I have to go to buy food.

So now any kind of human collaboration including all forms of communicatioin are concidered to be law by your definition? That just sounds like a dishonest redifinition of terms as a desparate attempt to win an arguement. And ironically enough still fails at undermining or even address my arguement that medicine would still be present in a chaotic society.

Also, I never said that medicine was a prerequesite of law, just that medicine addressed a more important human concern.

[MysticalWheel]

To reiterate, I am saying that law is necessary for medicine to develop, and not the other way around. Your counterarguments, thus far, have been either failed attempts at deflection or contradictory expressions. Doctors may deal with “more important things” in the immediate present of a person’s physical well-being, but in the long run, law is more critical and more fundamental to human society. Without law, medicine cannot develop.

I can buy some of that, although not to the degree that you are proposing. Even in a chaotic society there would still be people who help others get better. Some form of medicine will exist so long as people keep getting sick - it arises from neccessity and demand for it, law or no law. I agree with you that a just legal environment facilitates the progress of all human industries including medicine, but saying that law is an absolute prerequesite for the development of medicine is misguided.


Whether law>medicine or medicine>law in a long run is a difficult, and I would say, an unnecessery question. Asserting one or the other position would be challenging. One thing is for sure, and that is that both will exist as long as there is a society. One deals with our very existance and satisfies our most pressing needs, the other arises as a response to an unfortuonate cosequesnce of our nature.

Law is, as you state, an "absolute prerequisite" for the development of medicine. I think you are still stuck in the present day context of what the law is, when in fact, the word "law" can be used much less rigidly to describe much more primitive human societies. No human being has ever survived without at least some assistance from some other human being (infants cannot survive without adult care). This automatically presupposes the existence of a group no smaller than 2 individuals, at some point in time. Furthermore, the intelligence necessary for the development of medicine cannot arise unless the communicative faculties of human beings are employed, which also necessitates a group setting (experiments have been done, not in the US, where infants have been provided with sustenance but have been cut off from communication by adults- they all died). Group settings naturally prompt the immediate creation and development of law, well before medicine. The development of medicine, therefore, because it requires high intelligence, necessitates law. There you go: I just did a very unpolished, rough proof that medicine necessitates law.

In one of your first posts in reply to my original statement regarding law> medicine, you patently disagree with me, implying that medicine is > law. Now you state that the entire debate is "unnecessary" and that the question is "difficult." If you're conceding the argument, please just do so and spare me your histrionics.

MW

P.S. Btw, you did not reply to the entirety of my message that I posted last night. By my count, if you're still interested in pursuing this argument, you have the remaining portion of that argument, my reply to your partial reply this morning, and this post to reply to. Now if you'll excuse me for about 20 minutes or so, I have to go to buy food.

So now any kind of human collaboration including all forms of communicatioin are concidered to be law by your definition? That just sounds like a dishonest redifinition of terms as a desparate attempt to win an arguement. And ironically enough still fails at undermining or even address my arguement that medicine would still be present in a chaotic society.

Also, I never said that medicine was a prerequesite of law, just that medicine addressed a more important human concern.

Gosh, I'm not even out the door yet!

Sorry to break it to you, but I kind of already won the argument; you can tell yourself whatever you need to. I never redefined anything: go look up "law" in a dictionary, and you'll see that there are probably more than 20 entries. The word is not quarantined to written text that is enforced by police and courts. Once again, you are thinking one-dimensionally, only in the present context. The funny thing is that I don't even need the American Revolution example: law is more important, overall, to SOCIETY than medicine- period.

MW

[Ginj]

You people must be delightful in person.

[MysticalWheel]

You people must be delightful in person.

I really am, though, lol. It's just that when someone is telling me that black is white and trying to convince me that my vision is shot, I'm not about to let them off the hook.

MW

[floppymex]

You people must be delightful in person.

What do you mean by you people?

[Ragged]

You continue to argue based on your original bias, thus failing to see the fallacy of your position. The American Revolution is perhaps the best example possible of my thesis, not to mention one of the best examples possible in refuting your original statement that “health always trumps legal security.” You state that the Revolution was started by “politicians and generals who did not take a central role in the battles.” First, this is wholly incorrect: the Revolutionary war was not quarantined to the masses, but rather permeated throughout the colonial establishment. Secondly, even if there were political and military elites who did not directly participate on the battlefield, it does not weaken my argument whatsoever. A great part of the colonial population engaged in war that was unnecessary for the preservation of their lives. They made conscious decisions, on more than one occasion, to risk their lives for precisely the ideal of “legal security,” for is that not exactly what independence is?
To state that the colonists were fighting for power and financial gain is a more or less a paraphrase of the statement that the colonists were fighting for “independence and control of taxes.” Your wording, however, seems to betray some type of deep disrespect, perhaps foreign, of the history behind the Revolutionary War.

You continue by stating that most knew that casualties of war would occur, but that no one knew that they were going to die for certain. This does not defeat the force of my argument: if they knew that casualties were likely, then they consciously risked their lives for achieving something else. By stating that this something else was “power and financial gain,” you are, in effect, bolstering my argument because you are stating that the colonists considered the acquisition of power and financial gain sufficient prizes for risking their lives. If, as you stated originally, “health always trumps legal security,” it would not make sense that this risk would have been made by so many people, and that it continued to be made after the casualties began to climb. The danger WAS real and immediate, not hypothetical. Your counterargument completely misinterprets the circumstances of the Revolutionary War. But it is not even necessary for me to hold on, though I have, to the validity of my Revolutionary War example. There are countless examples of individuals willing sacrificing their health and their lives to achieve something beyond simple biological existence.

Continuing with your counterargument on the American Revolution, you state that a wounded soldier keeps fighting on the battlefield because it is kill or be killed. That soldier made a conscious decision to enter a situation that presented immediate and real danger to his life and to his health; that soldier made a conscious decision to continue fighting, as opposed to running or surrendering. Practical concerns are absolutely necessary for understanding this reality, but you utterly misunderstand basic human motivations. “Kill or be killed” is valid in many circumstances, but in other circumstances, it is not. It is reasonable to assume that a soldier who has been wounded to the point of immobility would choose surrender rather than continue to fight a battle that is almost sure to result in his death, if your presentation of the “instinct of self-preservation” is correct. But you are missing a critical piece of the equation: what if the soldier truly holds some ideal (such as liberty/ independence) higher than his own life? What if this ideal is something that is so valuable and so fundamental, that it is worth dying for, many times over? If health were the primary concern at all times for everyone, war would be nonexistent, because no soldier would agree to an order that would put his or her health in jeopardy. Your argument fails on this point.

My example does put law and medicine in opposition, albeit the example of the American Revolution is imperfect. The colonists were fighting for independence, and that can be roughly equated to “legal security.” You stated that legal security is “always trumped by health concerns,” but the Revolutionary War example demonstrates that falseness of this claim. If health superseded legal security, than the colonists would not have risked, as they did, their health FOR legal security. The war was not about the “land being more just,” it was about independence. If you cannot understand that, then I recommend you reread basic American history.
As far as your blatant disrespect regarding the Revolutionary War, I’ll let you wallow in your own pool of misinformation and ignorance. I am not being idealistic; I am proving to you that motivations beyond immediate physical well-being exist, have existed, and will continue to exist for as long as humans are around.

