Law School Discussion

Law Students => Current Law Students => Topic started by: RootBrewskies on June 06, 2006, 12:01:41 PM

Title: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: RootBrewskies on June 06, 2006, 12:01:41 PM
so, lots of people have finished 1L now.  hey, lots of people are finishing 2L and 3L now.  so the question to everyone is, are you still glad you decided to go to law school? 

there are countless things you could have been doing this last 1,2, or 3 years so are you happy you decided to spend the time at your respective law school?  also are you happy knowing that you've spent this recent time preparing for a career in law? 


Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: tellmeaboutit on June 07, 2006, 01:33:15 AM
Absolutely not. I tend to believe most people stick to law despite being miserable because they can't figure out how they will pay their student loans if they quit law school.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Italian2L on June 07, 2006, 04:37:21 AM
Absolutely not. I tend to believe most people stick to law despite being miserable because they can't figure out how they will pay their student loans if they quit law school.

You have been stinking this place up with negativity. What is it about the law that you hate so much? I realize that there is a very high rate of dissatisfaction in the profession, but do you really believe that 'most people' are 'miserable?'
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: melvin on June 07, 2006, 05:15:18 AM
Quote
What is it about the law that you hate so much? I realize that there is a very high rate of dissatisfaction in the profession, but do you really believe that 'most people' are 'miserable?'


procrastinator, there's not that difficult to figure out what is it about law that makes some (or should I say most) people hate it .. I, for one, do believe that most lawyers are miserable; some of the latter may be well-off financially, but their lives suck.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Italian2L on June 07, 2006, 05:32:26 AM
Quote
What is it about the law that you hate so much? I realize that there is a very high rate of dissatisfaction in the profession, but do you really believe that 'most people' are 'miserable?'


procrastinator, there's not that difficult to figure out what is it about law that makes some (or should I say most) people hate it .. I, for one, do believe that most lawyers are miserable; some of the latter may be well-off financially, but their lives suck.

Yeah okay, I guess it's not difficult to understand what it is about the law that makes some people hate it, I still don't buy that 'most' lawyers are miserable though. Maybe its just luck that most lawyers and law students that I know aren't miserable and actually enjoy their lives.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: melvin on June 07, 2006, 05:35:25 AM
Maybe the law students and lawyers you know do not want to advertise the fact that their lives suck? Just a suggestion ..
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: RootBrewskies on June 07, 2006, 08:48:39 AM
find a job where there arent miserable people doing it.  no matter what it is, someone is always complaining about their job and saying how much their life sucks. 

i'm not asking you guys if there exists a culture of people who would probably be unhappy no matter what they did.  i'm asking if you guys are satisfied with your decision.  do you think you will be happy with your life/career?  are you happy with your life now?  if you could time travel back a year what would u realistically do differently?  would u not go to school?  and do u find yourself sticking with law school simply because you dont think you could pay off your loans if you dont?
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Italian2L on June 07, 2006, 09:00:38 AM
find a job where there arent miserable people doing it.  no matter what it is, someone is always complaining about their job and saying how much their life sucks. 

i'm not asking you guys if there exists a culture of people who would probably be unhappy no matter what they did.  i'm asking if you guys are satisfied with your decision.  do you think you will be happy with your life/career?  are you happy with your life now?  if you could time travel back a year what would u realistically do differently?  would u not go to school?  and do u find yourself sticking with law school simply because you dont think you could pay off your loans if you dont?

I'll be a 3L in the fall and personally I am very happy with my life right now, including my decision to go to law school. I usually enjoy the material and I have made a lot of good friends. I don't know how I will feel about practice, but I'm not expecting to be particularly unhappy. Loans have nothing to do with me sticking it out because I came in with a full ride. In fact, if I could do one thing differently I probably would have gone to a higher ranked school and incurred more debt in order to have better employment prospects instead of taking the safe approach in accepting a scholarship....Or perhaps I would have taken another year or two to goof off. Either way, no serious regrets here.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Italian2L on June 07, 2006, 09:06:09 AM
Maybe the law students and lawyers you know do not want to advertise the fact that their lives suck? Just a suggestion ..

I suppose thats possible, but in my experience most truly miserable people are not all that great at hiding the fact that they're miserable, at least not from people with whom they are more than just casually acquainted. In any case, this is all just anectdotal.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Shadowalker on June 07, 2006, 02:08:39 PM
I will go on record and say it:

Choosing to attend law school was the worst mistake of my life.

I just finished 2L at a tier 1. My GPA is right at the top 10% cutoff and I am also on Law Review. So, my displeasure does not stem from my accomplishments in a classroom. Instead, I have found that with each passing day, I simply just like the law a little bit less. There is no particular reason except I am just not interested in it any longer. The possibility that I may have to deal with law every single day until I die is almost enough to have me pull the trigger and withdraw. But, b/c of the loans, I am sticking it out. I have to pay them back and cannot figure out how I could do so if I quit law school now.

But, in answer to the OP's question, NO -- I am not glad I went to law school. Further, I would encourage every single person thinking about law school to NOT apply until you have dealt with the law in some capacity and know without a doubt that you want to pursue a JD.

If I could do it all over again, I would go to med school, or dental school, or hell . . . maybe just make cocktails on the beach ala Tom Cruise in "Cocktail."
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Texas88 on June 07, 2006, 02:18:38 PM
This is a scary thread.

I hope I still want to be a lawyer after my upcoming 1L year.

Anyone have plans to pursue a new and exciting career?
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: BigRig on June 07, 2006, 03:20:03 PM
Wow, couldn't have read a worse thread at a worse time. I'm sure anxiety and second-guessing is setting in for a lot of will-be 1Ls as we are just two months away.  Perhaps we'll hear some positive experiences (not that I put creedence in what others say here).

It is of my opinion that if you don't make the degree work for you and what you want out of life, you'll be unhappy. You might have to make sacrifices and tough it out for a couple of years along the way (debt is an obvious reason), but a legal education offers the opportunity to grow intellectually and professionally.  Is it half empty or half full?

Necessarily, I think many of the lawyers that are unhappy are so because of their ability to look for potential problems (i.e. what's wrong, risky, dangerous, etc.) in any given situation. This is surely important for legal analysis, but horrible if applied to every facet of life.  I have found that the it's the extremes where you find those that are miserable in the field, whether extremely academic-oriented, extremely firm-oriented, etc.

If you expect the degree to set your life on course by itself, you are mistaken. If you utilize it, you can surely benefit from many exciting, rewarding (monetarily and otherwise) endeavors that otherwise would have likely not occurred.

I am not looking back and know that I will make it a good investment for my life.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: NSFW on June 07, 2006, 04:15:32 PM
Yes, I loved it. That's just my opinion.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: reverendlex on June 07, 2006, 04:17:14 PM
Right now, I'm not glad I spent the last three years in law school. Then again, I'm spending too much time with my new girlfriend Barbri. Definitely high maintainence. Wants all my attention, money, yet won't stop when I want to talk to her. And she only talks about what interests her. I'm planning on dumping her soon, probably some time in late July. I really hope this won't be a rebound relationship.


Besides, my wife is getting jealous.

Was law school worth it? I'll let you know when I start work right after I pass a bar or two.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Lenny on June 07, 2006, 06:09:34 PM
Having just finished law school, I can say that I was one hundred percent satisfied with my experience.  I enjoyed the material and I enjoyed being around smart people that were interested in the things I am interested in.  I am even looking forward to starting my job.  Am I looking forward to working big firm hours for the next few years?  No, I would certainly like to work less and get paid the same, but such is life.  But am I looking forward to the opportunities, flexibility, and credibility that my JD will afford me?  Absolutely.

Law school isn't for everyone, as this thread points out.  But, as in most areas of life, you very rarely hear the people that are satisfied and content screaming and yelling about how content they are.  Instead you hear from those that are unhappy and want to tell others about it.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: mother on June 08, 2006, 03:07:34 AM

But, in answer to the OP's question, NO -- I am not glad I went to law school. Further, I would encourage every single person thinking about law school to NOT apply until you have dealt with the law in some capacity and know without a doubt that you want to pursue a JD.

If I could do it all over again, I would go to med school, or dental school, or hell . . . maybe just make cocktails on the beach ala Tom Cruise in "Cocktail."


Exactly, you hit the @ # ! * i n' nail right on the head! I mean, look at jc! And I have to LOL at that beach thing ;)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: hotdiggity on June 08, 2006, 07:25:10 AM

If I could do it all over again, I would go to med school, or dental school, or hell . . . maybe just make cocktails on the beach ala Tom Cruise in "Cocktail."

threre are miserable dentists and doctors, probably not beach bartenders because that may be the best job known to man. 

I have worked in the legal field before going to law school, I've worked in a DA's office in a major city, and the people in that office seem to be some of the most dedicated and satisified employees I've seen in any profession.  I went into that internship not knowing what I want and workign there made me want to become a prosecutor.  I have no interest in BIGlaw what so ever and I'm glad I don't. What you sacrifice at a DA's office I'm assuming you receive back in satisfaction and a life outside of work.  These people have a softball team, go to the karoke bar after work and do something they enjoy (presenting cases in court) for less hours (most DA's i've met work Mon-Fri 9-6 or 7) Sometime less depending on trials.  But the kick in the ass if that you only start at 46,000 a year, and it's a difficult job to get in to.  Just my two cents.  I"m an incoming 1L and I know a good amount of happy laywers.  So don't let the scaremongers on this site disuade you.  If you went to law school for the right reason (you want to practice Law) then you'll be okay.  If not, you will have a harder time, but then again law school is a glorified trade school, so you wouldn't go and join a union to become a carpenter if the thoughts of swinging a hammer all day pissed you off. 
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: tacojohn on June 08, 2006, 07:29:23 AM
I am very happy I decided to go to law school, but my approach has always been a little different.  I've forced myself to continue thinking that I want to have a J.D. not be an attorney.  I've always tried to approach law school as graduate school, not professional school.  I think it's immensely more enjoyable if you do.  I didn't participate in the 1L job search, I'm just taking a couple class this summer, I didn't sign up for journal or moot court, and the only class ranking I concerned myself with was the one I needed to keep my scholarship.

I think a major problem with the disillusionment of law students is that they don't feel like they have committed themselves to the law for three years, they feel like they have for life.  That's simply not the case.  Are the vast majority of law students going to be working in some tradition legal job for a least a few years at the beginning of their career?  Sure.  But you're not locked in that for life.  And there are a significant number of law students who never work in a tradition legal job.

I think the most you could have possibly commmitted yourself to the law is 10 years.  After three years of law school, and seven years of practice.  At that point reciprocity kicks in to just about every state, you can go anywhere you want, and if you planned right your loans should be paid off.  You'll be in your mid-30's for most law students, and you have at least 30 years of your working career to reinvent yourself and do whatever you want.  Also at that point, if you've been working in a firm you should have a good idea of whether you're going to be up for partner.  So you have that added option which can be explored and might change your mind about the law.

It's probably my biggest criticism of law schools that they force the job search on you so early, and make the law school experience so much about a career and not an education.  If law schools would just offer the help they do in getting a job, and not shove it down your throats, I think a lot of law students would be more enthusiastic about the law, especially 3Ls.  A lot of people complain that employers are dragging students out of law school by the third year, but I think the law schools are shoving them out as fast as they can.  If you maintain a better seperation between you education and your career, at least mentally, the decision to enter law school will not be something you look back on as a decision to lock yourself up in one career for the rest of your life.
Title: .
Post by: re on June 08, 2006, 04:22:10 PM

[...] there's not that difficult to figure out what is it about law that makes some (or should I say most) people hate it ..


