Medical Student here looking to jump ship... Forum

[DoctorNo]

Meh...I've said my piece. Law> Medicine to society in the long run.

MW

I disagree with this. Priority-wise health always supersedes legal security. I would rather go to jail and live than be free and be dead.

Law is a human construct and serves a peripheral function, whilst medicine deals with intrinsic questions of life and how to improve it.


My advice to OP would be to stay in med school, unless you really hate it and are able to get 172+ on the LSAT.

Hypothetical-how much does family influence admissions? My father attended a particular Ivy for his masters in economics. I was wondering if that would help at all in Law admissions, if at all.

How much does he donate to this particular Ivy?

A decent amount, but probably not a lot by comparison to their more accomplished graduates. I hate admissions for things like this.

[005618502]

A decent amount, but probably not a lot by comparison to their more accomplished graduates.

If they donate enough to where them stopping would be a cause for concern of the school, then it may be an influence. But just having daddy go to the school wont help you.

[Ragged]

Meh...I've said my piece. Law> Medicine to society in the long run.

MW

I disagree with this. Priority-wise health always supersedes legal security. I would rather go to jail and live than be free and be dead.

Law is a human construct and serves a peripheral function, whilst medicine deals with intrinsic questions of life and how to improve it.


My advice to OP would be to stay in med school, unless you really hate it and are able to get 172+ on the LSAT.

Wrong. Law is of fundamental necessity to human society; without it, conventional medicine and agricultural control would likely not be able to develop anywhere near the levels of proficiency they enjoy today. Furthermore, medicine is no less a human construct than law is, so that differentiation seems to rest on a preconceived, albeit false, notion.

In sum, medicine and agriculture necessitate some type of law in order to develop, not the other way around. Law> Medicine.

MW

Edit: Here's a quick way to see what I'm getting at: take away law from society and what do you get? Anarchic friction, disorder, lack of standards, lack of security, and hence, a stifling of progress and development. Take away medicine from society and what do you get? At worst, the Black Death, but does society die out? NO, it remains, unlike what happens if law is removed.

I never said law was unneccesary. Given our human nature, we need law to function as a society. But we do not derive any intrisic benefit from law as we do from medicine, agriculture and even entertainment. Our primary wants include want for life, nutrition, freedom from diseases, having a family, being entertained, etc. We only use human contstructs like law and financial markets in order to achieve those things. Having a just society makes obtaining a good life easier, but its neither neccessery nor sufficient for it.

On the other hand medicine deals with the most important part of our life - our health and life and health and lives of our loved ones. Medicine has already improved the quality of life greatly and is probably going to improve it more in the future. If there was no medicine our quality of life would plummet to the medieval levels. Alot of us would not make it past childbirth etc, death rates of all diseases would skyrocket etc. In fact, having such a great quality of life allowed by the modern medicine is what allows us to direct our attention to aspects of our lives other than survival. Only when people are in good health will they start worrying about justice - not the other way around.


Obviously we all depend on one another - that's the great thing about the division of labour. But saying that LAW>Medicine is a very bold statement and sounds kinda immature.

[DoctorNo]

A decent amount, but probably not a lot by comparison to their more accomplished graduates.

If they donate enough to where them stopping would be a cause for concern of the school, then it may be an influence. But just having daddy go to the school wont help you.

Oh I highly doubt that, lol. Thanks! I was just curious. Still learning about this whole process.

[Ragged]

Meh...I've said my piece. Law> Medicine to society in the long run.

MW

I disagree with this. Priority-wise health always supersedes legal security. I would rather go to jail and live than be free and be dead.

Law is a human construct and serves a peripheral function, whilst medicine deals with intrinsic questions of life and how to improve it.


My advice to OP would be to stay in med school, unless you really hate it and are able to get 172+ on the LSAT.

Hypothetical-how much does family influence admissions? My father attended a particular Ivy for his masters in economics. I was wondering if that would help at all in Law admissions, if at all.

I'm not sure exactly how much influence it would have, but I'm sure that it would have it.

[whymeohgodno]

Depends on the ivy. I know for Cornell Undergrad legacy was of immense help to a few friends I knew. I don't know how it works for law school though.