Your last example is that of a car company. In reading it, I am now certain that you simply cannot comprehend the logical fallacy behind your polemic. My original thesis, once more, stated that law allows for things such as medicine, agriculture, and any of the other sciences to develop. It allows for every facet of human society the opportunity to arise and to mature. Once these disciplines have developed, they begin to function as sub sections of human civilization, developing their own conventions and rules, their own methods of calculation and function. Hence, it is perfectly reasonable to state, as you have, that the engineers are more important, overall, to the car company than its accountants or marketers. But in stating this, you are essentially parroting my argument back to me, without realizing it. To complete the analogy, consider the following: imagine that society is the car company. Law is its engineers. Without law, society dies. Without engineers, the car company dies. In effect, your argument is in support of my position, but because you do not realize your fallacy, you have presented it in opposition.

I hope you did not misunderstand my arguement there, although I have a feeling you did.

The ultimate point of our progress as a civilization is to improve the quality of life. As individuals we seldom care about more than our own life, but in doing so we imrpove the life of the society as a whole, if only incidentally. Health - living to an old age, not ailing from deseases, quick recovery after injuries etc. - along with nutrition is the basic quality of our life. So to say, we judge the quality of our life largely, although not exclusively, by how healthy we are. It is the central point of out existance to improve the quality of life and with it our happiness. All the research in the medical field as well as the work of medical professionsals deals precisely with this aspect of life.

On the other hand, where does the need to live in a just society come into play? Well, its not something we intrinsically desire - if it is on some level than that level is so far off that its not even listed on Maslow's heirarchy. The answer is that we have law out of conviniece, because humans better function within some framework of allowed and disallowed behavior.

Hence my analogy of having lawyers in the company in order for it to funcion more smoothly, not to produce the actual product.

I have to go now. Will finish this later.

Again, you appear to have some kind of “logical” block that is precluding you from understanding the necessity of law, not just to medicine, but to any other discipline. I agree that the ultimate point of civilization is to improve the quality of life, but this cannot happen without law. Society, in the first place, cannot exist unless there is some kind of law. Individuals come together, initially, not because they really want to form society or pursue grand ideals, but because they know that they will be better off with other people assisting them. They will be more secure and more able to accomplish the things they want or need to accomplish. Once this meeting of individuals occurs, the first seed of law is planted, and it is based off the common interests of the individuals that compose the emerging community. One person living alone all their life will be so undeveloped linguistically, socially, and otherwise, that to imagine him or her having the advanced intelligence to create medical breakthroughs is laughable. Once again, you are thinking only in the present context. If you go back far enough, you can make reasonable conclusions on the initial motivations and systems that eventually led to civilization today.

If you read Rousseau, you’ll see a very clear logic that development of society is inevitable as the population increases, so whether we need or do not need to live in a society is irrelevant: it’s going to happen anyway, and that is how law originates. My original argument holds: law is more fundamental and more necessary, in the long run, to society than medicine is. It seems you are simply arguing now because you don’t want to concede.
MW

To address the was on Independence again. There is a big difference between risking one's life and giving up one's life. Of course there are examples when people consiously lay their lives down for a greater good of others, but those occurances are exceptions to the general rule, rather than the rule itself - which is why those people usually get so much praise from others. I'm sure if you presented any colonist with a choice of either paying taxes to the British King or death virtually all would chose the former.

Also, once the war was declared American troops were no longer defending just their rights, but more importantly safety and security of their families who would be pillaged by the British troops if they lost. In the end of the day that is what made them fight so selflessly, not the illusory promise of paying to one ruler instead of another.

Continuing with your counterargument on the American Revolution, you state that a wounded soldier keeps fighting on the battlefield because it is kill or be killed. That soldier made a conscious decision to enter a situation that presented immediate and real danger to his life and to his health; that soldier made a conscious decision to continue fighting, as opposed to running or surrendering. Practical concerns are absolutely necessary for understanding this reality, but you utterly misunderstand basic human motivations. “Kill or be killed” is valid in many circumstances, but in other circumstances, it is not. It is reasonable to assume that a soldier who has been wounded to the point of immobility would choose surrender rather than continue to fight a battle that is almost sure to result in his death, if your presentation of the “instinct of self-preservation” is correct. But you are missing a critical piece of the equation: what if the soldier truly holds some ideal (such as liberty/ independence) higher than his own life? What if this ideal is something that is so valuable and so fundamental, that it is worth dying for, many times over? If health were the primary concern at all times for everyone, war would be nonexistent, because no soldier would agree to an order that would put his or her health in jeopardy. Your argument fails on this point.

Barring some religious fanatics, people either go to war because they expect to win and not die, or because they are defending their lives which are already in danger or because its their job, not for some higher values. Of course individual soldiers hold some ideals and morals, but I doubt many would die for them.

And as to "basic human motivations" great many scientists and philosophers would disagree with you. Higher values are not basic, but only develop when the basic needs - nutrition, safety, etc - are satisfied.

[Ragged]

Gosh, I'm not even out the door yet!

Sorry to break it to you, but I kind of already won the argument; you can tell yourself whatever you need to. I never redefined anything: go look up "law" in a dictionary, and you'll see that there are probably more than 20 entries. The word is not quarantined to written text that is enforced by police and courts. Once again, you are thinking one-dimensionally, only in the present context. The funny thing is that I don't even need the American Revolution example: law is more important, overall, to SOCIETY than medicine- period.

MW

And to think that I was taking you seriously.

[Ginj]

You people must be delightful in person.

What do you mean by you people?

I meant people of your specific race, gender, religion, and/or sexuality.

[northwood]

wonder where op went? maybe back to the lab?

[prezidentv8]

This thread is screaming for a meme-ing. Please, somebody.

I wish I wasn't participating in the debate so I could make some. I see many good ones even from my own posts.

Fine, I'll start, but I'd like to see some community contributions here.
--ImageRemoved--

[whymeohgodno]

There can't be society without law so I don't get what the fuss is about.

[JazzOne]

You people must be delightful in person.

I'd hit on you. Wouldn't that be delightful?

[prezidentv8]

--ImageRemoved--

[JazzOne]

--ImageRemoved--

lol

If MW posts any more of this nonsense, I'll be forced to pull the ultimate meme.

[MysticalWheel]

To address the was on Independence again. There is a big difference between risking one's life and giving up one's life. Of course there are examples when people consiously lay their lives down for a greater good of others, but those occurances are exceptions to the general rule, rather than the rule itself - which is why those people usually get so much praise from others. I'm sure if you presented any colonist with a choice of either paying taxes to the British King or death virtually all would chose the former.

Also, once the war was declared American troops were no longer defending just their rights, but more importantly safety and security of their families who would be pillaged by the British troops if they lost. In the end of the day that is what made them fight so selflessly, not the illusory promise of paying to one ruler instead of another.


Barring some religious fanatics, people either go to war because they expect to win and not die, or because they are defending their lives which are already in danger or because its their job, not for some higher values. Of course individual soldiers hold some ideals and morals, but I doubt many would die for them.

And as to "basic human motivations" great many scientists and philosophers would disagree with you. Higher values are not basic, but only develop when the basic needs - nutrition, safety, etc - are satisfied.