1. Law school engenders greed and intellectual myopia.
2. Law school breaks people. It is experienced as a trauma, an assault. If law school changes people, it is rarely for the better.
3. Law leads to self-loathing, mental illness and substance abuse.
4. Law uses fear and shame as a motivating force.
5. With the help of the bar exam, the law school graduate is nothing but a licensed fraud.
6. Law is crowded and full of despair.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: hbo on June 09, 2006, 03:37:57 PM

But the kick in the ass if that you only start at 46,000 a year, and it's a difficult job to get in to. Just my two cents. I'm an incoming 1L and I know a good amount of happy laywers. 


A $46K job difficult to get in to?! LOL!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Mookie on June 09, 2006, 09:38:58 PM
You want to talk about miserable? 

Try working for 3 years as a television journalist for 19,000/year for a monster-corporation that treats its employees like dirt.  Then you'll appreciate the chance to get your J.D. 

What's to complain about?  After all, at the very least, you could hang out your own shingle, make no money - but at least do your own thing and make your own hours.  And as for the colossal debt: nobody forced you to go to Harvard for one-gazillion dollars/semester.  There are such things as in-state public universities.

And one more thing - have a little perspective here: we all have a helluva lot to be thankful for - there are worse things than complaining about making 90,000 instead of 100,000...
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: T. Durden on June 10, 2006, 12:00:02 AM
i have zero regrets - this degree is a means of empowerment... i worked for 3 years after finishing UG - i came to realize during my limited time spent in the rat race that your career success, advancement, etc. isn't necessarily linked nor dependent in any functional way upon how smart you think you are (i.e. how well you perform your particular role / delegation of duties withinin the corporate scheme) but more related to how smart you have *proven* yourself to be - which means, in terms of a modern-day work force translation, that you: you better have a professional degree (and if you do, it better be from a good school). this is all that matters. this is how johnny Q moron ends up running company X. he has the degree, smart guy doesn't - johnny Q gets the job. this time last year i was playing my part in a very tidy hierarchy of subservience. 1L is finished and out of the way and i'm now i'm writing minute entries on summary judgment motions for a judge - he gives me the briefs, etc. and i decide the issue. granted, i'm getting paid zero (1L summer judicial internship position) but the power being placed in my hands is semi-scary ...

and i like it :) it's a step in teh right direction - last year just another automaton in a collared shirt, this year i'm deciding actual issues that actively effect people's lives ...

no - regrets - whatsoever

this time next year 2L SA position with that very handy salary of several g per week ...

yeah, i'm crying a river
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: DutchessA on June 10, 2006, 12:11:50 AM
No regrets...I enjoyed my first year of law school about ten times more than I enjoyed undergraduate.  Perhaps that is because I enjoyed what I was learning...
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: noregrets on June 10, 2006, 04:26:59 AM
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: sine qua non on June 10, 2006, 09:47:03 PM
I don't love or hate law school. It is simply what it is. professional education is not easy. working as a professional is not easy. I agree that attitude determines everything. Find an area of law that you love, but don't expect it to be a trip to Disney World. Try to have fun. for christ's sake, have fun with it if you can.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: NotReally on June 11, 2006, 01:09:23 PM
I just finished my first year.  I am working as a summer associate in a secondary market.  The hours are much shorter than on the coasts.  Most people leave by 6 and don't come in before 8, but they still make way above the median salary for the area.  The new associates have houses and nice cars.  They all seem happy.  I think you have to decide what is important to you and seek a career in the law based on that.  I guess I am strange, but I like to read, research, and learn about new things so the study of law fits me just fine.  I also think lawyers are generally intelligent, well spoken, and interesting people to spend time with.

I don't agree

[...] there's not that difficult to figure out what is it about law that makes some (or should I say most) people hate it ..


1. Law school engenders greed and intellectual myopia.
2. Law school breaks people. It is experienced as a trauma, an assault. If law school changes people, it is rarely for the better.
3. Law leads to self-loathing, mental illness and substance abuse.
4. Law uses fear and shame as a motivating force.
5. With the help of the bar exam, the law school graduate is nothing but a licensed fraud.
6. Law is crowded and full of despair.

I disagree.  I don't think it is law school that engenders greed, but the law firms recruiting law students or the massive student debt.  Nothing about the school, career services activities excepted, has anything to do with being greedy that I have seen.  I have not been assaulted at law school, but pleasently surprised by the collegiality of the professors and other students. 
I don't think the law leads to self-loathing, mental illness or substance abuse.  I think those things come from compromising yourself.  Nothing inherently present in the practice of law causes any of those things.  I doubt lawyers who practice honest and upright law practices loath themselves.
I guess some might say that criminal law uses fear and shame for deterrence and the risk of liability creates a lot of work  for lawyers,but I think of those things not as bad but as good things

Licensed fraud?  give me a break

Law is somewhat crowded and in some this does create despair.  This may sound elitist, but 4th tier private law schools generally put many of their graduates in despairing situations where they cannot pass the bar or get a job or both, but they are still saddled with loads of debt from paying 25k+ per year in tuition. 
Title: How law students find themselves trapped in a corporate cartel.
Post by: supposedly-a-tier-issue on June 12, 2006, 04:34:39 PM


1. Law school engenders greed and intellectual myopia.
2. Law school breaks people. It is experienced as a trauma, an assault. If law school changes people, it is rarely for the better.
3. Law leads to self-loathing, mental illness and substance abuse.
4. Law uses fear and shame as a motivating force.
5. With the help of the bar exam, the law school graduate is nothing but a licensed fraud.
6. Law is crowded and full of despair.

This may sound elitist, but 4th tier private law schools generally put many of their graduates in despairing situations where they cannot pass the bar or get a job or both, but they are still saddled with loads of debt from paying 25k+ per year in tuition.
 

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/students/index.php/topic,2385.msg28310.html#msg28310
Title: Re: How law students find themselves trapped in a corporate cartel.
Post by: creditor harassment on June 13, 2006, 03:41:34 AM


1. Law school engenders greed and intellectual myopia.
2. Law school breaks people. It is experienced as a trauma, an assault. If law school changes people, it is rarely for the better.
3. Law leads to self-loathing, mental illness and substance abuse.
4. Law uses fear and shame as a motivating force.
5. With the help of the bar exam, the law school graduate is nothing but a licensed fraud.
6. Law is crowded and full of despair.

This may sound elitist, but 4th tier private law schools generally put many of their graduates in despairing situations where they cannot pass the bar or get a job or both, but they are still saddled with loads of debt from paying 25k+ per year in tuition.
 

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/students/index.php/topic,2385.msg28310.html#msg28310

Good job, supposedly. Here it is another one,

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/students/index.php/topic,3243.msg23671.html#msg23671
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Budlaw on June 13, 2006, 03:49:47 PM
I'd have to say that after my first year, I'm definately glad that I went to lawschool. It's the best job that I've ever had. (that's right.."job") I've been in the Marines, I've worked Construction, and I've worked as a legal assistant at a law firm. I actually like getting up and going to lawschool, wheras everything else I've done as far as work (including undergrad) I hated getting up in the morning and going to. 

I find the material extremely interesting and I like my professors and most of my classmates. I can't say that about anything else up to this point. The last time I truely enjoyed what I was doing with my life was when I was in High School (which was 10 years ago).

So for now there have been no regrets. Sure Lawschool's a lot of work, but then again so is life. At least this is enjoyable and mentally stimulating work.

So everyone else can complain about school, but when these people complain about lawschool odds are that most of them haven't really had to work for a living in a rough job. I for one am glad that I chose to do what I am doing because I know how it is to have to do something that you hate.

Just my two cents.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: mommy can i eat a gallup on June 13, 2006, 05:35:14 PM

I'd have to say that after my first year, I'm definately glad that I went to lawschool. It's the best job that I've ever had. (that's right.."job") I've been in the Marines, I've worked Construction, and I've worked as a legal assistant at a law firm. I actually like getting up and going to lawschool, wheras everything else I've done as far as work (including undergrad) I hated getting up in the morning and going to. 

I find the material extremely interesting and I like my professors and most of my classmates. I can't say that about anything else up to this point. The last time I truely enjoyed what I was doing with my life was when I was in High School (which was 10 years ago).

So for now there have been no regrets. Sure Lawschool's a lot of work, but then again so is life. At least this is enjoyable and mentally stimulating work.

So everyone else can complain about school, but when these people complain about lawschool odds are that most of them haven't really had to work for a living in a rough job. I for one am glad that I chose to do what I am doing because I know how it is to have to do something that you hate.

Just my two cents.


LOL Budlaw! ;)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Budlaw on June 13, 2006, 05:56:45 PM

I'd have to say that after my first year, I'm definately glad that I went to lawschool. It's the best job that I've ever had. (that's right.."job") I've been in the Marines, I've worked Construction, and I've worked as a legal assistant at a law firm. I actually like getting up and going to lawschool, wheras everything else I've done as far as work (including undergrad) I hated getting up in the morning and going to. 

I find the material extremely interesting and I like my professors and most of my classmates. I can't say that about anything else up to this point. The last time I truely enjoyed what I was doing with my life was when I was in High School (which was 10 years ago).

So for now there have been no regrets. Sure Lawschool's a lot of work, but then again so is life. At least this is enjoyable and mentally stimulating work.

So everyone else can complain about school, but when these people complain about lawschool odds are that most of them haven't really had to work for a living in a rough job. I for one am glad that I chose to do what I am doing because I know how it is to have to do something that you hate.

Just my two cents.


