Top law students vs. top med students Forum

[follagordas]

But I have given you my thoughts on the issue. I don't think that med students have a stronger work ethic and necessarily did more in undergrad than law students, or that students who want to go to med school are at heart any better informed or focused about their careers than law students are; their numbers have just been reduced earlier in the process, so the kind of process law students undergo to figure out what they want to do and if law is right for them happens earlier for med students. That is, to the extent med students don't fall into the same kinds of "I don't know what to do with myself" mindset as law students (which I'm not actually convinced of), it's because the application process and even getting to med school at all is different from law school, and weeds out those people.

Beyond that, you have large numbers of really smart people about whom you can't really generalize. (I agree with whoever above pointed out that there are a lot more law schools admitting less-qualified applicants than there are med schools that do so, but you limited your question to top schools only, so we don't need to worry about that.) I don't agree that brain drain is a problem at all - the very top law schools are always going to have very smart students, and to the extent that medians dip a couple of LSAT points or tenths of a GPA, that's not material, because LSAT and GPA are pretty blunt measures for lawyering ability.

Fair enough. I appreciate you articulating your thoughts, though disagree w/ many of your points (e.g. the idea that med students don't do more in undergrad is highly dubious. How else can you account for the higher selectivity in med school apps when, as I pointed out, statistical measures would suggest law/med admissions are equal? The most plausible alternative seems that students are being further selected based off of soft factors, which they presumably have more of. It also simply makes sense from an incentives perspective,which you also touched upon in a different context, given that law students don't have nearly the incentive to pile up soft factors, given their relative lack of importance in admissions).

That is, to the extent med students don't fall into the same kinds of "I don't know what to do with myself" mindset as law students, it's because the application process and even getting to med school at all is different from law school, and weeds out those people.

I totally agree, but how does that invalidate what I'm saying? You seem to be demonstrating my point that various factors (including the admissions process) tend to shape the profiles of med and law students. Part of the exercise in determining said profile is in identifying those factors, which I give you props for doing.


Once again, you disagree w/ my conclusions, and then use that as support for why the question itself is bogus. The only statement that tries to refute the question itself is the following unsubstantiated declaration:

Beyond that, you have large numbers of really smart people about whom you can't really generalize.

Why do you immediately assume there are no ways to generalize? What about Hikikomorist's suggestion about comparing SAT scores? Wouldn't that or some other methodology be a good objective way to generalize?

[landshoes]

I'm not mad, I'm smart. You need someone (not it) to whip your critical thinking skills into shape. you're like "hey guys why don't you fly with me come on!!" and people are pointing out that you don't even know how to get up the stairs into the airplane, much less fly the thing.

hopefully your profs help you out with this by critiquing you, so you can see what you're doing wrong and develop a bit instead of thinking that you know what you're doing and everyone else is a dope for not seeing it (we are not dopes).

I don't recall questioning your intellect (obviously, anger and intelligence are not mutually exclusive, and I specifically highlighted and thanked you for your insightful response). I was honestly just wondering (still wondering, actually) why you're treating my posts w/ hostility, especially the last one, given that it was essentially a peace offering.

As for your analogy (which I don't agree with, but will entertain) if you really think I can't get up the stairs to fly the thing, why don't you help me out instead of simply ridiculing my supposed inadequacies and trying to forestall any efforts to learn? I would argue you seem to be scoffing at the very idea of flying.

Anyway, perhaps this whole exercise is futile. The conversation has obviously derailed, and it appears as though my thread has been a bit of a failure...

You live and you learn I suppose (:

You didn't question my intellect, but you read pointed critique as hostility/anger. Are you used to being the smartest person in the room, and so never having to deal with actual substantive criticism of your ideas?

In terms of the analogy, I am helping you with the stairs by pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. You're interpreting it as hostile because you want me to ignore those flaws. That's silly, though. You should be thinking about how to improve your own ability to spot the issues with your reasoning. The first step is acknowledging the fact that other people have legitimate feedback to give (and that legitimate feedback does not always involve someone telling you that you haven't made mistakes and that everything is brilliant and great).