Your original statement was "health ALWAYS trumps legal security." To risk one's life, especially in circumstances when it is reasonable to assume that death is more likely than not, is evidence that certain things are worth dying for, that it would be acceptable to lose one's life in pursuit of said things. Your statement regarding the choice between death and taxes is another deflection: the mere fact that life is risked when the odds are that death is extremely likely, or that there are examples of people who willingly sacrificed themselves, shows that health concerns are not always primal and supreme.

Furthermore, your characterization of the colonist's motivations betrays a lack of knowledge of basic American history. 1/3 of the colonists remained loyal to the British Crown, and the one's who rebelled could have originally sided against the revolution, but they did not. This was before any of their families or properties were directly threatened. They instead chose to risk their lives when they could have simply refused to fight and, in all probability, remained alive.

Lastly, I never stated that "higher values" are basic. To develop these values, law is necessary, because they cannot develop in individuals who have had no interaction with others (on account that use of communicative and interactive faculties are necessary for higher intelligence). Once more: I do not even need the example of the American Revolution. The central argument is that law is more important to society than medicine. You have yet to provide a counterargument that rebukes this.

MW

[AreJay711]

Not disputing anyones claim really but there can't be any society without medicine (in its most basic sense) either -- If I was on a desert island and my SO got pregnant and went into labor both she and my child would both die bc I'd have no idea what to do hence ending out society. I know it is overly simplistic but that is a very broad view of law as well to include all social regulation and control.

[JazzOne]

Law does not have to be an "end", and I am not arguing that it is one. My argument is that law is a necessary component to the development of every single facet of human civilization, including medicine. That makes it more important and more valuable, in the long run. And as far as “people not expecting to die,” it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the American colonists who revolted knew and expected casualties would occur. This alone lends support to the idea that they were willing to risk their lives for an ideal, and that is exactly what they did. I can provide you with many other examples where individuals have made much clearer conscious decisions in sacrificing their lives for higher causes than the example of the American Revolution. You originally stated that “health always supersedes legal security.” Not only is this in odds with my American Revolution example, it is in odds with numerous events in history that testify to the contrary. Another example could be the Civil War in the United States: the North could have abandoned its pursuit of reunification with the South, but it chose to engage in a bloody war that claimed more than half a million American lives, and for what? To have its own conception of what the law should be become the dominant doctrine of the land.

Ultimately, your counterargument regarding individuals “not expecting to die” is a deflection: it fails to neutralize my original point that health does not ALWAYS trump legal security. In doing so, your original statement of “health concerns trumping legal security” is defeated.

Biological need of life is not always paramount. At this point, you seem to have started repeating your central thesis through paraphrase. I’ve already cited several examples where individuals knowingly risked their lives to secure ideals that are not directly (or indirectly) “biological.” Also, you seem to contradict yourself here: you state that biological life needs are always paramount, yet you admit in your opening paragraph that individuals sometimes do consciously sacrifice themselves. This is yet another fatal problem in your argument.

You continue by providing an example of a hypothetical individual who gets hit by a motor vehicle, who then chooses to visit a physician first, and then an attorney. This is another deflection that does not address the heart of my argument. My thesis states that for medicine to develop and flourish to any consistent efficacy, law is necessary to establish security and standards of interaction. If either a hermit, living alone in a lawless state, or a citizen of a country living under law become injured, it is reasonable to expect that they will tend to their injuries so that they are able to survive. But the reason your example is a deflection is because in the circumstance of the person who is hit by the motor vehicle, there is nothing else greater at stake asides from his injuries. For the American Revolutionary, who has been shot 5 times on the battlefield and yet continues to load his musket against the advancing enemy, bleeding profusely, there is something greater at stake. Does he, like the present-day person in your example who gets hit by the motor vehicle, say “Wait!” to the advancing British so that he can go visit the doctor? No, he does not. He fights on, dying, sacrificing his life, knowingly, just for the chance to be able to win something greater than just being alive, something greater than just a pulse. That is what the law grants: the power to be secure, to be free, and to live without fear of imminent death or loss. Your motor-vehicle-accident example does not answer my argument, and thus, it fails as a counter.

Your last example is that of a car company. In reading it, I am now certain that you simply cannot comprehend the logical fallacy behind your polemic. My original thesis, once more, stated that law allows for things such as medicine, agriculture, and any of the other sciences to develop. It allows for every facet of human society the opportunity to arise and to mature. Once these disciplines have developed, they begin to function as sub sections of human civilization, developing their own conventions and rules, their own methods of calculation and function. Hence, it is perfectly reasonable to state, as you have, that the engineers are more important, overall, to the car company than its accountants or marketers. But in stating this, you are essentially parroting my argument back to me, without realizing it. To complete the analogy, consider the following: imagine that society is the car company. Law is its engineers. Without law, society dies. Without engineers, the car company dies. In effect, your argument is in support of my position, but because you do not realize your fallacy, you have presented it in opposition.

To reiterate, I am saying that law is necessary for medicine to develop, and not the other way around. Your counterarguments, thus far, have been either failed attempts at deflection or contradictory expressions. Doctors may deal with “more important things” in the immediate present of a person’s physical well-being, but in the long run, law is more critical and more fundamental to human society. Without law, medicine cannot develop.

In conclusion, I believe you may have some basic bias or perceptive skew that is preventing you from realizing the logic of my argument. I say this in light of the examples you’ve provided because they show a pattern of thought that is trapped in a single-dimensional line of reasoning: you’re considering only the present context but you fail to understand what provided for the present context, and what continues to provide for it. It is law, and without it, no medicine, no agriculture, and certainly no Hollywood would have developed into lasting and effective institutions/disciplines.

On a side note, are you seriously arguing that medicine is more important than law on a forum that is dedicated, in a manner of speaking, to the legal profession? Not only are you wrong, but what nerve!

MW

American revolution is a bad example of what you are trying to argue. Let me explain why. The American revolution like all wars was started by the politicians and generals who on the grand theme of things did not partake a central role in battles. They did not have to risk their life for their principals. On the contrary, they were fighting for power and financial gain. Soldiers on the battlefield who enlisted in the army did it largely for the pay they were going to recieve or as a career choice or they were drafted and sometimes because they believed in overthowing british rule. Even though everyone knew there were going to be casaulities of war each person did not know that he was the one who was going to die - and if he did I'm sure he would not enlist. Our instinct of self preservation is only strong when the dnager is immidiate and real, not hypothetical. A wounded soldier in battle keeps on fighting not because he believes in a higher power of law or some idealistic balony, but because its a kill or be killed situation. He knows that if he does not fight back he will be killed. He also knows that if he runs way he will be caught by his own troops and executed. Moreover, it is not unheard of for entire armies to be routed and run for their lives - the whole army just wants to live no matter the cost. In battle soldier does not think about how important law is. He is governed primariry, and I would say entirely, by his instinct of preservation of life, which is in fact what makes him so effective in battle. No soldier will fight as fiercely as the one who fights for his own life.

My point here is that your example here fails to put law and medicine in a any kind of opposition. Maybe the war was started under a premise of changing the law, but on the individual level the actions of people are still governed by their own selfish needs - health being primary of them. No one in battle is saying "I have to be brave and kill those guys so our land canb be more just!". No, he is saying "I have to be brave and kill those guys because otherwise they will kill me and I don't want to die."