LOL Budlaw! ;)

LOL back at you.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: ® on June 13, 2006, 06:01:20 PM
Definitely happy (that I went). 
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Vonhayes77 on June 14, 2006, 09:06:07 AM
After investing a good deal of time and money on the lsats and applications, I've decided not to attend law school. For the last 6 months, I've worked in a law office and have been grossed out by the unhappy, greedy, elitist people that work here. In talking to people currently in law school I've heard the phrase "biggest mistake of my life" too many times to brush it off as mere "negativity." For many it's reality. Just look at the statistics on job-related depression. Law is #1 by far. A majority of lawyers say they wish they had gone into something else. That is not the norm. I couldn't ignore that.
From talking to many people who've had careers in law or are currently in law school I've learned one thing- whether or not you'll like law school and the profession that follows has a good deal to do with your personality. I would have been the worst person to attend law school. I don't take myself particularly seriously. I don't care much about money, status, etc. I enjoy interacting with people in a more personal way. I am much better suited toward psych/teaching type professions than law. There are academic articles you can read about how law school seeks to strip away your personality. It’s not as nefarious as it sounds, but the point is to get you to “think like a lawyer.” That isn’t a joke. The ultra-competitive atmosphere is by design. The curves are in place to breed a certain type of professional. If you have a more rigid, business-oriented personality than you might love the law. Or if you are truly passionate about going into public interest it may be a great choice.
Having checked these boards regularly for the last year, I’ve noticed a few oft repeated fallacies. One is that “the 40 hour work week is dead. All jobs are at least 50-60 hours, so you might as well get a law degree and clean up monetarily.” What world do these people live in? Are the only careers in the world doctors, lawyers and dentists?
Another fallacy is that people believe the law is incredibly interesting work, while careers in, for example, the government are nothing but “paper pushing.” In some areas, I’m sure this is true. But having seen what corporate lawyers and tax lawyers actually do- shoveling crap would be just as interesting and at least you don’t have to do it 70 hours a week.
Don’t choose your career because it sounds good to your friends and family. Choose what you love or at least what doesn’t make you miserable. Obviously I’m not a law student, so take my advice for what it’s worth. Just because you are smart doesn’t mean you have to go to law school. That being said, I wish all of you the best who choose to attend.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: galex on June 14, 2006, 09:49:07 AM
It's great that you made a decision you feel is right for you, but one question: why didn't you do this research before applying?
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Vonhayes77 on June 14, 2006, 10:04:13 AM
I'd imagine I was much like many others making the choice to go to law school. It's appealing on a surface level and you respond to the actual data on law school with a "that doesn't apply to me attitude." I've seen hundreds of posts on this board with that same tone. Oh 80% of lawyers regret their career choice- I'll be in the 20%. Only the top 10% get high paying jobs. That's okay- I'll be there for sure (even though you have same lsat and level of motivation as everyone else entering school.)
As for the research...I think by quitting the teaching profession and working for lawyers for a while..well, that was sufficient research. Better than coming straight out of undergrad, which was easy as hell, and saying, "80 hours doesn't intimidate me" when I had no actual workplace experience. I don't see anything wrong with starting the application process and continuing to keep an open mind.
Anyway, I'm not trying to be self-congratulatory (sorry if my tone comes across that way). I have no special wisdom to share, only my opinion. I made the right choice for me. Many will go to law school and that will be the right choice for them. I'm only posting because I know there are many like myself out there who may be choosing law school for the wrong reasons.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Budlaw on June 14, 2006, 11:37:17 AM
I'd imagine I was much like many others making the choice to go to law school. It's appealing on a surface level and you respond to the actual data on law school with a "that doesn't apply to me attitude." I've seen hundreds of posts on this board with that same tone. Oh 80% of lawyers regret their career choice- I'll be in the 20%. Only the top 10% get high paying jobs. That's okay- I'll be there for sure (even though you have same lsat and level of motivation as everyone else entering school.)
As for the research...I think by quitting the teaching profession and working for lawyers for a while..well, that was sufficient research. Better than coming straight out of undergrad, which was easy as hell, and saying, "80 hours doesn't intimidate me" when I had no actual workplace experience. I don't see anything wrong with starting the application process and continuing to keep an open mind.
Anyway, I'm not trying to be self-congratulatory (ne comes across that way). I have no special wisdom to share, only my opinion. I made the right choice for me. Many will go to law school and that will be the right choice for them. I'm only posting because I know there are many like myself out there who may be choosing law school for the wrong reasons.

This is some great advice. (and yes I'm being sarcastic) Too bad it's from someone that hasn't been to law-school, and its also by a guy who keeps making up new screen names in order to piss people off and give crappy advice.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Vonhayes77 on June 14, 2006, 01:03:50 PM
Wow, actually I've only had one screen name. Oh, good one- I haven't been to law school. I guess that precludes me from sharing my personal experience of deciding whether or not to attend. And you are exactly the kind of feminine hygiene product bag who belongs in law school! Congrats. Enjoy your loveless existence!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Kazzzzzzzzaaam on June 14, 2006, 01:50:12 PM
I'm ready for it, and excited.  The lawyers I know are very happy, they work in a place that has a high QOL, and a city with a very low COL.  I like nice things, and want my kids to end up more successful than I am.  Doing so requires sacrifice.  Too many people I know skipped college, or are becoming tradesmen and entreprenuers.  I have no entreprenuerial drive, so that idea is scrapped.  I would have loved to teach, but K-12 teachers make squat, and the demand for History professors is a backlog which will leave our generation TAing into their mid-30's.  I didn't have majors that gave me skilled training, like Accounting or Finance, but then again talking with my friends at PriceWaterhouse or KMPG, working 80-100hr weeks there doesn't make any more sense than law.  I have two friends who despise dental school, and are disillusioned that every person our age dreams of opening up a dental practice in S. Florida.  A 40hr week is dead, there is nothing you can do to have a quality of life monetarilly which has only 40-50 hrs, unless of course you have some fluke luck.  Luck and hope are not plans.  Dollar for dollar, and dollar for hours, the sacrifices I will make for law will be no more demanding than any other profession I may have chosen.  And that is applicable to the bankers, entreprenuers, dentists, restaurant owners, web developers, and programmers I know.  Law is just another choice among these, which is an incredibly demanding mistress.  I have been forewarned.  And yet, upon glancing at the alternatives, I am reaffirmed in my resolve.  GLTA this year.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Budlaw on June 14, 2006, 03:41:13 PM
Wow, actually I've only had one screen name. Oh, good one- I haven't been to law school. I guess that precludes me from sharing my personal experience of deciding whether or not to attend. And you are exactly the kind of feminine hygiene product bag who belongs in law school! Congrats. Enjoy your loveless existence!

Share all you want. But if you notice, this board is for Students (of lawschools) and Graduates (of lawschools). Go post your negativity on the kiddy board.

Also, if the Student's and Graduates sign wasn't enough, this particular is entitled "1 year later....still glad u went to lawschool". It's not entitled "Please tell me why you were too big of a female private part to go to lawschool."
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: lor on June 14, 2006, 03:42:50 PM
(http://www.shoplrp.com/product/graphics/30000_student.jpg)

http://www.shoplrp.com/product/p-30000.STUDEN3.html
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Kazzzzzzzzaaam on June 15, 2006, 07:16:29 AM
Wow, actually I've only had one screen name. Oh, good one- I haven't been to law school. I guess that precludes me from sharing my personal experience of deciding whether or not to attend. And you are exactly the kind of feminine hygiene product bag who belongs in law school! Congrats. Enjoy your loveless existence!

Share all you want. But if you notice, this board is for Students (of lawschools) and Graduates (of lawschools). Go post your negativity on the kiddy board.

Also, if the Student's and Graduates sign wasn't enough, this particular is entitled "1 year later....still glad u went to lawschool". It's not entitled "Please tell me why you were too big of a female private part to go to lawschool."


Damn...  that was uncalled for...  FTR, I appreciated his input
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Budlaw on June 15, 2006, 11:54:11 AM
Wow, actually I've only had one screen name. Oh, good one- I haven't been to law school. I guess that precludes me from sharing my personal experience of deciding whether or not to attend. And you are exactly the kind of feminine hygiene product bag who belongs in law school! Congrats. Enjoy your loveless existence!

Share all you want. But if you notice, this board is for Students (of lawschools) and Graduates (of lawschools). Go post your negativity on the kiddy board.

Also, if the Student's and Graduates sign wasn't enough, this particular is entitled "1 year later....still glad u went to lawschool". It's not entitled "Please tell me why you were too big of a female private part to go to lawschool."


d**mn...  that was uncalled for...  FTR, I appreciated his input

Neither was him calling me a feminine hygiene product. Also, I can't stand it when someone who really has no idea what lawschool or the law is about decides to comment on it.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: jason1114 on June 15, 2006, 12:27:21 PM
Share all you want. But if you notice, this board is for Students (of lawschools) and Graduates (of lawschools). Go post your negativity on the kiddy board.

Also, if the Student's and Graduates sign wasn't enough, this particular is entitled "1 year later....still glad u went to lawschool". It's not entitled "Please tell me why you were too big of a female private part to go to lawschool."


TITCR... Put rather bluntly, but really, the "I decided not to go to law school" rants probably belong on the other board.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: hookslaw on June 15, 2006, 07:15:31 PM
Well, well, well, it looks like jason1114 has fallen in love with Budlaw! LOL
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: jason1114 on June 16, 2006, 10:08:48 AM
Yeah, we're going to have f-in' babies... haha
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: sine qua non on June 16, 2006, 09:39:26 PM
After investing a good deal of time and money on the lsats and applications, I've decided not to attend law school. For the last 6 months, I've worked in a law office and have been grossed out by the unhappy, greedy, elitist people that work here. In talking to people currently in law school I've heard the phrase "biggest mistake of my life" too many times to brush it off as mere "negativity." For many it's reality. Just look at the statistics on job-related depression. Law is #1 by far. A majority of lawyers say they wish they had gone into something else. That is not the norm. I couldn't ignore that.
From talking to many people who've had careers in law or are currently in law school I've learned one thing- whether or not you'll like law school and the profession that follows has a good deal to do with your personality. I would have been the worst person to attend law school. I don't take myself particularly seriously. I don't care much about money, status, etc. I enjoy interacting with people in a more personal way. I am much better suited toward psych/teaching type professions than law. There are academic articles you can read about how law school seeks to strip away your personality. It’s not as nefarious as it sounds, but the point is to get you to “think like a lawyer.” That isn’t a joke. The ultra-competitive atmosphere is by design. The curves are in place to breed a certain type of professional. If you have a more rigid, business-oriented personality than you might love the law. Or if you are truly passionate about going into public interest it may be a great choice.
Having checked these boards regularly for the last year, I’ve noticed a few oft repeated fallacies. One is that “the 40 hour work week is dead. All jobs are at least 50-60 hours, so you might as well get a law degree and clean up monetarily.” What world do these people live in? Are the only careers in the world doctors, lawyers and dentists?
Another fallacy is that people believe the law is incredibly interesting work, while careers in, for example, the government are nothing but “paper pushing.” In some areas, I’m sure this is true. But having seen what corporate lawyers and tax lawyers actually do- shoveling crap would be just as interesting and at least you don’t have to do it 70 hours a week.
Don’t choose your career because it sounds good to your friends and family. Choose what you love or at least what doesn’t make you miserable. Obviously I’m not a law student, so take my advice for what it’s worth. Just because you are smart doesn’t mean you have to go to law school. That being said, I wish all of you the best who choose to attend.


i don't see the problem with anything von has said. I almost doubt that he HASN'T attended law school, because his depiction is pretty accurate.

It is elitist. Lawyers DO have higher rates of depression/ substance abuse. It os made to make rabidly competitive professionals... tax law and corporate law ARE boring as hell...and you CAN have a satisfying career and comfortable lifestyle working 40 hours a week. no doubt about it!

so, i say congrats von, because you've made a good decision for you and I promise you there are many law students on this board who deep down HATE law school and the law but are simply too spineless to give up the prestige factor and find jobs they would really love.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: mi on June 18, 2006, 07:04:01 PM

Yeah, we're going to have f-in' babies... haha


Don't take the babies thing lightly! Take a look here,

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,33732.0.html
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Bored 3L on June 18, 2006, 09:52:26 PM
After investing a good deal of time and money on the lsats and applications, I've decided not to attend law school. For the last 6 months, I've worked in a law office and have been grossed out by the unhappy, greedy, elitist people that work here. In talking to people currently in law school I've heard the phrase "biggest mistake of my life" too many times to brush it off as mere "negativity." For many it's reality. Just look at the statistics on job-related depression. Law is #1 by far. A majority of lawyers say they wish they had gone into something else. That is not the norm. I couldn't ignore that.
From talking to many people who've had careers in law or are currently in law school I've learned one thing- whether or not you'll like law school and the profession that follows has a good deal to do with your personality. I would have been the worst person to attend law school. I don't take myself particularly seriously. I don't care much about money, status, etc. I enjoy interacting with people in a more personal way. I am much better suited toward psych/teaching type professions than law. There are academic articles you can read about how law school seeks to strip away your personality. It’s not as nefarious as it sounds, but the point is to get you to “think like a lawyer.” That isn’t a joke. The ultra-competitive atmosphere is by design. The curves are in place to breed a certain type of professional. If you have a more rigid, business-oriented personality than you might love the law. Or if you are truly passionate about going into public interest it may be a great choice.
Having checked these boards regularly for the last year, I’ve noticed a few oft repeated fallacies. One is that “the 40 hour work week is dead. All jobs are at least 50-60 hours, so you might as well get a law degree and clean up monetarily.” What world do these people live in? Are the only careers in the world doctors, lawyers and dentists?
Another fallacy is that people believe the law is incredibly interesting work, while careers in, for example, the government are nothing but “paper pushing.” In some areas, I’m sure this is true. But having seen what corporate lawyers and tax lawyers actually do- shoveling crap would be just as interesting and at least you don’t have to do it 70 hours a week.
Don’t choose your career because it sounds good to your friends and family. Choose what you love or at least what doesn’t make you miserable. Obviously I’m not a law student, so take my advice for what it’s worth. Just because you are smart doesn’t mean you have to go to law school. That being said, I wish all of you the best who choose to attend.


i don't see the problem with anything von has said. I almost doubt that he HASN'T attended law school, because his depiction is pretty accurate.