[005618502]

A decent amount, but probably not a lot by comparison to their more accomplished graduates.

If they donate enough to where them stopping would be a cause for concern of the school, then it may be an influence. But just having daddy go to the school wont help you.

Oh I highly doubt that, lol. Thanks! I was just curious. Still learning about this whole process.

You seem nice, but im gonna be real here for a minute.... dont you think you are relying on your parents a little much at this stage in your life? Im not saying i blame you but they are paying for your med school, you are willing to drop out. You want to know if your dad being an alumni can help you get into a school...your parents are going to pay for law school so its no big deal....and money isnt a concern because of family money?

I mean im glad your financially secure but there is something to be said about making it on your own and not relying on mommy and daddy into your mid to late 20's/rest of your life....

[whymeohgodno]

A decent amount, but probably not a lot by comparison to their more accomplished graduates.

If they donate enough to where them stopping would be a cause for concern of the school, then it may be an influence. But just having daddy go to the school wont help you.

Oh I highly doubt that, lol. Thanks! I was just curious. Still learning about this whole process.

You seem nice, but im gonna be real here for a minute.... dont you think you are relying on your parents a little much at this stage in your life? Im not saying i blame you but they are paying for your med school, you are willing to drop out. You want to know if your dad being an alumni can help you get into a school...your parents are going to pay for law school so its no big deal....and money isnt a concern because of family money?

I mean im glad your financially secure but there is something to be said about making it on your own and not relying on mommy and daddy into your mid to late 20's/rest of your life....

It's not like he's wallowing around. His parents are funding his education which should pay off dividends if he completes med school.

[005618502]

It's not like he's wallowing around. His parents are funding his education which should pay off dividends if he completes med school.

Very true, and good for him! i mean i would take it if my parents paid for my graduate education. But i wouldnt take it for granted. Then again if i hated it i wouldnt want to stay in it either.

Its a combination of that, and just not caring about money prospects in the future because of "family money."

[DoctorNo]

It's not like he's wallowing around. His parents are funding his education which should pay off dividends if he completes med school.[/quote]

Being an economist, my father sees me as a "good investment." His words, not mine. I did take out loans for medical school, but I'm sure that if I continue on another pre-professional path that he sees as such, he'll be willing to help me out with debt and such. I also did go through undergrad without a penny spent, and went to public schools forever, so they're paying significantly for my schooling for the first time all of my life.

[MysticalWheel]

Meh...I've said my piece. Law> Medicine to society in the long run.

MW

I disagree with this. Priority-wise health always supersedes legal security. I would rather go to jail and live than be free and be dead.

Law is a human construct and serves a peripheral function, whilst medicine deals with intrinsic questions of life and how to improve it.


My advice to OP would be to stay in med school, unless you really hate it and are able to get 172+ on the LSAT.

Wrong. Law is of fundamental necessity to human society; without it, conventional medicine and agricultural control would likely not be able to develop anywhere near the levels of proficiency they enjoy today. Furthermore, medicine is no less a human construct than law is, so that differentiation seems to rest on a preconceived, albeit false, notion.

In sum, medicine and agriculture necessitate some type of law in order to develop, not the other way around. Law> Medicine.

MW

Edit: Here's a quick way to see what I'm getting at: take away law from society and what do you get? Anarchic friction, disorder, lack of standards, lack of security, and hence, a stifling of progress and development. Take away medicine from society and what do you get? At worst, the Black Death, but does society die out? NO, it remains, unlike what happens if law is removed.

I never said law was unneccesary. Given our human nature, we need law to function as a society. But we do not derive any intrisic benefit from law as we do from medicine, agriculture and even entertainment. Our primary wants include want for life, nutrition, freedom from diseases, having a family, being entertained, etc. We only use human contstructs like law and financial markets in order to achieve those things. Having a just society makes obtaining a good life easier, but its neither neccessery nor sufficient for it.