I don't think that you honestly believe that idealistic bullshit about how soldiers fight for the higher power of law. If you do, well I guess good for you.

You continue to argue based on your original bias, thus failing to see the fallacy of your position. The American Revolution is perhaps the best example possible of my thesis, not to mention one of the best examples possible in refuting your original statement that “health always trumps legal security.” You state that the Revolution was started by “politicians and generals who did not take a central role in the battles.” First, this is wholly incorrect: the Revolutionary war was not quarantined to the masses, but rather permeated throughout the colonial establishment. Secondly, even if there were political and military elites who did not directly participate on the battlefield, it does not weaken my argument whatsoever. A great part of the colonial population engaged in war that was unnecessary for the preservation of their lives. They made conscious decisions, on more than one occasion, to risk their lives for precisely the ideal of “legal security,” for is that not exactly what independence is?
To state that the colonists were fighting for power and financial gain is a more or less a paraphrase of the statement that the colonists were fighting for “independence and control of taxes.” Your wording, however, seems to betray some type of deep disrespect, perhaps foreign, of the history behind the Revolutionary War.

You continue by stating that most knew that casualties of war would occur, but that no one knew that they were going to die for certain. This does not defeat the force of my argument: if they knew that casualties were likely, then they consciously risked their lives for achieving something else. By stating that this something else was “power and financial gain,” you are, in effect, bolstering my argument because you are stating that the colonists considered the acquisition of power and financial gain sufficient prizes for risking their lives. If, as you stated originally, “health always trumps legal security,” it would not make sense that this risk would have been made by so many people, and that it continued to be made after the casualties began to climb. The danger WAS real and immediate, not hypothetical. Your counterargument completely misinterprets the circumstances of the Revolutionary War. But it is not even necessary for me to hold on, though I have, to the validity of my Revolutionary War example. There are countless examples of individuals willing sacrificing their health and their lives to achieve something beyond simple biological existence.

Continuing with your counterargument on the American Revolution, you state that a wounded soldier keeps fighting on the battlefield because it is kill or be killed. That soldier made a conscious decision to enter a situation that presented immediate and real danger to his life and to his health; that soldier made a conscious decision to continue fighting, as opposed to running or surrendering. Practical concerns are absolutely necessary for understanding this reality, but you utterly misunderstand basic human motivations. “Kill or be killed” is valid in many circumstances, but in other circumstances, it is not. It is reasonable to assume that a soldier who has been wounded to the point of immobility would choose surrender rather than continue to fight a battle that is almost sure to result in his death, if your presentation of the “instinct of self-preservation” is correct. But you are missing a critical piece of the equation: what if the soldier truly holds some ideal (such as liberty/ independence) higher than his own life? What if this ideal is something that is so valuable and so fundamental, that it is worth dying for, many times over? If health were the primary concern at all times for everyone, war would be nonexistent, because no soldier would agree to an order that would put his or her health in jeopardy. Your argument fails on this point.

My example does put law and medicine in opposition, albeit the example of the American Revolution is imperfect. The colonists were fighting for independence, and that can be roughly equated to “legal security.” You stated that legal security is “always trumped by health concerns,” but the Revolutionary War example demonstrates that falseness of this claim. If health superseded legal security, than the colonists would not have risked, as they did, their health FOR legal security. The war was not about the “land being more just,” it was about independence. If you cannot understand that, then I recommend you reread basic American history.
As far as your blatant disrespect regarding the Revolutionary War, I’ll let you wallow in your own pool of misinformation and ignorance. I am not being idealistic; I am proving to you that motivations beyond immediate physical well-being exist, have existed, and will continue to exist for as long as humans are around.

Your last example is that of a car company. In reading it, I am now certain that you simply cannot comprehend the logical fallacy behind your polemic. My original thesis, once more, stated that law allows for things such as medicine, agriculture, and any of the other sciences to develop. It allows for every facet of human society the opportunity to arise and to mature. Once these disciplines have developed, they begin to function as sub sections of human civilization, developing their own conventions and rules, their own methods of calculation and function. Hence, it is perfectly reasonable to state, as you have, that the engineers are more important, overall, to the car company than its accountants or marketers. But in stating this, you are essentially parroting my argument back to me, without realizing it. To complete the analogy, consider the following: imagine that society is the car company. Law is its engineers. Without law, society dies. Without engineers, the car company dies. In effect, your argument is in support of my position, but because you do not realize your fallacy, you have presented it in opposition.

I hope you did not misunderstand my arguement there, although I have a feeling you did.

The ultimate point of our progress as a civilization is to improve the quality of life. As individuals we seldom care about more than our own life, but in doing so we imrpove the life of the society as a whole, if only incidentally. Health - living to an old age, not ailing from deseases, quick recovery after injuries etc. - along with nutrition is the basic quality of our life. So to say, we judge the quality of our life largely, although not exclusively, by how healthy we are. It is the central point of out existance to improve the quality of life and with it our happiness. All the research in the medical field as well as the work of medical professionsals deals precisely with this aspect of life.

On the other hand, where does the need to live in a just society come into play? Well, its not something we intrinsically desire - if it is on some level than that level is so far off that its not even listed on Maslow's heirarchy. The answer is that we have law out of conviniece, because humans better function within some framework of allowed and disallowed behavior.

Hence my analogy of having lawyers in the company in order for it to funcion more smoothly, not to produce the actual product.

I have to go now. Will finish this later.

Again, you appear to have some kind of “logical” block that is precluding you from understanding the necessity of law, not just to medicine, but to any other discipline. I agree that the ultimate point of civilization is to improve the quality of life, but this cannot happen without law. Society, in the first place, cannot exist unless there is some kind of law. Individuals come together, initially, not because they really want to form society or pursue grand ideals, but because they know that they will be better off with other people assisting them. They will be more secure and more able to accomplish the things they want or need to accomplish. Once this meeting of individuals occurs, the first seed of law is planted, and it is based off the common interests of the individuals that compose the emerging community. One person living alone all their life will be so undeveloped linguistically, socially, and otherwise, that to imagine him or her having the advanced intelligence to create medical breakthroughs is laughable. Once again, you are thinking only in the present context. If you go back far enough, you can make reasonable conclusions on the initial motivations and systems that eventually led to civilization today.

If you read Rousseau, you’ll see a very clear logic that development of society is inevitable as the population increases, so whether we need or do not need to live in a society is irrelevant: it’s going to happen anyway, and that is how law originates. My original argument holds: law is more fundamental and more necessary, in the long run, to society than medicine is. It seems you are simply arguing now because you don’t want to concede.

MW

vs.

Hello everyone,


This is my first post so try not to chew me up please.


I actually have been keeping up with these forums a lot and just never registered an account until today. So first let me say thanks for this wonderful website and forum board. Really helpful to a lot of people including myself.


I come to you all today as an under represented pre law student or rather law school hopeful in desperate need of some help.


The problem is not so much of career path or educational path guidance or concerns and rather the problem I am undergoing at the moment is my FOB parents..... actually not so much my Mother as much as my Father.