It is elitist. Lawyers DO have higher rates of depression/ substance abuse. It os made to make rabidly competitive professionals... tax law and corporate law ARE boring as hell...and you CAN have a satisfying career and comfortable lifestyle working 40 hours a week. no doubt about it!

so, i say congrats von, because you've made a good decision for you and I promise you there are many law students on this board who deep down HATE law school and the law but are simply too spineless to give up the prestige factor and find jobs they would really love.

Agreed.  Statistically, a large percentage of lawyers are unhappy in the law and regret their decision to go to lawschool.

Though I do think that if you want to lead a middle-class lifestyle in a major metropolitan area, 40-hour weeks are pretty much dead.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: brewha on June 18, 2006, 10:37:59 PM
Wow, actually I've only had one screen name. Oh, good one- I haven't been to law school. I guess that precludes me from sharing my personal experience of deciding whether or not to attend. And you are exactly the kind of feminine hygiene product bag who belongs in law school! Congrats. Enjoy your loveless existence!

Share all you want. But if you notice, this board is for Students (of lawschools) and Graduates (of lawschools). Go post your negativity on the kiddy board.

Also, if the Student's and Graduates sign wasn't enough, this particular is entitled "1 year later....still glad u went to lawschool". It's not entitled "Please tell me why you were too big of a female private part to go to lawschool."


Haha, I couldn't agree with Budlaw more.  I'll stick up for anyone that HAS gone through that hellish first year of law school before anyone that couldn't/wouldn't/shouldn't any day of the week.  Vonhayes, your useless justification for not personally attending lawschool is entirely irrelevant to the topic of this thread.  We have chosen to go through law school and have completed the most difficult part of the process.  What makes you think that any of us give a sh&t why you chose not to attend... let alone why you believe 80% of us made the decision to attend for the wrong reasons?  It seems to me that your continued posting on the STUDENTS AND GRADUATE side of the board is a lame attempt to become a part of something you lacked the courage to undertake. 

You have no basis upon which to hand out advice or words of wisdom to any of us on this side of the board and I hope you don't begin to post baseless garbage on the Pre-law side of the board to scare potential law students out of a tremendous opportunity. 
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: sine qua non on June 19, 2006, 08:49:49 PM


[/quote]

Statistically, a large percentage of people, regardless of their profession, are probably unhappy with their profession at some point. I doubt job dissatisfaction is a phenomenon of the legal industry.
[/quote]




the point is that lawyers are generally more dissatisfied than those in other vocations
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: crazyhorsetoo on June 20, 2006, 02:44:04 AM
Quote from: brewha link=topic=4539.msg35096#msg35096 date=/

[...] We have chosen to go through law school and have completed the most difficult part of the process. [...] 


Law school is a breeze compared to the life of a junior associate. There are many days when the latter vacillate between wanting to cry or wanting to choke someone. There are way too many associates at LARGE law firms cursed out point blank to their faces. The profession is extremely HIGH STRESS. People need to think about what they want to do with this degree, how much work they are capable of handling and what sort of home life they want to have. If they want to raise kids and have a spouse, that's going to be difficult with 200 billable hours a month. It's a trade off ... do you want more time and less money (gov't) or more money and way less time?

Associates at big law firsm put in 60-70 hour weeks. It's not a glamorous thing as many law students may think it is. Every project is rushed. Billable hours are no joke and as an associate you are often treated like chattel. The hiring wars are simply over, there are more attorneys than available jobs. People struggle to pay their loans. The profession is high stress, a lot of work ... there are many attorneys who are depressed and/or suicidal. You go to work at 7:15 a.m. in the morning and it may be 11 p.m. when you get home again.

The firm life isn't for the faint at heart. Smaller firms are often no better than larger firms when it comes to billables and other matters. Many big law firms require 200 hours a month, which for a new attorney may mean 12-14 hour days.   
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: T. Durden on June 20, 2006, 09:54:20 AM
crazyhorse - have u worked as an associate at a biglaw firm?
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Budlaw on June 20, 2006, 02:35:52 PM
crazyhorse - have u worked as an associate at a biglaw firm?

Of course he hasn't. He's that idiot who goes around with the copy and pasted posts and makes up new screen names for himself everyday. His post smells like something from over on "The Vault's" member page.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: slacker on June 20, 2006, 07:50:48 PM
I went to law school after having worked in various industries for a number of years -- not law, btw. That said, no regrets about going. First year was difficult. Second year was difficult for different reasons. Looking forward to third year at this point.

If you tell yourself "it sucks", yes, that's how you'll see it. If people start whining to me about stuff like that, I remind them that law school is voluntary. If you don't like it, no one's making you stay.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Italian2L on June 21, 2006, 03:24:08 AM
I went to law school after having worked in various industries for a number of years -- not law, btw. That said, no regrets about going. First year was difficult. Second year was difficult for different reasons. Looking forward to third year at this point.

If you tell yourself "it sucks", yes, that's how you'll see it. If people start whining to me about stuff like that, I remind them that law school is voluntary. If you don't like it, no one's making you stay.

Agreed. If you don't like it, get out and quit whining. I'm sick of people telling me that law school is turning me into this or that or the other thing, or that its manipulating me with fear and blah blah blah.

You know what? I've never been afraid of law school. Maybe during the first week or two, or the week before my oral arguments in 1L I was NERVOUS or ANXIOUS about the public speaking aspect, but I certainly wasn't hiding under my bed vomiting like these people make it sound.

Law school is not THAT hard (challenging is a better word for it), its certainly not that scary, and if you don't think its interesting, then leave. Why didn't you do a little research to find out what you were getting into in the first place? I hate to be a male private part about it, but people exaggerate way too much about the horrors of law school. Just leave and find something that you enjoy. Sure you'll have to pay those loans back, but it should only be a semester's worth or a year at the most.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: retail theft on June 21, 2006, 07:33:31 AM

Yeah, we're going to have f-in' babies... haha


Don't take the babies thing lightly! Take a look here,

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,33732.0.html
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: revelareveritas on June 21, 2006, 09:28:19 AM
I will go on record and say it:

Choosing to attend law school was the worst mistake of my life.

I just finished 2L at a tier 1. My GPA is right at the top 10% cutoff and I am also on Law Review. So, my displeasure does not stem from my accomplishments in a classroom. Instead, I have found that with each passing day, I simply just like the law a little bit less. There is no particular reason except I am just not interested in it any longer. The possibility that I may have to deal with law every single day until I die is almost enough to have me pull the trigger and withdraw. But, b/c of the loans, I am sticking it out. I have to pay them back and cannot figure out how I could do so if I quit law school now.

But, in answer to the OP's question, NO -- I am not glad I went to law school. Further, I would encourage every single person thinking about law school to NOT apply until you have dealt with the law in some capacity and know without a doubt that you want to pursue a JD.

If I could do it all over again, I would go to med school, or dental school, or hell . . . maybe just make cocktails on the beach ala Tom Cruise in "Cocktail."

Here's something I don't understand. I've been around lawyers most of my life, and from all accounts, most of them are happy, functional individuals who know how to prioritize their lives. They don't hate their jobs, neither do they regret their decisions to enter law. But when I was considering law school, they told me that they key to tolerating, even enjoying, the law was finding a niche. First, don't go for the big firms and the lucrative cash, they said. Instead, find an area of the law, real estate law, contracts, intellectual property, wills, something you liked, and build a moderate practice handling only those cases. Next, stay out of the courtroom as much as possible. And lastly, use your job to facilitate your life, not your life to facilitate your job. Thus, I am heading for practive in real estate law (real property). I hope to work only enough to comfortably support my family and perhaps make a few land deals myself. Otherwise, I'm going to chill and enjoy being a father and husband of moderate means without killing myself for the new Mercedes, etc. My mother is a family law lawyer, and I can tell you, no amount of money on earth could make me take over her practice... Way too stressful on both her and my father. I just hope she gets the picture before it's too late...  :-[
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: mushayul on June 21, 2006, 03:14:44 PM
I am convinced the reason why so many lawyers are so miserable is because they don't REALLY know what they're getting into. Whoever mentioned people should do some kind of legal work first, I completely agree with that. When faced with the reality of what law firm life is really like, many people would probably decide not to go. Many people (like myself) may be reassured that it is something they want to do.


It should really be a requirement before enrolling in law school. Sadly, a lot less people would still go, and then law schools would lose money, so I guess that idea won't work ;)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: sine qua non on June 21, 2006, 03:51:20 PM
I will go on record and say it:

Choosing to attend law school was the worst mistake of my life.

I just finished 2L at a tier 1. My GPA is right at the top 10% cutoff and I am also on Law Review. So, my displeasure does not stem from my accomplishments in a classroom. Instead, I have found that with each passing day, I simply just like the law a little bit less. There is no particular reason except I am just not interested in it any longer. The possibility that I may have to deal with law every single day until I die is almost enough to have me pull the trigger and withdraw. But, b/c of the loans, I am sticking it out. I have to pay them back and cannot figure out how I could do so if I quit law school now.

But, in answer to the OP's question, NO -- I am not glad I went to law school. Further, I would encourage every single person thinking about law school to NOT apply until you have dealt with the law in some capacity and know without a doubt that you want to pursue a JD.

If I could do it all over again, I would go to med school, or dental school, or hell . . . maybe just make cocktails on the beach ala Tom Cruise in "Cocktail."

Here's something I don't understand. I've been around lawyers most of my life, and from all accounts, most of them are happy, functional individuals who know how to prioritize their lives. They don't hate their jobs, neither do they regret their decisions to enter law. But when I was considering law school, they told me that they key to tolerating, even enjoying, the law was finding a niche. First, don't go for the big firms and the lucrative cash, they said. Instead, find an area of the law, real estate law, contracts, intellectual property, wills, something you liked, and build a moderate practice handling only those cases. Next, stay out of the courtroom as much as possible. And lastly, use your job to facilitate your life, not your life to facilitate your job. Thus, I am heading for practive in real estate law (real property). I hope to work only enough to comfortably support my family and perhaps make a few land deals myself. Otherwise, I'm going to chill and enjoy being a father and husband of moderate means without killing myself for the new Mercedes, etc. My mother is a family law lawyer, and I can tell you, no amount of money on earth could make me take over her practice... Way too stressful on both her and my father. I just hope she gets the picture before it's too late...  :-[

stay out of the courtroom as much as possible?