[t-14orbust]

Initially I thought OP might be a Yalie, since only Yalies lead such care-free lives during 1L, but the OP's masturbatory obsession with prestige and standard test percentiles point to his/her being an HLSer.

Uses the ambiguous "at my LS" after singling out HLS and HMS as "an example". Definitely atttending HLS.

God I hate my school sometimes

[landshoes]

But I have given you my thoughts on the issue. I don't think that med students have a stronger work ethic and necessarily did more in undergrad than law students, or that students who want to go to med school are at heart any better informed or focused about their careers than law students are; their numbers have just been reduced earlier in the process, so the kind of process law students undergo to figure out what they want to do and if law is right for them happens earlier for med students. That is, to the extent med students don't fall into the same kinds of "I don't know what to do with myself" mindset as law students (which I'm not actually convinced of), it's because the application process and even getting to med school at all is different from law school, and weeds out those people.

Beyond that, you have large numbers of really smart people about whom you can't really generalize. (I agree with whoever above pointed out that there are a lot more law schools admitting less-qualified applicants than there are med schools that do so, but you limited your question to top schools only, so we don't need to worry about that.) I don't agree that brain drain is a problem at all - the very top law schools are always going to have very smart students, and to the extent that medians dip a couple of LSAT points or tenths of a GPA, that's not material, because LSAT and GPA are pretty blunt measures for lawyering ability.

Fair enough. I appreciate you articulating your thoughts, though disagree w/ many of your points (e.g. the idea that med students don't do more in undergrad is highly dubious. How else can you account for the higher selectivity in med school apps when, as I pointed out, statistical measures would suggest law/med admissions are equal? The most plausible alternative seems that students are being further selected based off of soft factors, which they presumably have more of. It also simply makes sense from an incentives perspective,which you also touched upon in a different context, given that law students don't have nearly the incentive to pile up soft factors, given their relative lack of importance in admissions).

That is, to the extent med students don't fall into the same kinds of "I don't know what to do with myself" mindset as law students, it's because the application process and even getting to med school at all is different from law school, and weeds out those people.

I totally agree, but how does that invalidate what I'm saying? You seem to be demonstrating my point that various factors (including the admissions process) tend to shape the profiles of med and law students. Part of the exercise in determining said profile is in identifying those factors, which I give you props for doing.


Once again, you disagree w/ my conclusions, and then use that as support for why the question itself is bogus. The only statement that tries to refute the question itself is the following unsubstantiated declaration:

Beyond that, you have large numbers of really smart people about whom you can't really generalize.

Why do you immediately assume there are no ways to generalize? What about Hikikomorist's suggestion about comparing SAT scores? Wouldn't that or some other methodology be a good objective way to generalize?

Like, the bolded...you really can't think of another way to account for the difference in selectivity? You're critical of everyone else's argumentation and yet very credulous about your own assertions/arguments, so you make basic errors. That means that responding to your arguments isn't challenging, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. When people do find flaws in your reasoning, you don't see them or you refuse to acknowledge them. It makes the idea of arguing with you very boring. It seems like it would be an endless cycle of pointing out basic mistakes and then having you respond with the equivalent of "nuhuh" or "stop being hostile." Again, other people are pretty smart. If you can't see how their assertions could possibly be true, why don't you stop and think a little harder before assuming that they're wrong and you're right?

[A. Nony Mouse]

1) the higher selectivity in med school apps is because there are fewer med school openings in relation to doctor positions than there are law school Openings for Lawyers, so fewer people are selected. That doesn't make med students inherently smarter or more competent than law students - just a smaller selection. Also, there are lots and lots of law students with impressive softs, especially at the top schools, as you've already acknowledged. Just because (many) law schools don't select for those things doesn't mean students don't have them.