I am assuming now everyone knows or has heard of the term of "FOB" --- "Fresh of the Boat"


For those of you who do not know what that means, well in a nutshell your parents are immigrants who migrated to this wonderful free country; The United States of America, and you as a law school hopeful are a naturalized citizen or in other words born in this great country and have to the point where you wish to pursue something that you are 99.9999% certain you want to go for it with your 150% effort but cant seem to just convince your parents to nudge if you will and allow you to pursue your goal in the said problem. Usually this can be attributed to the parents mind-set mentality in respect to their own experiences on any number of personal problems or hardships they may have undergone while migrating or after migrating to this great country we all live in.


If that made any sense well then please bare with me while I explain now the problem...


So yes I am a citizen, and a naturalized citizen, being born and proudly raised in this great country, I have come to the point in my life that I have finally decided what it is I wish to pursue academically and career wise that will hopefully become the foundation for my success. Ofcourse most of you may have guessed what that is; law school!!


One would only expect their parents to be filled with joy, encouragement, a sense of pride, etc and the list goes on and on at the notion that their son having such high hopes and aspirations to now do something that they never could have let alone thought of doing -law school.... well unfortunately for me this is not the reality or the expected outcome that I had hoped.... and this not only makes me a bit confused, but more so a bit sad while also angry and shocked.


Now here is the twist as some of you who read the thread title saw that I said "high prospects"


Before I go any further, please note that if I did not believe in myself that I could academically speaking prove everyone who doubted me 100% that I am true to my goals and will and can meet them head on 100%, then why would I or anyone in such a scenario bother to proceed any further..... does not may make any sense right... well this is exactly what I thought until I realized, this is not me!!!!


In fact, having gone through the educational system that this great country offers us, from preschool to middle school to high school and then even to college and mind you more than half of that was via private schools and not public schools and when it was in public schools, I was distinguished as a high honor roll student consistently meeting or beating expectations by teachers who doubted me, by school benchmarks and hell even the basic instructional criteria that most public high schools expected of students almost 10 years ago. So what am I referring to in high school then, well nothing profound other than the actual state of California educational standards used in public high schools.... if you guessed it YES, I am talking about the high school proficiency exam.


10 years ago the only people in my town which I will choose not to disclose the name of in this public forum & will ask you respect my choice in doing so, had never ever even heard of a high school student challenging the states educational standards by which how they produce a graduating senior class student that meets the minimum required standards to be eligible for and recognized by the state of California for graduation with a diploma. Well I was the first to do this in my school and probably also in my entire town and I live in a fairly big town with a largely diverse community of people. That is, I took and passed the High School Proficiency Exam with flying colors during my first two months in my junior year in high school. And the funny thing is, by doing so, one can choose to leave high school early with a CA state issued diploma with an accompanying letter by the state education department verifying the legitimacy and authenticity of such a diploma by choice of challenging an exam or rather the CA educational high school standards.


Of course since the high school counselors were shocked at this they had little to zero guidance for me on how to build on this successful achievement or rather to put it very blunt, how I may be able to use this to my advantage for the purpose of academic advancement. I remember my father doubting me in that I would pass this exam and also doubting the integrity of the exam itself after having passed it and even called up the counselors at my high school asking pretty much the same things I asked but without all the hype and determined with motivational type way and only after repeated calls did my school counselor finally admit to my father the truth of what this kind of achievement a high school student earns can actually mean to not only the student but the high school also. Now the counseler did not actually give the response to my father with such positive tone let alone emphasis how great an achievement such as this is for the student and how the student can advance with it, so that said let me tell you, if a high school student passes this exam then the school must be bound by the state education code (at least 10 yrs ago they were, not sure about present day) to allow the student and his/her parents to option to remove the student from the high school traditional education 9 - 12 system and allow the student at his/her will to pursue further education through whats called today as "the college early start program" in most community and junior colleges around California. I cannot speak for other states. But the counselor of course did not divulge too much into the benefits of passing this exam and actually went into a little bit of detail on how passing the exam and then optioning to leave the high school would be bad for the high school. How so is it bad you ask? Well as law students or even pre-law students I think you all can understand this problem very simply put that if a student misses or does not attend school, that for every day missed or not attended, the school as a public one will loose money in the amount equivalent to that of the student that would have therefore been granted to the school had the student attended that given school day. (at least this is how it was 10 yrs ago here in CA) So to put this in a computational term; X number of school days missed as result of leaving school multiplied by X number of state awarded dollars to the school per student equals X number of total dollars lost.


And you think why sometimes the high school cops on campus go to students place of residence and drag them to school after X number of absences excused or not.... the term "truancy" should ring a bell here... but anyways not to get off topic..


So from here on out, I was sort of my own counselor since my teachers and my counselors at my high school really didn't give a dam what I would do next, which sucked since in my family I was at this point the first to not only graduate from high school a year and half early but the first to go to college a year and half early. Bare in mind though even at this point the FOB parents and the uncle are involved in my decisions. So some positive guidance from my school counselors in my opinion could have really given me the edge I needed to academically advance beyond my wildest dreams. Well unfortunately that didn't happen and I'm angry to this day about that, I just don't think about it too much and rather focus on my current academics at present hand.


Now understand though that at the time some had said to me and even doubted me, well you know even if you pass the exam what are you going to do. In response to that, I said simply what any other motivated, academically challenged and determined student in my opinion would say, and that was that I would further my education with high hopes of starting college 1 and a half year earlier than the normal college student would.


Unfortunately at the time my counselors were very I dont want to say racist or biased but to some degree of those terms they would sometimes act like that and since I was in high school in my junior year which I believe this was a year after 9/11 these same counselors would always question where I wanted to go with my education and what I wanted to do but in a non useful way. I remember my assigned counselor by first letter of last name had said to me one day that I had went into her office to ask questions about a class I wanted to take, she said to me "How do you feel about what happened on 9/11?" and ironically and out of complete coincidence this question was asked during the same week our US history class was discussing the topic but for actual academic learning experience if you will and not for any other reason. Well I said the same thing I said when my US History teacher put me on the spot light in front of everyone in class, and this was a honest and genuine answer despite many were in disbelief with my response and hey that's just the world we live in today. But I simply said, "Well I believe what happened that day was a very tragic and unfortunate event for many Americans regardless of their faith, and that those responsible should be brought to justice and should answer for their actions they chose to impose on the innocent people that day which resulted in the tragic event we all will remember for a very long time."


Now someone in my shoes would expect such a genuine and heart filled response to be accepted without any doubt, but unfortunately this was not the case and instead of taking any degree of satisfaction with my response to the question asked, the counselor then went on to ask after looking at my high school transcript and hearing that I wanted to take an Arabic class to fulfill the foreign language requirements for high school graduation and the University of CA requirements, that I should consider becoming a language interpreter as this kind of field would be in her opinion be well suited for someone like me.


Now I did not take offense to such a comment, rather I was puzzled as to why she would make such a recommendation when she knowingly already fully understood that I wanted to go to medical school at the time and this is where I set my goals to since early freshman year of high school. Not only that, but the same counselor knew my dad was a physician and also she was the counselor for my older brother about 6 years earlier from my time at this high school and knew that my older brother wanted to study medicine and sort of hinted to her that this was the family tradition if you will at that point in time that everyone was going to go the medical school pathway.