I'm currently a summer law clerk, and I've been privileged to see quite a bit of court. It's the most fascinating part of my job, and I've personally met and had great conversations with 8 judges so far. I know a lot of legal work is not about going to court, but I'm also pretty sure that most law students hope to be there one day.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: gibbsale on June 21, 2006, 06:09:10 PM
 I don't know if specializing in appellate work outside of criminal law is all that difficult. A guy who went to law school with my father specialized in civil appellate work, and he did well until the Federalist Society justices took over the Michigan Supreme Court. I believe he worked for himself immediately after finishing law school, so I don't know how realistic that would be today.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: slacker on June 21, 2006, 07:23:59 PM
I'm currently a summer law clerk, and I've been privileged to see quite a bit of court. It's the most fascinating part of my job, and I've personally met and had great conversations with 8 judges so far. I know a lot of legal work is not about going to court, but I'm also pretty sure that most law students hope to be there one day.
I have no desire to be in a courtroom. Stick me in a back office. Let me do research and writing. I'll be happy. Courtroom? No thanks.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: xxfgab on June 21, 2006, 07:53:47 PM
Pretty interesting thoughts here!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: sine qua non on June 21, 2006, 09:47:38 PM
well, I'll admit that I am clerking for a large district attorney's office. I've never been interested in anything other than the practice of criminal law. It's largely about going to court and getting tons of trial experience, but of course pre-trial stuff such as investigation and plea negotiations are equally if not more important. Even so, the ADAs relish being in court, and they're always excited to be in the thick of it.

I know there are many people who would love being holed up in a corner doing research. But attorneys in court every day also do legal research on a regular basis, and experience in court, whatever it may be, can only make you a more well-rounded lawyer. You will also encounter more of the legal spectrum-- judges, defense attorneys, law enforcement (on the criminal side), the experts, support staff (who are vital), etc.

I'd also like to add that I recently wrote a lengthy motion that required quite a bit of legal research. Watching the ADA make my arguments in court was nothing short of exhilirating. Here and there, I wanted to jump up and clarify points she made. Even if you don't want to speak in court, you'll probably want to be there to see your work come to fruition. There's nothing like it.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: jason1114 on June 21, 2006, 11:50:47 PM
I am undecided. I think I would be equally suited for both litigation and transactional-ish work. I have thought a lot about becoming a lobbyist though, any body else had the same inclination? Tell me whatcha think...
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Italian2L on June 22, 2006, 03:07:26 AM
I am undecided. I think I would be equally suited for both litigation and transactional-ish work. I have thought a lot about becoming a lobbyist though, any body else had the same inclination? Tell me whatcha think...

I've definitely thought about this. Its not something that I would want to try to get into right away, but I could see myself doing it at some point down the road. I grew up in Alexandria and have always been fascinated by the whole lobbyist culture in the city. Nice suits, shady deals, good parties.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: jason1114 on June 22, 2006, 10:20:01 AM
...Nice suits, shady deals, good parties.

Exactly...  ;D
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: giraffe205 on June 22, 2006, 09:09:47 PM
I love the law!! Sure some areas are more boring than others, but overall I find it fascinating. I may not be helping to close the O Zone layer or feed kids in Africa, but the sense of satisfaction and accomplishment that I get from my work is tremendous. I love figuring complicated stuff out and being bossy. I love being able to tell a judge or partner what I think should happen. I love being right. I love the competition. I love that it's not easy by design.

Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: da! on June 25, 2006, 02:33:08 PM
I love the law!! Sure some areas are more boring than others, but overall I find it fascinating. I may not be helping to close the O Zone layer or feed kids in Africa, but the sense of satisfaction and accomplishment that I get from my work is tremendous. I love figuring complicated stuff out and being bossy. I love being able to tell a judge or partner what I think should happen. I love being right. I love the competition. I love that it's not easy by design.


LOL giraffe! ;)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: RootBrewskies on June 25, 2006, 03:19:41 PM
everyone has been talking about how unhappy lawyers are, so i thought i'd throw this in.  i was talking to a lady at a party today who was a lawyer and said she LOVED being a lawyer.  she said she didnt like law school, but loves being a lawyer.  in fact she said she felt incredibly blessed to have a legal education.  she also said she loved the fact that with a jd she could do almost anything and she also loved that. 

just thought i'd throw that in on everyones 'lawyers are miserable' pity party
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: dbgirl on June 25, 2006, 03:48:20 PM
I have met lots of lawyers who like thier jobs. It's a matter of finding the job that fits you.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Burning Sands on June 25, 2006, 04:49:33 PM
I am convinced the reason why so many lawyers are so miserable is because they don't REALLY know what they're getting into. Whoever mentioned people should do some kind of legal work first, I completely agree with that. When faced with the reality of what law firm life is really like, many people would probably decide not to go. Many people (like myself) may be reassured that it is something they want to do.



I have enjoyed reading the responses here and hope to add my own two cents.

Am I still glad?  The Jury's still out on that one.

After having completed two years of law school I can fully agree with the quote from above that many people are unhappy because they missed that chapter in Planet Law School that said "Don't do this unless you know what you're getting into."  To that end, many of my classmates are/were liberal arts majors who had nothing better to do with their bachelor's degree, weren't making any money in the workforce and just upped and decided to go to law school as some type of a "get rich quick" plan - only to find out that law school and the legal profession is FAR from that.

You can graduate from law school and make $145k or $45k.  Its different from med school where irrespective of what particular residency you enter, you're guaranteed to come out making $150k, $200k, and even $250k in some areas. The law has no such guarantee.  So to the poster in the first few pages who said that there are far easier ways to make (more) money, you couldn't be more correct.

But as far as my personal perspective, the reason why I'm torn is because I actually like the process of learning the law, the intellectual stimulation, being charged with the task of finding the most persuasive answer to a complex fact pattern, etc.  So I like the educational side of law school. 

What I can't stand is the dirt and grime of the legal profession and those in it.  I'm not talking about work or long hours, I'm moreso talking about the elitist attitudes, the snobbery of the law, and all the other nonesense that comes along with actually finding a job in the law. 

I guess my frustration generates from the old school notion that if you work hard and handle your business in the classroom then things like finding a job shouldn't be a problem, but in law school I've discovered the hard way that you can't take anything for granted.  (although I'll concede that this probably doesn't apply if you attend Harvard, but for the rest of us who don't...)


I think what may be the most frustrating aspect for all law students, regardless of what law school you go to, is that the things that may interest us the most within the law usually pay the least.  Not that its all about money, but unfortunately the majority of law students at every law school are faced with a significant amount of debt upon graduation. So its been my experience that we're often forced to sacrifice what we'd like to do for what what will pay the bills.  Personally speaking, I've had the pleasure of externing for a federal judge in the nearby District Court, and I absolutely loved it!  I am currently interning for a mid/large size NYC law firm and I can't say that I'm as thrilled. 

So I guess you could say that I love the substance of the law, but hate the procedures that govern the profession.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: anotheranotherone on June 25, 2006, 07:03:41 PM
The smartest person in my law school class, bar none, dropped out in September or October of our 2L year. He was so happy about it. He snuck into my car and left business cards all over, in the sun visor and the ashtray and the glove compartment and squeezed between the pages of my textbooks, with little messages on the back, saying things like, "Who's still in law school -- CHUMP?" I don't think he had any regrets. And he could have been a great lawyer. He was an accountant, with training in and an instinct for business valuation. He worked at that job way more than the officially permitted 20 hours a week while in school. He had one of the nimblest, most playful minds I've seen. In our moot court exercise I watched, amazed, as he handled the judges' questions, cool as a cucumber. He left because his fiance's father was dying, and his sister had just had a baby born without a small intestine, and he wanted to give them his time, his money, and his attention. And because he didn't care that much about being a lawyer, and thought the indulgence of a legal education wasn't the best use of time or money. And because he wasn't trying to prove anything with law school. If he was at the outset, he'd abandoned those pretenses by second year. 

I was pulling up to the school, stopped at a red light across the street, on the day he dropped out. I watched him coming out of the building. He was wearing a suit, as he often did because of his accounting clients. He hadn't told me that he was dropping out, or even that he was thinking about it, but somehow by the way he walked and held his head I knew he had turned in the paperwork, and that he wasn't coming back. I wished for the light to change so I could catch him, but it didn't, and I watched him get into his car and drive away, leaving the law school behind.

He's a teacher now, and from my spies in the middle school I understand he's a very good one. We, in my law school class, were poorer for his absence. I missed him for a long time; I still miss him sometimes. I've never had another intellectual playmate who had quite the same clever, playful mind. But I think he did the right thing. I thought that then, watching him walking across the lawn to his car. Sometimes you can tell by the way someone carries themselves that they have utter faith in a decision.  I'm not saying it's right for you. But if you know your priorities, and you ask yourself why think you should leave, and why you think you should stay, I think you'll make a good decision. Good luck.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Budlaw on June 25, 2006, 10:24:56 PM
Yet another "original" post. Here's the link to where you stole this from:

http://civpro.blogs.com/civil_procedure/2004/11/quit_law_school.html

 ;)


The smartest person in my law school class, bar none, dropped out in September or October of our 2L year. He was so happy about it. He snuck into my car and left business cards all over, in the sun visor and the ashtray and the glove compartment and squeezed between the pages of my textbooks, with little messages on the back, saying things like, "Who's still in law school -- CHUMP?" I don't think he had any regrets. And he could have been a great lawyer. He was an accountant, with training in and an instinct for business valuation. He worked at that job way more than the officially permitted 20 hours a week while in school. He had one of the nimblest, most playful minds I've seen. In our moot court exercise I watched, amazed, as he handled the judges' questions, cool as a cucumber. He left because his fiance's father was dying, and his sister had just had a baby born without a small intestine, and he wanted to give them his time, his money, and his attention. And because he didn't care that much about being a lawyer, and thought the indulgence of a legal education wasn't the best use of time or money. And because he wasn't trying to prove anything with law school. If he was at the outset, he'd abandoned those pretenses by second year. 

I was pulling up to the school, stopped at a red light across the street, on the day he dropped out. I watched him coming out of the building. He was wearing a suit, as he often did because of his accounting clients. He hadn't told me that he was dropping out, or even that he was thinking about it, but somehow by the way he walked and held his head I knew he had turned in the paperwork, and that he wasn't coming back. I wished for the light to change so I could catch him, but it didn't, and I watched him get into his car and drive away, leaving the law school behind.

He's a teacher now, and from my spies in the middle school I understand he's a very good one. We, in my law school class, were poorer for his absence. I missed him for a long time; I still miss him sometimes. I've never had another intellectual playmate who had quite the same clever, playful mind. But I think he did the right thing. I thought that then, watching him walking across the lawn to his car. Sometimes you can tell by the way someone carries themselves that they have utter faith in a decision.  I'm not saying it's right for you. But if you know your priorities, and you ask yourself why think you should leave, and why you think you should stay, I think you'll make a good decision. Good luck.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: giraffe205 on June 26, 2006, 02:22:56 AM
No matter what field you enter, you're going to find some ppl who love it, some who are lukewarm about it, and some who abosultely hate it. I'm sure that not every car mechanic hates their job, just as I'm sure that not all of them love it. There are teachers who love their jobs and the perks, e.g., three-month summer vacation, but others that hate it.