On the other hand medicine deals with the most important part of our life - our health and life and health and lives of our loved ones. Medicine has already improved the quality of life greatly and is probably going to improve it more in the future. If there was no medicine our quality of life would plummet to the medieval levels. Alot of us would not make it past childbirth etc, death rates of all diseases would skyrocket etc. In fact, having such a great quality of life allowed by the modern medicine is what allows us to direct our attention to aspects of our lives other than survival. Only when people are in good health will they start worrying about justice - not the other way around.


Obviously we all depend on one another - that's the great thing about the division of labour. But saying that LAW>Medicine is a very bold statement and sounds kinda immature.

I never said that you said that law was unnecessary- where did you come up with that? To state that law provides no intrinsic value to human society is, for a lack of a better word, plain wrong. Law provides the most intrinsic value to human society, more than any other discipline. It does this by enforcing a standard of interaction that allows for the development of things like medicine, agriculture, and entertainment. Furthermore, law is fundamental because it provides a means for securing our “primary wants,” as you state. Without the law, such wants would be orders of magnitude more difficult to acquire, and the transaction costs for securing them would eventually force the development of law anyways. Hence, law is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for the development and existence of human society; to state otherwise is to evince a puerile and/or purely ignorant grasp of what the law is.

As far as your paragraph on medicine, please reference my statement regarding the American Revolution in my previous post. For your convenience, I will post it again here. Example: Think about the American Revolution: did the colonists have to revolt and risk their lives for independence? They knew full well that war with Britain could very well result in death, yet they still pursued the ideals expressed in the Dec. of Independence. There are things that are more important than just preserving life because without such things (e.g., liberty), life would not necessarily be worth living. To state that "health always supersedes legal security" is a statement that either completely misunderstands (or simply does not understand) the American Revolution, or betrays an accurate understanding.

Lastly, medicine has improved quality of life because it has had the opportunity to flourish, an opportunity that would not have existed without the security that law provides. Your argument is fatally flawed because you fail to understand the necessity of law in regards to medicine. The absence of law prevents the development of medicine that ensures “good health.” Only when a minimum level of security and order are established does medicine begin to flourish and become effective.

Therefore, Law IS > Medicine. A failure to realize this is a demonstration of ignorance and callowness.

MW

[DoctorNo]

It's not like he's wallowing around. His parents are funding his education which should pay off dividends if he completes med school.

Very true, and good for him! i mean i would take it if my parents paid for my graduate education. But i wouldnt take it for granted. Then again if i hated it i wouldnt want to stay in it either.

Its a combination of that, and just not caring about money prospects in the future because of "family money."

Well, with whatever money I earn, I can still enjoy solace with the fact that he could invest it in a manner that nets me more than salary can. In my culture, family is everything. So independence and whatnot aren't seen as huge measures of character.

[005618502]

Being an economist, my father sees me as a "good investment." His words, not mine. I did take out loans for medical school, but I'm sure that if I continue on another pre-professional path that he sees as such, he'll be willing to help me out with debt and such. I also did go through undergrad without a penny spent, and went to public schools forever, so they're paying significantly for my schooling for the first time all of my life.

Well put, i respect that.

[005618502]

Anyways, what i think of you is completely irrevelant. Back to thread, if you are miserable in med school then maybe leaving is best. You dont want to be in a profession that you hate for the rest of your life, and yes law is a thinking profession. Seems that you like that...maybe that would be the best route.

Problem is here people see someone in med school as someone with a guaranteed job for life and nothing to worry about, happiness must be taken into account at some point as well

[PinkCow]

It seems like you're being given an unnecessarily hard time about this. If you really think you'd be happier, go for it. I guess if you've got the options, you might as well try instead of always wondering what if.

Practically speaking, I wonder what adcoms will think when they see a med-school withdraw. Obviously, getting into med school takes a lot of effort and motivation, leading to the assumption that you did really want to go to med school. Now that you're switching goals, it seems like something that will have to be qualified. I wonder if they'll think you're non-committal or fickle?

[DoctorNo]

Anyways, what i think of you is completely irrevelant. Back to thread, if you are miserable in med school then maybe leaving is best. You dont want to be in a profession that you hate for the rest of your life, and yes law is a thinking profession. Seems that you like that...maybe that would be the best route.

