Bronte wrote:I think this view is partly what leads so many people to go to law school by default and end up miserable. Most people are actually terrible writers, struggle with high leaving reading comprehension, and do not have a knack for rigorous qualitative analysis. People who are very good at math and science often fall into this camp and will readily admit it.
I agree. While there isn't any magic in law school, being a lawyer involves real, difficult skills that need to be mastered. Lots of smart people are capable of doing so, but smart people, just like dumb people, have aptitudes. People are not equally good at all jobs, and in particular, people who make good doctors may not be well suited to lawyering (at least not all forms of it).
In fact, the skills of a good clinician and good litigator are basically inverse: a clinician takes some bits of incomplete data, quickly weighs their relative importance, and tries to quickly synthesize them into a recognizable pattern that will lead to a diagnosis. A lawyer takes a given, known "diagnosis" and tries to deconstruct it into elements so that they can pick selectively pick one data point out of dozens, blow it out of all proportion, and convince other people that it makes the thing nothing like all those others that you thought were exactly the same, despite the clear similarities.