Everything in life has ups and downs. I personally can't stand it when ppl complain about being miserable. If you don't like it, cut your losses and find something else to do that you at least like better. No one likes a whiner.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: T. Durden on June 26, 2006, 10:09:33 AM
heya burning sands

i feel as if maybe my educational "career" is at least ostensibly following in teh footsteps of your own in the sense that 1) i'm currently in the midst of a judicial externship [which I enjoy as the judge is very, very bright and yet amusing, educational, etc. - and he has absolutely no problem giving me responsibility which I'm definitely not qualified to handle (i.e. writing his ruling minute entry orders on summary judgment and now even writing one of his opinions) - which makes it fun], and 2) in August the fall interview program will begin and I will try my best to land one of these summer associate jobs with a large to mid-sized firm in either DC, NYC, or SF.

You mention that you don't really enjoy the internship with the firm (i'm assuming that this is a SA position) - why not? Compared to your externship experience, what is it that you dislike about the firm position?

just curious...
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: jason1114 on June 26, 2006, 02:59:55 PM
I think most people who end up miserable probably would be miserable regardless of their job. Happiness is what I do when I am not working, regardless of how few hours that happens to be.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Burning Sands on June 26, 2006, 03:32:48 PM
heya burning sands

i feel as if maybe my educational "career" is at least ostensibly following in teh footsteps of your own in the sense that 1) i'm currently in the midst of a judicial externship [which I enjoy as the judge is very, very bright and yet amusing, educational, etc. - and he has absolutely no problem giving me responsibility which I'm definitely not qualified to handle (i.e. writing his ruling minute entry orders on summary judgment and now even writing one of his opinions) - which makes it fun], and 2) in August the fall interview program will begin and I will try my best to land one of these summer associate jobs with a large to mid-sized firm in either DC, NYC, or SF.

You mention that you don't really enjoy the internship with the firm (i'm assuming that this is a SA position) - why not? Compared to your externship experience, what is it that you dislike about the firm position?

just curious...


In my personal opinion, the only good thing about law firms are the salaries they provide.  Everything else about them is negative.  just my 2 cents.

To elaborate, most people complain about the hours...I don't really care abour hours because that's just life. Even if you're working for yourself in your own business you're going to put in hours. But keep in mind, I'm single with no kids so I'm biassed.  If you were trying to have any significant family QT, working at a manhattan firm is not exactly conducive to that.

Also, you have to accept that if you're working for big law you're working for the bad guys.  If you have a strong conscience this is not the job for you.  I handled an employment discrimination/sexual harassment claim the other day and my main job was to find case law that would allow us to conceed that harassment took place but still screw the plaintiffs over by dismissing their case because they missed the statute of limitations time period by a few weeks.  Stuff like that.

But I think my main complaint is that the work that you get at a law firm is monkey work compared to the work you get working for a judge.  Especially in NY.  Assoc's get all this doc review and depostition summaries (not fun) and junk like that.  Don't get me wrong, I've had plenty of research assignments but its just not the same.  I think the District Court experience spoiled me.  I'm used to writing court opinions and picking apart other law firms' case briefs, etc.  You get to see the big picture of the practice working for the court. From the law firm assoc' perspective you only get to see bits and pieces of litigation.

But some people have no problem doing the monkey work after spending 3 years towards a legal education so hey, to each their own.

Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: fat on June 28, 2006, 11:58:03 PM

[...] I've been in the Marines, I've worked Construction, and I've worked as a legal assistant at a law firm. I actually like getting up and going to lawschool, [...]


So basically you're a blue collar guy trying to become a white collar one?
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: slacker on June 29, 2006, 04:40:10 AM

[...] I've been in the Marines, I've worked Construction, and I've worked as a legal assistant at a law firm. I actually like getting up and going to lawschool, [...]


So basically you're a blue collar guy trying to become a white collar one?

Nice sterotyping. Who's to say someone who's "blue collar" can't succeed in law school? Perhaps those who've actually done some manual labor for a living appreciate a desk job more than those who've never appreciated their entitlements.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: amityjo on June 29, 2006, 05:06:46 AM
I love law school, and I love the law. My only regret is that I didn't finish the FIRST time I went to law school. I'm coming off my second time through a 1L curriculum, and I'm so happy to be fulfilling my dream. The first time I went to law school, I had to drop out because of money issues involved with a family crisis. For seven years, the fact that I didn't finish ate at my soul. But now, I'm back to stay.

I know I'm going to be very happy in the legal profession, and I think that this security comes from the fact that I'm 1) very realistic about my job prospects, 2) I'm not in it for the money, and 3) I'm very clear about what it is that I want from my legal education and my legal career. I've been in the work force for 12 years in a very lucrative sales job. While I was making an obscene amount of cash, the problem with those sales jobs is that many are very youth driven - once you get past 40, salary and job security immediately start going downhill. It's assumed that you won't do what it takes for clients because you have a family/life, and frankly, sales organizations want hungry, 23 year old guys to work for them. Plus, there's NO intellectual stimulation. On the other hand, my aunt just retired from an amazing career in law at the age of 93.

So for me, it's really about having some independence and security. No matter what happens to my 401K and social security, I know that I will always be able to work and take care of myself with my degree. Lawyers get BETTER with age, and that experience is what makes or breaks you.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: jason1114 on June 29, 2006, 09:44:17 AM

[...] I've been in the Marines, I've worked Construction, and I've worked as a legal assistant at a law firm. I actually like getting up and going to lawschool, [...]


So basically you're a blue collar guy trying to become a white collar one?

Nice sterotyping. Who's to say someone who's "blue collar" can't succeed in law school? Perhaps those who've actually done some manual labor for a living appreciate a desk job more than those who've never appreciated their entitlements.

Isn't there a movie with Tom Cruise in it with this exact plot?

I'm ex-military as well, and I used to work construction; digging trenches for a living will serve to inspire or confine you forever...
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: lawofficer on July 02, 2006, 09:49:55 PM

1. Law school engenders greed and intellectual myopia.
2. Law school breaks people. It is experienced as a trauma, an assault. If law school changes people, it is rarely for the better.
3. Law leads to self-loathing, mental illness and substance abuse.
4. Law uses fear and shame as a motivating force.
5. With the help of the bar exam, the law school graduate is nothing but a licensed fraud.
6. Law is crowded and full of despair.


- Law professors hide the ball, ignoring their teaching responsibilities, tricking students into thinking the wrong things are important, and not teaching them practical lawyering skills. The law school system allows professors to get away with this active sabotage.

- Law schools shamelessly have raised tuitions to ridiculous levels, while not producing competent attorneys but continuing to funnel students into corporate law firms.

- ABA prevents changes to be made to the system.

- Incompetent and immoral lawyers are the end result of the law school business. So are judges not understanding the law, and law students not caring enough to demand a better education for their money.

- The law school system is set up to keep you in the dark, to trick you, along with 90% of your fellow law students into learning the wrong things and to keep you from becoming a competent lawyer. You don't have any friends out there, so you have to learn it all on your own.

- Law school is meant to crush your spirit and turn you into an immoral (or at least amoral) human being.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: slacker on July 03, 2006, 01:17:20 AM
Law school can't "make" you anything that you don't have the potential to be. It's up to you what you choose to become.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Budlaw on July 03, 2006, 03:40:01 PM
Sadly you're wasting your time arguing with this person Jacy. He just stole his "claims" from this website:

http://blawgcoop.com/badglacier/category/books/

Do a google search on this idiot's original post and you'll see it. Personally I'd like to know what this tool's real screen-name is.




- Law professors hide the ball, ignoring their teaching responsibilities, tricking students into thinking the wrong things are important, and not teaching them practical lawyering skills. The law school system allows professors to get away with this active sabotage.
   The case method is designed to, and generally succeeds, in teaching students how to read a case, how to determine what's important, and how to create favorable rules of law, which is what your clients will expect you to be able to do.
- Law schools shamelessly have raised tuitions to ridiculous levels, while not producing competent attorneys but continuing to funnel students into corporate law firms.
Welcome to the world of higher education.  Private collages and universities are all ridiculously expensive, as are med schools and many grad programs.  Are they also in league with the law schools?
- ABA prevents changes to be made to the system.
How so??
- Incompetent and immoral lawyers are the end result of the law school business. So are judges not understanding the law, and law students not caring enough to demand a better education for their money.
There are just as many incompetent doctors, human resources directors, and McDonald's employees.  Incompetency and immorality are common traits among humanity, and not just the law.  As for judges not understanding the law; that has more to do with the fact that many people who can't think their way out of a paper bag happen to be well connected, and get the high power positions - many would argue that our President is the best example of this.
- The law school system is set up to keep you in the dark, to trick you, along with 90% of your fellow law students into learning the wrong things and to keep you from becoming a competent lawyer. You don't have any friends out there, so you have to learn it all on your own.
Again, incompetency is not a feature of law school; its a feature of life.  Many people that fail to learn to read the law and have difficulty learning the "right" things may just not be fit to be lawyers.  And the fact that so many people expect everything to be hand fed to them is ridiculous.  With a little guidence, if you can't figure things out on your own to some extent, then what does that say about your competency?
- Law school is meant to crush your spirit and turn you into an immoral (or at least amoral) human being.
Many immoral people walk through the doors of law schools every fall.  Law school does not make you immoral.  Being able to argue both sides of an issue is not immoral, contrary to what many in the general public believe.  The people I know that enjoy the law don't feel like law school "crushed their spirits," but many people who went to law school for the wrong reason and doing enjoy what they're doing feel that way.  Gee, I wonder why.  ::)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: jeramiah on July 04, 2006, 07:24:34 PM
Quote from: brewha link=topic=4539.msg35096#msg35096 date=/

[...] We have chosen to go through law school and have completed the most difficult part of the process. [...] 


Law school is a breeze compared to the life of a junior associate. There are many days when the latter vacillate between wanting to cry or wanting to choke someone. There are way too many associates at LARGE law firms cursed out point blank to their faces. The profession is extremely HIGH STRESS. People need to think about what they want to do with this degree, how much work they are capable of handling and what sort of home life they want to have. If they want to raise kids and have a spouse, that's going to be difficult with 200 billable hours a month. It's a trade off ... do you want more time and less money (gov't) or more money and way less time?

Associates at big law firsm put in 60-70 hour weeks. It's not a glamorous thing as many law students may think it is. Every project is rushed. Billable hours are no joke and as an associate you are often treated like chattel. The hiring wars are simply over, there are more attorneys than available jobs. People struggle to pay their loans. The profession is high stress, a lot of work ... there are many attorneys who are depressed and/or suicidal. You go to work at 7:15 a.m. in the morning and it may be 11 p.m. when you get home again.

The firm life isn't for the faint at heart. Smaller firms are often no better than larger firms when it comes to billables and other matters. Many big law firms require 200 hours a month, which for a new attorney may mean 12-14 hour days.   




crazyhorse - have u worked as an associate at a biglaw firm?


Today's lawyers are "an unhappy lot" and many of them wish they had gone into some other line of work, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has told to an overflow audience in a University of Wyoming meeting.

Ethical standards have declined since an era when people "trusted and respected" lawyers. Job dissatisfaction among lawyers is widespread, profound and growing worse. Studies have shown that lawyers are three times as likely as those in other professions to suffer depression, and that drug dependency, divorce and suicide are also significantly more common among them.