Of course then it clicked in my head later that day after remembering how our US History class discussions that week included idiotic morons who out right said the solution from here on out is to bomb all countries suspected to be involved with the tragic events of 9/11 and in the process little did these mindless students know that innocent civilian bystanders would be hurt if not killed that had very little if not absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and rather after hearing about the tragic event had declared that they condemned the actions of those responsible for 9/11.... and its not that I am personally against anyone who does not agree with my opinions and suggestions on how to approach the problem of how America should bring fourth justice to the criminals of 9/11, its just I never expected that the mindsets of people to be skewed in just 1 direction, even the teachers and counselors and that no one could possibly even entertain the notion that there just might be another means of discourse if you will to resolve the problem while satisfying everyone concerns and issues. And no where had I ever said or thought that bombs would not be needed... but anyways I don't want to get off topic but you can all imagine how it must have been for someone like me who flourished academically but was unfortunately in a community and a high school that really did not care much for you especially in a tragic time and moment in the history of our great country. There are other stories to tell and as educated students we all are to even to come to such a forum like this I think it is safe to say that everyone here can understand that there will always be two sides to a story... i could even say this is where I felt the welcome to a democracy if you will but I think you all get the bigger picture of what I am trying to illustrate here.


So anyways as you may have guessed, I did not get much guidance let alone motivation or support from my counselors or teachers in high school especially after the tragic events of 9/11 and in fact the only way I found out about the California High School Proficiency Exam was through a friend who was attending a private high school at the time and gave me the tip and I still am amazed to myself today that my FOB parents and my uncle could never have offered this kind of positive encouragement or advise rather to make full use of my knowledge and to utilize my skills and academic greatness if you will and to apply it to an exam that fully tests these to the fullest - the California High School Proficiency Exam.


So I decide to leave the high school following the end of my junior year first semester and then I decide to attended the local community college knowingly that I did not want to take the SAT and run off to some university or college without first proving to my parents that the discipline of study that I would later choose would be a not only a viable area of study but also one that would offer a good educational and social experience and a good academic investment return if you will by that point I mean of starting the undergraduate study to the point of employment in the applicable career. Again keep in mind I knew very little about the educational system beyond high school at this time in my life. In fact I only realized that the SAT was not required of me since I was attending now college and was considered a "college transfer student"


Oh and you should all know that in this same college, I was taking college level math and computer science classes well before starting in the college as a full time student and this was actually taking place while I was in high school. (sometimes an evening Friday night class, and sometimes some weekend Saturday classes, all of which were University of California approved transferable classes)


Now you all need to understand despite having FOB parents; one is actually a successful physician if I did not already mention that and the other is an elementary school teacher both trained and educated from the sub Asian continent in the country of Pakistan which many people today recognize as relatively the same as those who came and migrated from India to become citizens of this great country(I guess thats the norm in today's society... go figure), that despite having these kinds of successful in all respects and my hats off to them, but still FOB parents and I really did not want to stoop down to this level of classifying them as FOB parents but after my experience with my Father today, the successful MD, I am left with little to no other alternative choice, that despite having these kinds of FOB parents they did little to nothing to encourage me to pursue the academic and career goals that I wanted to pursue and rather they just pushed their own agenda on me and made every effort to force their own academic and career goals they assumed would be best on me with almost every reason and excuse in the book if you will. Hell even my uncle the other FOB with the MBA from USC who gave up after maybe his fifth or sixth attempt at finding a good high paying job about 30 yrs ago has just recently about 4 or 5 yrs ago resorted to teaching in mathematics at various high schools and finally at vocational colleges working 2 jobs now had also had to put in his 2 cents worth of literally nonsense when you anaylize the bits and pieces of his advice and actually break it down regarding my academic and career goals.


So I really do regret having to resort to a public forum for advice to my specific problem and I feel a bit embarrassed having to do this but I am literally out of options. Keep in mind I have already exhausted all other avenues of academic and career advice. I think I have probably already contacted all my academic counselors, my professors at my school and heck I even contacted prospective future employers in the field of law that I wish to study and practice in one day, but none of them can actually provide any assistance with the kind of problem I am presenting to you all now in this forum so please keep that in mind when you finish reading this post. My thanks to you all in advance.


So now that you know the literal environment I was exposed to during my academic years in high school up till now let me begin illustrating this complex problem I have found myself in and hey maybe some of you reading this have found yourself in a similar situation.


In a nutshell though, if you feel you cannot read the rest of the post and I don't blame you because its already a long one and I apologize for that, here is the short run version:


Did your parents impact your college major or career choice? If no, how did you get them to let you do what you wanted to do both major wise and career wise and what techniques did you use to get them to not only support you on a moral and family basis but on a financial basis if you were classified as dependent on them and not "independent" when it came to matters like financial aid, grants, scholarships on need basis, etc.?


and for those of you who are kind enough to lend me a virtual hand so to speak then I encourage you to read on and offer me your much appreciated assistance with my specific problem today that I am going through.


While in my freshman year in high school I was enrolled in my local community college in some elective courses in "computer science" and I approached them from a hobby stand point and later decided to pick up on computer science with an emphasis on programing.


But this didn't last long, because by the time I was ready to get my hands wet if you will into advanced level programing courses like C, C++, and then C# etc for those of you who are studying this discipline now, my FOB uncle with the MBA again from USC was in my opinion jealous of my soon to become at the time, "success"


So I am with my dad at my 2nd dads house where my uncle was living in at the time and out of bitter jealously I believe my FOB uncle says in response to my answer to his question about what are you studying in college, he says "What is that, give me the book and I will begin programing and writing code in one hour..." and of course he rambles on with utter nonsense and I take this with a grain of salt but bare in mind I am only about 17 and half at this time and I am really confused as to why an uncle that would care so much to bother giving any advice coming from a background with an MBA from USC a prestigious school by the way would make such a ridiculous comment.... anyways FOB mentality at play and I just toss it aside as it goes in one ear and out the other. Only problem is my FOB dad believes the same way and is convinced by the FOB uncle.... so go figure.


So before even getting the chance to start a class in C, C++ etc. I decide well whats the point now if my dad and uncle are opposed to the idea of me studying computer science with an emphasis in programing. And by the way the dad and the uncle are thinking and telling me the only jobs I would be eligible for are in one job market only -that being that they believed has already been saturated with too many people qualified for only so many spots and most of them are being outsourced to places like India where the labor is cheap and the quality is good.


If it were not for the point about the labor being cheap and the quality being good, I would have never dropped the BS degree I was pursuing at the time in Computer Science: Programing.


Now in today's world and even back then little did the FOB uncle or FOB dad know that a BS in Computer Science: Programing can be used for other things to, like in the legal arena in places like patent law, IP law, etc among other things. So here is one angry face point toward the FOB club


So now time is passing by where I am literally reaching the crossing point of where I would have graduated from high school the traditional way had I have stayed through my senior year in high school. So keep in mind now, I pretty much have completed half of what is required to transfer to a University of California in the BS Computer Science: Programing so I am kinda pissed no one told me about the whole outsourcing of the job market for the IT industry ahead of time or let alone and more importantly no one telling me how I could have and still can use the BS degree to explore other disciplines of study such as what I am wanting to do today - law school. Again another point toward the FOB club


Oh and the only real help or encouragement I received was from my grandfather which was during while I was in my high school years up until right before I left the high school to go to college which at that point was when my grandfather had passed away.