2) I don't think comparing law students and med students is productive because the structure of the admissions process in each selects for different things. Compare doctors and lawyers who've each made it through their respective graduate schools if you want to make some kind of comparison (which I still don't think is very useful, because they're different professions requiring different skills/personality types and emphasizing different abilities, but it's still a more useful comparison than between med students and law students).

3) comparing people's performance on a test you take as a high school senior to judge their relative intelligence or ability to succeed in their field seems really really pointless to me. Lots of smart people who go on to be really successful punt in high school and get their act together later. Others who ace standardized tests in high school can't function in the real world to save their lives. Unless you're hikiko, who is obsessed with test scores, SAT scores are really uninteresting, and likely shaped much more by socioeconomic background than anything else.

4) yes, I think your question is bogus because its value is based on a lot of presumptions I disagree with. Not sure why that's impermissible.

[follagordas]

Initially I thought OP might be a Yalie, since only Yalies lead such care-free lives during 1L, but the OP's masturbatory obsession with prestige and standard test percentiles point to his/her being an HLSer.

Uses the ambiguous "at my LS" after singling out HLS and HMS as "an example". Definitely atttending HLS.

God I hate my school sometimes

I love the conflation of statistical analysis with "masturbatory obsession" with "test percentiles." I also haven't even mentioned the word prestige in any of my posts; I simply referenced two programs at a good school. If the threshold for a "masturbatory obsession with prestige" is mentioning the name of a top law school, Idk if that shines favorably on anyone posting on a site known as "top law schools."

Just a thought

[dabigchina]

OP, rest assured that most lay people will consider you very smart and impressive. Some will consider doctors smarter and more impressive, but they will consider you smart and impressive nonetheless.

[BigZuck]

Is the OP a throw away alt manufactured simply to test Nony's willingness to waste buckets of E-ink on inane trolls?

Or is this real?

I hope it's not real.

[follagordas]

You didn't question my intellect, but you read pointed critique as hostility/anger. Are you used to being the smartest person in the room, and so never having to deal with actual substantive criticism of your ideas?

What pointed critique though? Aside from your initial post, all I've seen are gratuitous insults, which have somehow progressively escalated throughout the thread. I wholly welcome pointed critiques, such as those by A. Nony Mouse in his last few posts, and I wouldn't mind your insults either if they were actually accompanied by constructive feedback (other than general comments such as how arguing w/ me is like shooting fish in a barrel, or that you're smart and I shouldn't underestimate your intelligence, etc.). We may have different definitions of hostility, but if we were having this conversation irl, I imagine you'd be significantly friendlier.

In terms of the analogy, I am helping you with the stairs by pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. You're interpreting it as hostile because you want me to ignore those flaws. That's silly, though. You should be thinking about how to improve your own ability to spot the issues with your reasoning. The first step is acknowledging the fact that other people have legitimate feedback to give (and that legitimate feedback does not always involve someone telling you that you haven't made mistakes and that everything is brilliant and great).

Again, that would be awesome, I just haven't seen that feedback from you (or almost anyone on this thread besides A. Nony Mouse, whose feedback I have indeed acknowledged on multiple times. I did the same to you after your first post as well, as I've attempted to reiterate on multiple occasions).

Like, the bolded...you really can't think of another way to account for the difference in selectivity

I assume you noticed that that was a question and not an assertion, which was followed by a heavily qualified statement beginning with "the most plausible alternative seems...". Once again, you're "pointed critique" fails to be constructive. How about telling me what the other way to account for that difference is instead of criticizing me for not specifically coming up with one?

[pancakes3]

are you sure you know what masturbatory means?

[landshoes]

You didn't question my intellect, but you read pointed critique as hostility/anger. Are you used to being the smartest person in the room, and so never having to deal with actual substantive criticism of your ideas?

What pointed critique though? Aside from your initial post, all I've seen are gratuitous insults, which have somehow progressively escalated throughout the thread. I wholly welcome pointed critiques, such as those by A. Nony Mouse in his last few posts, and I wouldn't mind your insults either if they were actually accompanied by constructive feedback (other than general comments such as how arguing w/ me is like shooting fish in a barrel, or that you're smart and I shouldn't underestimate your intelligence, etc.). We may have different definitions of hostility, but if we were having this conversation irl, I imagine you'd be significantly friendlier.