A California study showed lawyers to be profoundly pessimistic about the future of the legal profession and found that only half said they would enter the profession if they had it to do over again. At the 30th anniversary of her Stanford Law School class, O'Connor said "the vast majority" of her previous classmates said in response to a question that they would not do it over again if they had the choice to make.

A win-at-all costs mentality prevails. Many attorneys believe that zealously representing their client means pushing all the rules of ethics and decency to the limit. In contemporary practice, lawyers often speak of their dealings with other lawyers as war, and act accordingly. [...]

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/students/index.php/topic,3491.msg29551.html#msg29551
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: misspiggy on July 06, 2006, 06:46:20 PM
Quote from: brewha link=topic=4539.msg35096#msg35096 date=/

[...] We have chosen to go through law school and have completed the most difficult part of the process. [...] 


Law school is a breeze compared to the life of a junior associate. There are many days when the latter vacillate between wanting to cry or wanting to choke someone. There are way too many associates at LARGE law firms cursed out point blank to their faces. The profession is extremely HIGH STRESS. People need to think about what they want to do with this degree, how much work they are capable of handling and what sort of home life they want to have. If they want to raise kids and have a spouse, that's going to be difficult with 200 billable hours a month. It's a trade off ... do you want more time and less money (gov't) or more money and way less time?

Associates at big law firsm put in 60-70 hour weeks. It's not a glamorous thing as many law students may think it is. Every project is rushed. Billable hours are no joke and as an associate you are often treated like chattel. The hiring wars are simply over, there are more attorneys than available jobs. People struggle to pay their loans. The profession is high stress, a lot of work ... there are many attorneys who are depressed and/or suicidal. You go to work at 7:15 a.m. in the morning and it may be 11 p.m. when you get home again.

The firm life isn't for the faint at heart. Smaller firms are often no better than larger firms when it comes to billables and other matters. Many big law firms require 200 hours a month, which for a new attorney may mean 12-14 hour days.   




crazyhorse - have u worked as an associate at a biglaw firm?


Today's lawyers are "an unhappy lot" and many of them wish they had gone into some other line of work, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has told to an overflow audience in a University of Wyoming meeting.

Ethical standards have declined since an era when people "trusted and respected" lawyers. Job dissatisfaction among lawyers is widespread, profound and growing worse. Studies have shown that lawyers are three times as likely as those in other professions to suffer depression, and that drug dependency, divorce and suicide are also significantly more common among them.

A California study showed lawyers to be profoundly pessimistic about the future of the legal profession and found that only half said they would enter the profession if they had it to do over again. At the 30th anniversary of her Stanford Law School class, O'Connor said "the vast majority" of her previous classmates said in response to a question that they would not do it over again if they had the choice to make.

A win-at-all costs mentality prevails. Many attorneys believe that zealously representing their client means pushing all the rules of ethics and decency to the limit. In contemporary practice, lawyers often speak of their dealings with other lawyers as war, and act accordingly. [...]

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/students/index.php/topic,3491.msg29551.html#msg29551

May I suggest that lawyers don't want competitors when they say that they would never go to study law if they had to make that choice again? In other words, it may just be that they are trying to keep people away from entering the elite club, their profession that rewards its members with lots and lots of money!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: frolick on July 08, 2006, 06:13:07 PM

May I suggest that lawyers don't want competitors when they say that they would never go to study law if they had to make that choice again? In other words, it may just be that they are trying to keep people away from entering the elite club, their profession that rewards its members with lots and lots of money!


This is interesting in that it was exactly what I said when people were trying to dissuade me from starting law school some time ago ..
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: blu on July 10, 2006, 02:55:22 AM

This is interesting in that it was exactly what I said when people were trying to dissuade me from starting law school some time ago ..


;)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: oro on July 10, 2006, 04:42:29 PM

Today's lawyers are "an unhappy lot" and many of them wish they had gone into some other line of work, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has told to an overflow audience in a University of Wyoming meeting.

Ethical standards have declined since an era when people "trusted and respected" lawyers. Job dissatisfaction among lawyers is widespread, profound and growing worse. Studies have shown that lawyers are three times as likely as those in other professions to suffer depression, and that drug dependency, divorce and suicide are also significantly more common among them.

A California study showed lawyers to be profoundly pessimistic about the future of the legal profession and found that only half said they would enter the profession if they had it to do over again. At the 30th anniversary of her Stanford Law School class, O'Connor said "the vast majority" of her previous classmates said in response to a question that they would not do it over again if they had the choice to make.

A win-at-all costs mentality prevails. Many attorneys believe that zealously representing their client means pushing all the rules of ethics and decency to the limit. In contemporary practice, lawyers often speak of their dealings with other lawyers as war, and act accordingly.

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/students/index.php/topic,3491.msg29551.html#msg29551


Very depressing!

Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: monetaryorder on July 10, 2006, 04:52:04 PM
Indeed!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: align on July 13, 2006, 01:23:58 AM
If you contemplate joining the legal profession to have fun and to be happy, keep in mind that there's a higher percentage of depression and mental illness among lawyers than other professionals. Attorneys are 4 times more likely to be depressed than the public at large. They have the highest depression rate of any occupational group, and about 20% of them have a substance abuse problem, twice the rate of Americans in general. It is also estimated that 20-40% of law students -- even those entering with the same psychological profile of the public generally -- leave law school with some psychological dysfunction such as depression, substance abuse, or various stress-related disorders. She notes that this percentage is not only unusually high, but is not matched by medical students, for example, who are usually thought to undergo probably the most stressful form of professional training possible. The percentages are lower among medical students.

Now you may say, I'm going to law school for the intellectual challenge. Well, you're likely to be disappointed if you do litigation. You can look forward to endless cycles of scut work ... relentlessly repetitive and strangely unconnected to a dimly recollected purpose in choosing law. And if you go to law school to be loved and respected, forget it! The public perceives lawyers as greedy, arrogant and dishonest.

If you go to law school to get rich, there's some hope that you can achieve that goal, but you will be miserable even when you are rich. Most lawyers are so unhappy with what they're doing, whether they go to work for that big firm that's offering them the big bucks or pursue a career in public interest law.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: BigRig on July 13, 2006, 07:48:14 AM
If you contemplate joining the legal profession to have fun and to be happy, keep in mind that there's a higher percentage of depression and mental illness among lawyers than other professionals. Attorneys are 4 times more likely to be depressed than the public at large. They have the highest depression rate of any occupational group, and about 20% of them have a substance abuse problem, twice the rate of Americans in general. It is also estimated that 20-40% of law students -- even those entering with the same psychological profile of the public generally -- leave law school with some psychological dysfunction such as depression, substance abuse, or various stress-related disorders. She notes that this percentage is not only unusually high, but is not matched by medical students, for example, who are usually thought to undergo probably the most stressful form of professional training possible. The percentages are lower among medical students.

Now you may say, I'm going to law school for the intellectual challenge. Well, you're likely to be disappointed if you do litigation. You can look forward to endless cycles of scut work ... relentlessly repetitive and strangely unconnected to a dimly recollected purpose in choosing law. And if you go to law school to be loved and respected, forget it! The public perceives lawyers as greedy, arrogant and dishonest.

If you go to law school to get rich, there's some hope that you can achieve that goal, but you will be miserable even when you are rich. Most lawyers are so unhappy with what they're doing, whether they go to work for that big firm that's offering them the big bucks or pursue a career in public interest law.

So, have you dropped out yet or just decided not to attend? You make some great points; who is the "she" that you refer to above? It's amazing that so many naive people would enter such a bastion of misery. Thankfully, there are those such as yourself who will steer us in the right direction. Oh wait.. it's precisely this personality trait (i.e. letting others pre-conceived notions guide your choices and hence, what you get out of life) that contributes to the unhappiness you speak of. In any event, I hope that you find an alternative career path where you'll feel there is a greater chance to build your professional and personal happiness.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: jason1114 on July 13, 2006, 07:59:27 AM
[...] who is the "she" that you refer to above?

The author/subject of the article that this fellow cut and paste into the discussion without citation... plagarism...

whatever...
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: blackjesus on July 13, 2006, 03:41:31 PM
Deborah I guess, that's her name, anyway, she has written an excellent book that I recommend to everyone here to read..
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: ln on July 18, 2006, 11:38:29 AM
Awesome thread!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: rhombot on July 18, 2006, 11:48:09 AM
i guess an argument could be made for steering depressed, substance-abusing people toward careers in law. they'll be used to it, and it will help keep healthy people from pursuing careers in law and falling ill as a result.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: veto on July 19, 2006, 01:57:48 AM
Depressed, substance-abusing people become depressed, substance-abusing AFTER they start law school, they are normal when they enter the hell.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: jjason on July 19, 2006, 10:46:31 AM
still into the first year. still glad I went.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Janna116 on July 19, 2006, 02:07:49 PM
Steering this thread back on track...

Entering my 3rd year and regretting law school.  I worked for a mortgage company for three years and yeah it was a dead end low salary job but there was limited responsibilites and when I got home I was home.  Also, right now, my husband lives in one state and I live in another (during the school year).  If I could do it over again I wouldn't.  So what would I be doing if I didn't go to law school, still living in my house with my husband, going to work, hanging out with my coworkers, visiting my family without feeling guilty and ,God willing, being a mother. 

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this but the OP asked for our opinions and this is mine.  Mostly I regret how law school has affected my quality of life and I don't think I am alone in that feeling.

Jen
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Janna116 on July 19, 2006, 06:18:39 PM
Why did you go to school in a different state than your husband??

To make a long story very short:  I was not accepted to any law schools within a 200 mile radius of our pre-law school residence.  I choose a law school that is 6 hours away from our pre-law schol residence, my husband and his job.  And try as he might relocating and finding a job where I go to school has obviously prooved fruitless.  If you are in school, I'm surprised that you don't know many people who have been separated from boyfriends, girlfriends and yes even spouses.  That's life. 

I am not going to say that I am not complaing.  That's the point of this thread.  Not to complain but to state whether we are happy with our choice to attend law school.  And I can't express why I am unhappy with my choice without complaining just a little bit.  Or I guess I can't express why I am unhappy with my choice without sounding like I am complaining. Again, that's life and that's where my choices, our choices have led me.  But I don't have to be happy about it and that's how I gave my answer to the OP.

Jen
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: lalala on July 19, 2006, 06:20:39 PM
Depressed, substance-abusing people become depressed, substance-abusing AFTER they start law school, they are normal when they enter the hell.

I think I've seen a study on that somewhere. 


On a related note, has anyone read   Making Docile Lawyers: An Essay on the Pacification of Law Students, 111 Harv. L. Rev. 2027 (1998)?  It's an amazingly frank and brutally honest account of what law school does to many students, written by an HLS student.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Budlaw on July 19, 2006, 08:49:02 PM
Depressed, substance-abusing people become depressed, substance-abusing AFTER they start law school, they are normal when they enter the hell.

I think I've seen a study on that somewhere. 


On a related note, has anyone read   Making Docile Lawyers: An Essay on the Pacification of Law Students, 111 Harv. L. Rev. 2027 (1998)?  It's an amazingly frank and brutally honest account of what law school does to many students, written by an HLS student.