Problem is here people see someone in med school as someone with a guaranteed job for life and nothing to worry about, happiness must be taken into account at some point as well

Thank you, and I agree. I may wait until third year to see what options are available to me post-boards and if I actually enjoy those. I can already see the writing on the wall, though, and that is that I am a subpar medical student with fairly limited (and exceptionally boring) future options. Thank you for your concerns and advice, though.

[DoctorNo]

It seems like you're being given an unnecessarily hard time about this. If you really think you'd be happier, go for it. I guess if you've got the options, you might as well try instead of always wondering what if.

Practically speaking, I wonder what adcoms will think when they see a med-school withdraw. Obviously, getting into med school takes a lot of effort and motivation, leading to the assumption that you did really want to go to med school. Now that you're switching goals, it seems like something that will have to be qualified. I wonder if they'll think you're non-committal or fickle?

Definitely a concern for me. It's really humorous to me, after seeing my GPA breakdown in AMCAS applications.

[FlanAl]

Did you enjoy your psych classes? couldn't you go down that route?

[FlanAl]

and to MW many great thinkers would disagree with you. and your american revolution example is pretty whack since they mostly were sacrificing the legal order that they lived under in order to make more money (more money = better health?)

personally I agree with you but its no where near as cut and dry as you make it

[DoctorNo]

Did you enjoy your psych classes? couldn't you go down that route?

Well, I could go down grad school route, but I was primarily in it for the degree and the Neuroscience. I worked in a lab.

[Ragged]

I disagree with this. Priority-wise health always supersedes legal security. I would rather go to jail and live than be free and be dead.

Law is a human construct and serves a peripheral function, whilst medicine deals with intrinsic questions of life and how to improve it.


My advice to OP would be to stay in med school, unless you really hate it and are able to get 172+ on the LSAT.

Wrong. Law is of fundamental necessity to human society; without it, conventional medicine and agricultural control would likely not be able to develop anywhere near the levels of proficiency they enjoy today. Furthermore, medicine is no less a human construct than law is, so that differentiation seems to rest on a preconceived, albeit false, notion.

In sum, medicine and agriculture necessitate some type of law in order to develop, not the other way around. Law> Medicine.

MW

Edit: Here's a quick way to see what I'm getting at: take away law from society and what do you get? Anarchic friction, disorder, lack of standards, lack of security, and hence, a stifling of progress and development. Take away medicine from society and what do you get? At worst, the Black Death, but does society die out? NO, it remains, unlike what happens if law is removed.

I never said law was unneccesary. Given our human nature, we need law to function as a society. But we do not derive any intrisic benefit from law as we do from medicine, agriculture and even entertainment. Our primary wants include want for life, nutrition, freedom from diseases, having a family, being entertained, etc. We only use human contstructs like law and financial markets in order to achieve those things. Having a just society makes obtaining a good life easier, but its neither neccessery nor sufficient for it.

On the other hand medicine deals with the most important part of our life - our health and life and health and lives of our loved ones. Medicine has already improved the quality of life greatly and is probably going to improve it more in the future. If there was no medicine our quality of life would plummet to the medieval levels. Alot of us would not make it past childbirth etc, death rates of all diseases would skyrocket etc. In fact, having such a great quality of life allowed by the modern medicine is what allows us to direct our attention to aspects of our lives other than survival. Only when people are in good health will they start worrying about justice - not the other way around.


Obviously we all depend on one another - that's the great thing about the division of labour. But saying that LAW>Medicine is a very bold statement and sounds kinda immature.

I never said that you said that law was unnecessary- where did you come up with that? To state that law provides no intrinsic value to human society is, for a lack of a better word, plain wrong. Law provides the most intrinsic value to human society, more than any other discipline. It does this by enforcing a standard of interaction that allows for the development of things like medicine, agriculture, and entertainment. Furthermore, law is fundamental because it provides a means for securing our “primary wants,” as you state. Without the law, such wants would be orders of magnitude more difficult to acquire, and the transaction costs for securing them would eventually force the development of law anyways. Hence, law is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for the development and existence of human society; to state otherwise is to evince a puerile and/or purely ignorant grasp of what the law is.