In terms of the analogy, I am helping you with the stairs by pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. You're interpreting it as hostile because you want me to ignore those flaws. That's silly, though. You should be thinking about how to improve your own ability to spot the issues with your reasoning. The first step is acknowledging the fact that other people have legitimate feedback to give (and that legitimate feedback does not always involve someone telling you that you haven't made mistakes and that everything is brilliant and great).

Again, that would be awesome, I just haven't seen that feedback from you (or almost anyone on this thread besides A. Nony Mouse, whose feedback I have indeed acknowledged on multiple times. I did the same to you after your first post as well, as I've attempted to reiterate on multiple occasions).

Like, the bolded...you really can't think of another way to account for the difference in selectivity

I assume you noticed that that was a question and not an assertion, which was followed by a heavily qualified statement beginning with "the most plausible alternative seems...". Once again, you're "pointed critique" fails to be constructive. How about telling me what the other way to account for that difference is instead of criticizing me for not specifically coming up with one?

ok you win

[landshoes]

also I'm not friendlier in real life

[Hikikomorist]

1) the higher selectivity in med school apps is because there are fewer med school openings in relation to doctor positions than there are law school openings for lawyers, so fewer people are selected. That doesn't make med students inherently smarter or more competent than law students - just a smaller selection. Also, there are lots and lots of law students with impressive softs, especially at the top schools, as you've already acknowledged. Just because (many) law schools don't select for those things doesn't mean students don't have them.

2) I don't think comparing law students and med students is productive because the structure of the admissions process in each selects for different things. Compare doctors and lawyers who've each made it through their respective graduate schools if you want to make some kind of comparison (which I still don't think is very useful, because they're different professions requiring different skills/personality types and emphasizing different abilities, but it's still a more useful comparison than between med students and law students).

3) comparing people's performance on a test you take as a high school senior to judge their relative intelligence or ability to succeed in their field seems really really pointless to me. Lots of smart people who go on to be really successful punt in high school and get their act together later. Others who ace standardized tests in high school can't function in the real world to save their lives. Unless you're hikiko, who is obsessed with test scores, SAT scores are really uninteresting, and likely shaped much more by socioeconomic background than anything else.

4) yes, I think your question is bogus because its value is based on a lot of presumptions I disagree with. Not sure why that's impermissible.

For comparing one med. student with one law student, SAT scores probably aren't great. But across the populations of med. students and law students, they work fairly well, though they obviously still have their limitations. As to the bolded, I'm pretty sure there have been studies conclusively disproving that.

[follagordas]

are you sure you know what masturbatory means?

I thought so, though admittedly it´s not my most frequently employed adjective. Would love for you to clarify it for me

[KissMyAxe]

Initially I thought OP might be a Yalie, since only Yalies lead such care-free lives during 1L, but the OP's masturbatory obsession with prestige and standard test percentiles point to his/her being an HLSer.

Agreed, there is 0 doubt in my mind OP is at Harvard. I was just about to make a post to see how they liked it there.

And lol at the SAT being determinative of some innate ability.

PS: Also said he was thankful the person wasn't on the admissions committee. That means there was an admissions committee at his school. Checkmate Harvard. (Also called Harvard a good school. No self-respecting Yale student would ever say that of that dumpster-fire).

[kingpin101]

OP how do you feel about HLS's median dropping to 172? Harvard should really stop admitting dumbs, right?

[A. Nony Mouse]

1) the higher selectivity in med school apps is because there are fewer med school openings in relation to doctor positions than there are law school openings for lawyers, so fewer people are selected. That doesn't make med students inherently smarter or more competent than law students - just a smaller selection. Also, there are lots and lots of law students with impressive softs, especially at the top schools, as you've already acknowledged. Just because (many) law schools don't select for those things doesn't mean students don't have them.