He understood that despite my dad having attained his own success as a physician and that he could financially support my educational goals etc, that ultimately it would be up to me to explore what it is I wanted to do but to make sure that I reach success in that decision and that I should be sure of my goals and certain of them. Again I feel like ->> when I realized now that I should have completed the BS Computer Science: Programing despite having the FOB dad and uncle who literally were out of touch with the real world if it was not in the medicine industry and more specifically in the industry of medical school and becoming a doctor only. Both the FOB dad and uncle now very little about the American Educational Standards and the System overall which I have come to realize today and unfortunately my grandfather hinted me of this but I did not catch on until many many years later. So one more point goes to the FOB club


Boy I wish I could have expanded on my discussions I once had with my grandfather


But anyways, so now its a year after when I would have graduated as a senior in high school. So note the year as 2005.


So I finally just give in to my dads wishes for me to study medicine and go to medical school despite my dad never bothers to ask me what it is I actually want to study that I feel that I may really excel and prosper in without any question of doubt. Go figure FOB mentality at play I guess. So one more point to the FOB club


So at this point knowing how high the expecations are for medical school which just so happens to be the one thing my FOB dad knows a lot about since he was 100% involved and committed to getting my older brother and cousin into medical school even if it meant going abroad to foriegn medical schools which happen to also be accredited and accepeted etc. and would allow med. students to sit for the USMLE and then practice medicine here in the USA in a select handful of states, that since he already knew the inns and out if you will of medical school, I knew that my grades just at the undergraduate level needed to be stellar and nothing short.


So I decide to take a basic but college level Biology course with a lab. Now I treat this course as my first college level science with lab course so I have literally no idea what is expected of me and I assume it is only similar to high school biology. With no real urge to study medicine I only manage to pull off a D in this class. After receiving the D I determine well okay maybe I need to improve or update my study skills for these college level science classes. So I take a couple remedial courses to help with that including a "Reading in Science" course which did offer some useful tips and tricks but nothing much that I would have found out on my own from my own research into "Study tips for science classes in college"


So now its the Fall of 2005 and I decide I am ready for more science courses so I take on not one but two courses in chemistry, both with a lab. The tips and tricks I received earlier proved some what useful but not to the extent where it helped to earn an A. In fact I did excel in both chemistry courses but I was not pleased with my grades which turned out to be both C in the two chemistry courses.


I thought okay well maybe I got the two C grades because I tried to take two chemistry classes at once, one being a practical application of chemistry and the other theory both with lab to test methods and experiments.


Despite not being satisfied with the C grades I try to take on a more upper level General Chemistry course now only to see that things are getting worse especially since no one is really guiding me throughout this process as I thought it would be alright to take a Calculus course at the same time with an English course AND that general chemistry course. Now mind you, again I have FOB parents and the uncle and I really had no clue there were counselors available in this college to assist me let alone there was a freaking tutor center with students who had already taken all of these classes and got As in. So I throw this blame on the FOB club on


Oh and that was during Spring of 2006 and coincidentally my other grandfather who also played a big role of encouraging me to excel in my academics at I felt I wanted to do had just passed away


I tried to focus as best I could but I simply could not and so my first "W" or withdrawal is received for dropping out of the General chemistry course that semester of Spring 2006


And from here on it begins to become a spiral effect of Ws in courses I should have Aced. I may not attribute my first W to the FOB club but I sure as hell attribute the 2nd and now 3rd one to them because really if someone had told me to take courses X, Y and Z in one semester and then take courses A, B and C in the next indicating some kind of orderly manner by level of expected work load in respect to what was going on in my life emotionally, I really think I could have done at the very least to an acceptable degree in these courses but no the FOB club failed me again, and so 1 more point to them


So at this point its now Summer of 2006 and I have a W in General Chemistry, an upper level English course, and a psychology course.


I know decide to get this emotional state of mind at peace by traveling overseas to visit and pay my respects to my grandfather who had passed away. FOB club actually decides this but I feel they should have pulled me from school when it happened to do this but nope they do not know anything about the college system and how a family death is permissible for a student to stop his academics and receive what is called an "I" or "Incomplete" in lei of a letter grade to allow the student take care of whatever the matter is and return to school with the proper documentation to then resume and convert the "I" to a properly earned letter grade of "A, B, C, D, or F" by completing pending course work and exams.


I blame the FOB club again for this mess of Ws now on my college transcript that could have been prevented and so 1 more point


Anyways I travel overseas now just before the end of Summer 2006 and then when I return just as I start my Fall Semester of 2006 I discover I am terribly ill as I contracted some kind of stomach related bug or something that put me literally in bed and at home for about a good 4 to 5 months which completely interrupted my Fall 2006 semester and this forced me to drop with a W in my General Physics course. Again I probably could have gotten an "I" instead of a W but no, the FOB club still does not bother to learn how the college system works. So 1 more point attributed to the FOB club.


Now its spring of 2007 and I am just now learning of some of the processes of the college system through a friend and a concerned professor which I am to this day thankful to.


So I evaluate my transcript with my counselors and I come to the conclusion that with this many Ws my prospects of going to medical school are quickly diminishing especially since the time is passing by very very quickly and if I made a long post like this when I decide to apply to medical school assuming I clear all the Ws by repeating those courses of course and the D from earlier, it would be point less since the schools to my understanding, the medical schools here in the United States really do not care so much about the personal problems of students.


Little did I know this is not all entirely true, and even with the FOB dad who is the MD physician the guidance when it came to my transcript was simply non existent. So end result is the academic and career goals my FOB dad wanted me to pursue back fired and in the process my college transcript has taken a real dive so to speak and is filled with unnecessary Ws. So 1 more point to the FOB club


(the one thing I never lost was my sanity, thank god for that!!)


Anyways by the time I realize the college system allows students to pursue an appeals process to change Ws to Icompletes it is almost too late for the many Ws I have accumulated which is really pissed me off now because if anything my FOB dad the MD physician and the FOB uncle the MBA from USC should have told me to appeal the Ws from the college general petition process and provide the necessary documentation to convert them to Incompletes and then to a letter grade. Im not sure how many FOB points this is worth but has to be more than one


Anyways after realizing this big hole the FOB club has dug for me and by the way throught this time it was nothing but utter discouragement if I discussed anything but doing the medicine path to the MD degree. In fact I remember my dad saying to me when I finally decided the MD path is not for me and rather a math degree and/or legal studies degree is for me, and so without even saying or muttering a word of these degrees I was considering my dad says to me one day that "You will do what I tell you to study and if not then you go find a job and take care of your self."


Now I know he really doesn't mean that and he is actually I think just scared of the idea that I may in his mind view end up not having a steady career with a math degree or legal studies degree or any other degree instead of medicine because in fact what surprised me was that he only said what he said above because I left him and my uncle with a mystery of what my new major or choice of study was and this really ticked them both off because they wanted to remain in the loop so to speak but remain in as a silent speaker if you will just watching me while I study in some odd way that they believe which I have yet to this day to understand.