As far as your paragraph on medicine, please reference my statement regarding the American Revolution in my previous post. For your convenience, I will post it again here. Example: Think about the American Revolution: did the colonists have to revolt and risk their lives for independence? They knew full well that war with Britain could very well result in death, yet they still pursued the ideals expressed in the Dec. of Independence. There are things that are more important than just preserving life because without such things (e.g., liberty), life would not necessarily be worth living. To state that "health always supersedes legal security" is a statement that either completely misunderstands (or simply does not understand) the American Revolution, or betrays an accurate understanding.

Lastly, medicine has improved quality of life because it has had the opportunity to flourish, an opportunity that would not have existed without the security that law provides. Your argument is fatally flawed because you fail to understand the necessity of law in regards to medicine. The absence of law prevents the development of medicine that ensures “good health.” Only when a minimum level of security and order are established does medicine begin to flourish and become effective.

Therefore, Law IS > Medicine. A failure to realize this is a demonstration of ignorance and callowness.

MW

I agree with the whole "a just legal environment makes for a better and a more productive society." - thats obvious and hard to argue. But what I am trying to say is that law is only a means to an end not an end in itself. Sure, people do rise up against the government in order to defend their rights, but most those people don't expect to die. The ones that do consiously sacrifice themselves for justice, rare to begin with, were probably compelled to do so by the dire conditions they found themselves in. Those people win alot of praise and respect from the public for laying down their most precious pocessing for the good of the public.

Biological need of life is always paramount. When a person gets hit by a car he first goes to a doctor, and only after he/she is in stable health goes to a lawyer. Even the courts recognize this - crimes committed under duress of starvation or direct threat to life are treated much more liniently because lawmakers understand that respect for law is nothng compared to love of ones life.

People break the law to save their life. Not so much the other way around.

Let me give you another example: Lets say there is a company that makes cars. Besides the engeneers and workers, the company also has accountants and lawyers on staff. Certainly the accountants and the lawyers are all necessery to the functioning of the company, but in the end of the day they are only performing supporting functions, peripheral to the central purpose of the company - making cars.



I feel like we are arguing two different points. You are saying that presence of law makes medicine more productive and I don't disagree. All I can say is that presence of medicine makes law more productice too. We could also say that janitors make law and medicine more productive, by keeping the building where doctors and lawyers work clean. We all depend on each other - thats how a society works.

My point is that doctors deal with a more important aspect of our lives than lawyers do.

[MysticalWheel]

and to MW many great thinkers would disagree with you. and your american revolution example is pretty whack since they mostly were sacrificing the legal order that they lived under in order to make more money (more money = better health?)

personally I agree with you but its no where near as cut and dry as you make it

I've reviewed my American Revolution example in light of your criticism and have determined it holds. They were risking their lives for independence. If you say that they were risking their lives for money, then you only strengthen my argument that people, at times, value some things over their immediate physical well-being.

And as far as great thinkers go, I think that there will be plenty that agree with me as well. I don't just post things without thinking about them- without law, human society simply cannot develop. That's my position. I appreciate the critique though.

MW

[FlanAl]

i think you guys are chicken egging it. your saying that obviously we need medicine to fulfill our basic needs. MW's chain is like we need law so that we can have medicine so that we can fulfill our basic needs. i think his is like this "if there were no laws it would be anarchy and there would be no medicine and everyone would die" and yours is like this "if there's no medicine everyone's dead and there'd be no one around for law to even matter"

[FlanAl]

it just seems much more like they gave up legal security to establish what at the time would have been considered anarchy

[FlanAl]

to OP

to elaborate on the psych stuff I feel like what you've learned in Med school would probably at least be applicable and possibly be beneficial even if you decide to go down a very non-sciency humanistic route. i don't know too much about med school or being a GP but I'd guess that mental illness is not as cut and dry as the diseases or whatever is boring you at med school, since psychology is a pseudo-science. I feel like being an MFT or something would let you do the kind of thinking you're looking for without completely throwing away everything you've been working at so far.