2) I don't think comparing law students and med students is productive because the structure of the admissions process in each selects for different things. Compare doctors and lawyers who've each made it through their respective graduate schools if you want to make some kind of comparison (which I still don't think is very useful, because they're different professions requiring different skills/personality types and emphasizing different abilities, but it's still a more useful comparison than between med students and law students).

3) comparing people's performance on a test you take as a high school senior to judge their relative intelligence or ability to succeed in their field seems really really pointless to me. Lots of smart people who go on to be really successful punt in high school and get their act together later. Others who ace standardized tests in high school can't function in the real world to save their lives. Unless you're hikiko, who is obsessed with test scores, SAT scores are really uninteresting, and likely shaped much more by socioeconomic background than anything else.

4) yes, I think your question is bogus because its value is based on a lot of presumptions I disagree with. Not sure why that's impermissible.

For comparing one med. student with one law student, SAT scores probably aren't great. But across the populations of med. students and law students, they work fairly well, though they obviously still have their limitations. As to the bolded, I'm pretty sure there have been studies conclusively disproving that.

You're saying that ability to access prep courses and other prep material, as well as access to better schools generally, don't affect someone's ability to succeed on the SAT?

[Hikikomorist]

1) the higher selectivity in med school apps is because there are fewer med school openings in relation to doctor positions than there are law school openings for lawyers, so fewer people are selected. That doesn't make med students inherently smarter or more competent than law students - just a smaller selection. Also, there are lots and lots of law students with impressive softs, especially at the top schools, as you've already acknowledged. Just because (many) law schools don't select for those things doesn't mean students don't have them.

2) I don't think comparing law students and med students is productive because the structure of the admissions process in each selects for different things. Compare doctors and lawyers who've each made it through their respective graduate schools if you want to make some kind of comparison (which I still don't think is very useful, because they're different professions requiring different skills/personality types and emphasizing different abilities, but it's still a more useful comparison than between med students and law students).

3) comparing people's performance on a test you take as a high school senior to judge their relative intelligence or ability to succeed in their field seems really really pointless to me. Lots of smart people who go on to be really successful punt in high school and get their act together later. Others who ace standardized tests in high school can't function in the real world to save their lives. Unless you're hikiko, who is obsessed with test scores, SAT scores are really uninteresting, and likely shaped much more by socioeconomic background than anything else.

4) yes, I think your question is bogus because its value is based on a lot of presumptions I disagree with. Not sure why that's impermissible.

For comparing one med. student with one law student, SAT scores probably aren't great. But across the populations of med. students and law students, they work fairly well, though they obviously still have their limitations. As to the bolded, I'm pretty sure there have been studies conclusively disproving that.

You're saying that ability to access prep courses and other prep material, as well as access to better schools generally, don't affect someone's ability to succeed on the SAT?

I'm saying that differences in test scores are not primarily driven by those factors, though there is probably considerable correlation.

[juzam_djinn]

Hey all,

Not sure if this has been asked before but was curious as to how the caliber/disposition of students at top law schools (T14 or perhaps even T6 or T3) compared to those of med students at similarly ranked institutions. As a current 1L at HYS with little (read: none) experience interacting with top med students (hence my question), I offer my preliminary thoughts, broken down into three categories: intelligence, work ethic, and personality (this is NOT a post about job prospects or student loan debt, so please refrain from posts regarding either of those topics. Thanks ).