Suffice to say this game of not telling him what I was studying to allow the FOB mentality to take a chill pill was not going to last long, and in fact eventually I needed to out right give him the whole game plan of what i wanted to do from here on if I decided to go the math degree path or if I decided to go the legal studies degree path.


So between the Summer of 2008 , Fall 2008 and now Spring 2009 I have been taking a lot of Law related courses as well as economics and math and I am happy to say my performance is on par where I used to be academically before this mess of starting college early back when I was also going to high school. I have been getting As and Bs and this semester of Spring 2009 I am happy to say I am expecting a 4.0 GPA or all As in 6 classes which translated to 18 units all of which apply to a math degree, legal studies degree and also an economics or a business degree.


So I had been gradually approaching my FOB dad about switching now full time to legal studies to one day go to law school. He is still contempt in accepting that I am serious about this but just recently I have been giving him hints about what field in law I want to study - that being Patent, IP, Trademarks, Copyright, General, and possibly corporate law. This is where the FOB club seems to be making their come back and I fear disaster is imminent despite I have personally decided to myself to just "do what I gotta do to get the job done" as the old phrase of a saying goes.... or something like that and I just mean that Im going to study what I want to where I feel I can attain success and that I feel where success can be attainable. I just wish I would have realized this earlier on when both of my grandfathers were hinting to me about this and how important this was.


So the idea of studying law is 1) something neither my uncle or my dad has ever done. if anything my grandfather that passed away right after my junior year in high school was a judge back in his home country 2) something that scares my dad and uncle in that my level of education will possibly supersede the stereotype and mentality out there in my particular demographic where most people are medical doctors, engineers, or business people but rarely are any lawyers in any respect and 3) and because my dad beleives law is not a technical study in that he means medicine, engineering, etc. he believes there are no jobs for someone of my particular demographic out there in the field and practice of law and as result he further believes I will be financially struggling in my future. (note at this time my dad chooses not to allow me to become independent and create and earn general job experience, obtain pre law internships, or hell even pursue a properly recognized BS degree for the purpose of admission to law school but more importantly for the purpose of being able to sit for the patent bar exam.)


The steps to resolve the above that I have taken:


1) FOB uncle is no longer welcome to give advise to me as result of his own failure with after realizing that he has obtained his MBA from a well renowned school "USC" but decided not to pursue full career employment in the field respective to the MBA. (note, I have only literally expressed this to the FOB dad and not the FOB uncle but I am sure the FOB dad understands my point here)

-1 point for me -


2) I have expressed all of the above to the FOB dad about how he does not understand the american educational system in its entirety and as result is not qualified to offer advise on how to succeed in law school or how to become a patent attorney let alone the steps required to become a "patent agent"


3) I have educated my FOB dad about the profession of patent attorneys and he has responded with all valid questions that I have answered except for one question which is "What is the supply and demand for patent attorneys?"

In context to patent law, I have stated to my dad that this field is dynamic and adapts to legislation by congress and other leaders as well as the economy. This field is very much so dynamic just as our economy is. I feel that having a good technical education with an advanced degree + work experience + many contacts in the field of the said advanced technical degree will help in addition to the J.D. law degree in obtaining employment after law school.


Furthermore I have educated my dad in respect to how patent attorneys are highly encouraged to have strong technical backgrounds with an advanced degree or degrees for which reason I have expressed to my dad that i wish to complete the once started Computer Science Programing BS degree as a supplemental educational qualification to my resume in addition to a currently being pursued "Electrical Engineering" degree at the BS and later Masters level all in addition to the J.D. law degree and then of course later down the road should I decide to start up my own law firm I may complete an MBA of my own just as my FOB Uncle did but actually utilize it in connection to my Electrical Engineering BS and Masters and the Computer Science Programing BS and later Masters.


Of course my dad is a FOB and so all this translated to lots of $$$$$$$$ but not as an investment in my education but rather a huge expense to my dad, but be that as it may, a huge expense if I decide to go to a prestigious law school lets say as I do plan to score in the 99th percentile on the LSAT in addition to this dual BS degree I am currently pursuing with high hopes of a GPA in these 2 fields of discipline to be nothing short of a 3.80 as my target.


I have even sat down with counselors at my school and planned my entire education out for the next 6 years and this was after having spoken to many pre law advisers at schools all over this country in addition to law students currently studying in this field of law as well as attorneys in patent law and IP law.


After having forwarded all of what I have learned and what my plans that I have outlined are to my FOB dad, the only problem he sees is 1) where will I be employed as in which state? Will it be CA? Will it be some other state? and 2) he says you just need to go to any law school and get a J.D. and your done and this is one point that ticks me off the most because he is getting his information from me but also from one of those quick fix schools if you will --LinkRemoved--


Now no disrespect to anyone going to that school but it seems like a utter joke to me if all my efforts are going to get to waste if I end up just going to a small school like that one for just a J.D.


I mean what the hell...


and when I ask him why not the bigger more prestigious schools, like UC Berkley Boalt, George Washington University, etc., his response is "oh they are all the same and teach you the same things"


I of course say no they do not and try and convince him that the quality of the program at the law school is important not to mention for employment purposes and internship purposes you have to go to a prestigious school, well not "have to" as in its required but from what I have gathered from the some odd 20 or so big firms I contacted so far around the country they all want you to come from a top tier school with the advanced degree for patent law plus the experience plus the contacts or in other words the networking you do while in school and before law school must be solid as well as the internships among other things. My FOB dad is just not beleiving me on these things and then when I explain to him the importance of all of this to the bigger picture then the excuse he finally makes up is the cost of the education of all of this.


In the one hand he has a right to question the many degrees I will have in the end but in the other hand he is a doctor and a Physician himself and he should understand this field of law is as technical as it is going to get with patents, IP, etc. especially since its a dynamic and ever changing field of study within law with the many advanced technical degrees that often accompany patent lawyers (ie. bioengineering, civil engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, software engineering, etc.)


Not only that, but this is a respectable field just like him as an MD or physician the patent attorneys are respected all over the world for their work.


I mean what gives...


The only thing I could think of before just giving up and telling him to just foot the bill and let me go to school was that I would bring him along with me to the Convention in Washington DC in June by the LSAC where all the many dozens of law schools will be attending for an open house type show if you will and I was hoping to bring my FOB dad to the event and letting a 3rd person, but a law school admissions official 3rd person to answer and address all my FOBs dad concerns about the entire process.


oh and if i did not say this, I am going to be doing the combined degree program with my JD. Again I have mapped out my entire next 6 to 8 years and I know what I am going to do and how i am going to get there. I just hope the FOB dad can instill some trust at the very least in me and just foot the bill if anything he will do.


oh yeah and the FOB dad does not like the idea of expensive LSAT courses either even though I already bought up a bunch of LSAT books and am preparing for the LSAT way ahead of when I will be taking the exam. Again my goal on the LSAT is to score in the 99th percentile and nothing short of that on my first attempt.


For those of you who can offer help and advice kindly please do so.


Again I am sorry for the very very long post but I just began typing it all up after my final brawl if you will with my FOB dad about why that school he wants me to go, Humphrey college I feel is a joke compared to where I would like to go to for the discipline of law I would like to study.