1) Intelligence (obviously an ambiguous term with several potential definitions, but defined here as the capacity to process information and learn about a given topic, also known as fluid intelligence)

a) Test Score Percentiles: although I haven't done an exhaustive analysis, the two seem to be equal on paper. For example, students at HLS actually score higher than HMS students on average (mean of 173 / 99th percentile, vs. 36.16 / 97-98th percentile), though this could obviously be argued by the fact that the caliber of MCAT test takers is probably higher than the average LSAT test takers (some also say that the MCAT is a "tougher" test, though I would argue that the LSAT is more of a test of fluid intelligence than the MCAT, which has more to do w/ knowledge learned in pre-med classes [which some may define as crystallized intelligence]).

b) gpa: Here they seem about "equal," though it is common knowledge that pre-med classes are generally harder (perhaps significantly moreso) than liberal arts courses (at least at my school, it seems like the majority of the class comes have lib arts degrees).

c) selectivity: this fits in more with the next factors imo, but it's worth pointing out the enormous discrepancy in acceptance rates between ls and ms. Even prior to the LS "brain drain," acceptance rates were 3-4 times lower at med schools than at law schools (a lot of this probably has to do w/ emphasis on soft factors in med school admissions, which intuitively seem less tied to intelligence than to work ethic. There's also the concept of "self-selection" that other law students have mentioned, though idk exactly what the means or how convincing that argument is).

2) Work ethic

I don't have much to say on this other than I believe that, on average, med students are probably harder working (perhaps a lot more). Even at my LS, there seem to be a lot of "high functioning procrastinators" (as described by a 3L), who are very intelligent but tend to wait until the last minute to work on assignments (not sure if this is a result of or a reason for the lower workload of a Lib arts degree). Idk from experience but this seems far less likely w/ med students, not just b/c of the larger academic workload but also b/c of the soft factors they must accrue. It's worth pointing out, however, that at least at HYS, people do seem to have a large number of "soft factors," (most of my classmates have intimidatingly impressive resumes, despite the stereotype that LS admissions are mainly a #s game.)

3) Personality

Despite my predictably limited knowledge about top med students, I would assume they are a much more homogeneous group than top law students (considering they most likely actually want to work in the field in which they are studying). In my experience, law students tend to fall into several (sometimes overlapping) categories:

a) serious desire to practice law (pretty small minority, sadly), further divided into:
i) The annoying "I've always liked to argue" subtype (far fewer in my class than I was expecting, thankfully, so perhaps they tend to fill up the lower ranked schools)
ii) The puzzling "I'm a former engineer and think it would be cool now to do patent law" subtype
iii) The naive "I want a prestigious big law job" subtype

b) desire to work in government, public interest, or academia

c) vague sense of wanting to "make a difference in the world," beliefe that law (or at least a law degree) is best avenue

d) total uncertainty regarding professional future, hope that prestigious law degree will salvage or enhance dismal job prospects (often possess high degree of regret and self-loathing for majoring in lib. arts instead of stem or business)

In the case of med students, I would assume their motivations are much less stratified and more defined, with 99% of them wanted to practice medicine and/or perform research. Not sure how this manifests itself into character traits (competitiveness, philosophical mindset, moral code, etc.), which is partly why I ask the question, and hence I look forward to what you have to say regarding this comparison.

In any case, those are my thoughts. Thanks in advance for your responses; as mentioned previously, I look forward to hearing what you have to say.

(Once again, this is NOT a post about job prospects or student loan debt, so please refrain from posts regarding either of those topics. Thanks ).

wtf you started an account to talk about this???

[follagordas]

wtf you started an account to talk about this???

'Tis a good learning experience

[Dcc617]

Just live your life man. Stop trying to measure yourself against silly arbitrary stuff. Just be happy and try to make the world a little better.

[Nebby]

wtf you started an account to talk about this???

'Tis a good learning experience

The only thing we learned is that you're an oddball

[follagordas]

The only thing we learned is that you're an oddball

Perhaps, though I personally prefer the label "intellectually curious." I suppose on a pragmatically-oriented site such as TLS, the two phrases may often be coterminous.

[follagordas]

Just live your life man. Stop trying to measure yourself against silly arbitrary stuff. Just be happy and try to make the world a little better.

Thank you for this. This is a mindset that I aspire to live up to, and I appreciate you articulating it. This thread was by no means intended to be a measuring stick for my own abilities, though in hindsight I agree there would have been much more productive uses of my time than creating and commenting on the topic (as could perhaps be said for most online forum posts)

[Clearly]

I'm literally disgusted.