Funny I'm not a coke addict yet. What exactly DOES lawschool do to students besides teach them to become lawyers? If you're going to become an alcoholic or drug addict you don't need lawschool to do that to you. You can do that on your own. That article you reference is mere propoganda.

I'm from South Georgia. I knew people that were drug addicts and alcoholics and they never even went to college. What is your point?

Get real, lawschool doesn't make people alcoholics or drug addicts, people turn themselves into these things. Further what school do you go to that it's a "hell"? I've yet to see fire and brimstone or any demons at Florida State.

You and the "intellectual" Harvard student that wrote the article you reference are absurd if you think that it's lawschool that makes someone an addict.

Idiots.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: kmpnj on July 19, 2006, 11:34:23 PM
Depressed, substance-abusing people become depressed, substance-abusing AFTER they start law school, they are normal when they enter the hell.

I think I've seen a study on that somewhere. 


On a related note, has anyone read   Making Docile Lawyers: An Essay on the Pacification of Law Students, 111 Harv. L. Rev. 2027 (1998)?  It's an amazingly frank and brutally honest account of what law school does to many students, written by an HLS student.

Funny I'm not a coke addict yet. What exactly DOES lawschool do to students besides teach them to become lawyers? If you're going to become an alcoholic or drug addict you don't need lawschool to do that to you. You can do that on your own. That article you reference is mere propoganda.

I'm from South Georgia. I knew people that were drug addicts and alcoholics and they never even went to college. What is your point?

Get real, lawschool doesn't make people alcoholics or drug addicts, people turn themselves into these things. Further what school do you go to that it's a "hell"? I've yet to see fire and brimstone or any demons at Florida State.

You and the "intellectual" Harvard student that wrote the article you reference are absurd if you think that it's lawschool that makes someone an addict.

Idiots.

I would tend to agree that people who turn to substance abuse to deal with the stress of law school were probably predisposed to turn to substance abuse to deal with any stress, no matter its source.  I think that part of the problem is that nothing is anyone's fault in this country anymore.  I know I'm going to get slammed for the following statement, but I truly believe that this whole "Substance Abuse is a disease" thing is a crock.  Cancer is a disease, AIDS is a disease, Diabetes is a disease.  There is no 12-step program for Cancer, but there is for addictions.  I also don't buy into the whole "genetic" thing either.  My birth father was a huge alcoholic.  Also liked to beat up everyone in the house.  My mom left him when I was 6 and to this day, I can have a beer or two and be done.  In fact, I don't think I'm really addicted to anything (besides food, water and air).  I just think that its way to easy for anyone to label whatever faults or foibles they have (and we all have them) as "diseases."  Just my opinion, anyway.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: lalala on July 20, 2006, 05:36:47 AM
That article you reference is mere propoganda.

And have you even read it?


Quote
Get real, lawschool doesn't make people alcoholics or drug addicts, people turn themselves into these things.

I never said law school makes people alcoholics or drug addicts.  But for a significant number of lawyers, their problems with substance abuse begin in law school.  That's not to say that law school is the cause -- it may only be a trigger -- but there is a link.  The fact that the AOD abuse begins in law school is the problem.  Whether it's a problem because law school causes it or because law school attracts students who are predisposed to self-medication is, in my mind, irrelevant.  It's a problem that needs to be dealt with.  Most law schools don't seem to have much support for helping students in this regard.

There's also one study that indicates that first-year law students, before classes begin first year, are psychologically healthy (healthier than students in other disciplines).  By the end of first year, 20-30% of them are clinically depressed, and those statistics stay steady into their careers.  That's something like 10 times the rate of depression of the national population.  Again, I don't really care whether it's law school that causes the depression or whether it's only the trigger for individuals who are predisposed to it.  It's a huge problem, and one that needs to be acknowledged and dealt with somehow.



And isn't Florida State home to one of the professors who's a leader in the law school "humanization" movement, trying to lessen students' stress etc.?


Quote
You and the "intellectual" Harvard student that wrote the article you reference are absurd if you think that it's lawschool that makes someone an addict.

Idiots.

There's no need for name-calling. 
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: rev on July 20, 2006, 07:13:15 AM
type a's are somewhat more prone to self-sufficiency; including self-medication, and a reluctance to seek professional help -- irrespective of profession.

however, the higher th stress level associated with the activity, the higher the incidence of abuse.  some of the top professions are medical <especially nurses>, dentists, clergy, and of course, attorneys.  the 'helping professions' are especially prone to this.

when i went to treatment for a prescription drug addiction, my group included 3 nurses, an attorney, a business owner, and a priest.  my sponsors have been a college professor, a doctor, and a district court judge.

i have already been through that hell, and i know damn well that nothing in the world will make me go back.  if the price of sobriety is learning some humility and asking for help when i need it, so be it.

everyone who thinks, 'oh that could never happen to me, youre just weak'  -- good luck to you, and i hope youre right
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: jason1114 on July 20, 2006, 11:42:19 AM
when i went to treatment for a prescription drug addiction, my group included 3 nurses, an attorney, a business owner, and a priest.  my sponsors have been a college professor, a doctor, and a district court judge.

i have already been through that hell, and i know d**mn well that nothing in the world will make me go back.  if the price of sobriety is learning some humility and asking for help when i need it, so be it.

everyone who thinks, 'oh that could never happen to me, youre just weak'  -- good luck to you, and i hope youre right

Actually, it is weakness. A way of rationalizing one's own failures. We're all highly intelligent on this board (at worst, average); we all knew before any drug use that we have, or haven't done what were the potential consequences of our actions. Only by naivity and youthful arrogance would one dismiss the possiblity of addiction.

Responsiblity is not just something that is accomplished reactively. It is possible to go into a potentially stressful environment and submit oneself to stimuli that are conducive to drug use and not become an addict. Conversely, it is irresponsible to rationalize drug use away by blaming it on the perceived "cause" of the addiction.

The only real cause of addiction is weakness.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: rev on July 20, 2006, 03:18:27 PM


i wasnt out on the street buying crack, it was prescribed by a doctor in ever increasing doses.

i took it exactly as prescribed.  how irresponsible of me.

that's hardly a personal failure, and certainly not much to rationalize away.








Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Budlaw on July 20, 2006, 03:41:11 PM
That article you reference is mere propoganda.

And have you even read it?


Quote
Get real, lawschool doesn't make people alcoholics or drug addicts, people turn themselves into these things.

I never said law school makes people alcoholics or drug addicts.  But for a significant number of lawyers, their problems with substance abuse begin in law school.  That's not to say that law school is the cause -- it may only be a trigger -- but there is a link.  The fact that the AOD abuse begins in law school is the problem.  Whether it's a problem because law school causes it or because law school attracts students who are predisposed to self-medication is, in my mind, irrelevant.  It's a problem that needs to be dealt with.  Most law schools don't seem to have much support for helping students in this regard.

There's also one study that indicates that first-year law students, before classes begin first year, are psychologically healthy (healthier than students in other disciplines).  By the end of first year, 20-30% of them are clinically depressed, and those statistics stay steady into their careers.  That's something like 10 times the rate of depression of the national population.  Again, I don't really care whether it's law school that causes the depression or whether it's only the trigger for individuals who are predisposed to it.  It's a huge problem, and one that needs to be acknowledged and dealt with somehow.



And isn't Florida State home to one of the professors who's a leader in the law school "humanization" movement, trying to lessen students' stress etc.?


Quote
You and the "intellectual" Harvard student that wrote the article you reference are absurd if you think that it's lawschool that makes someone an addict.

Idiots.

There's no need for name-calling. 

Yes I have and I found it to be basically a bunch of B.S.

Just because some people like to attribute their own inherent flaws to an externality doesn't make it true. Alcoholism and Drug dependency are personal choices that are not influenced by one's school. When a person says that the reason they do drugs or drink too much is because of "stress" they're just making excuses and rationalizing thier own behaivor.


I believe you are referring to Larry Krieger. Yes he is at FSU, what's your point? I haven't seen any programs set up to lessen student's stress by him at FSU. (and that guy is a freakin weirdo)

The amazing thing is that it's not Law School that puts stress on students, it's the student's  that put all the stress on themselves. Because when you think about it, Law School is easy, there shouldn't be any stress. You basically only have to read and then take one test. What they hell is so hard about that? You don't have to turn in assignments everyday, and you don't have constant deadlines. So exactly what is so hard about lawschool?

The only "stress" involved is when people place stress on themselves. It's all internal. Nothing more. So attributing your alcoholism or drug use or depression to lawschool is simply ludicrous. Attribute it to your own screwed up personality, but don't place the blame on a professional school. 

(and name calling is needed when it's deemed necessary...and in your case it is)

 :-*





Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: lalala on July 20, 2006, 04:08:33 PM
Quote
(and name calling is needed when it's deemed necessary...and in your case it is)

 :-*




And to imagine I thought I could actually have an adult, civil conversation without namecalling.  Silly me.  I apologize for that silly assumption, and I hereby withdraw from any further debate, as I see it would be futile.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: ksully on July 20, 2006, 05:59:46 PM
Addicts will become addicts, regardless of profession. People only notice it more when in a "prestigous" profession. No cares enough to do a report on drug abuse in the janitorial industry.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Budlaw on July 20, 2006, 07:24:33 PM
Quote
(and name calling is needed when it's deemed necessary...and in your case it is)

 :-*




And to imagine I thought I could actually have an adult, civil conversation without namecalling.  Silly me.  I apologize for that silly assumption, and I hereby withdraw from any further debate, as I see it would be futile.

Yes...resistence is futile...and apparently not becoming an alcoholic or a druggy is too by your logic right? Or I'll become majoryly depressed too right?
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: klinex on July 21, 2006, 04:05:27 AM

Yes...resistence is futile... [...]


It's *resistance* is futile ...

Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: rev on July 21, 2006, 09:05:52 AM

Yes...resistence is futile... [...]


It's *resistance* is futile ...




you missed majoryly
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Vonhayes77 on July 21, 2006, 02:25:07 PM
Wow, actually I've only had one screen name. Oh, good one- I haven't been to law school. I guess that precludes me from sharing my personal experience of deciding whether or not to attend. And you are exactly the kind of feminine hygiene product bag who belongs in law school! Congrats. Enjoy your loveless existence!

Share all you want. But if you notice, this board is for Students (of lawschools) and Graduates (of lawschools). Go post your negativity on the kiddy board.

Also, if the Student's and Graduates sign wasn't enough, this particular is entitled "1 year later....still glad u went to lawschool". It's not entitled "Please tell me why you were too big of a female private part to go to lawschool."


Haha, I couldn't agree with Budlaw more.  I'll stick up for anyone that HAS gone through that hellish first year of law school before anyone that couldn't/wouldn't/shouldn't any day of the week.  Vonhayes, your useless justification for not personally attending lawschool is entirely irrelevant to the topic of this thread.  We have chosen to go through law school and have completed the most difficult part of the process.  What makes you think that any of us give a sh&t why you chose not to attend... let alone why you believe 80% of us made the decision to attend for the wrong reasons?  It seems to me that your continued posting on the STUDENTS AND GRADUATE side of the board is a lame attempt to become a part of something you lacked the courage to undertake. 

You have no basis upon which to hand out advice or words of wisdom to any of us on this side of the board and I hope you don't begin to post baseless garbage on the Pre-law side of the board to scare potential law students out of a tremendous opportunity. 

Wah, wah, wah, someone's posting on the wrong message board. You're sad.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Vonhayes77 on July 21, 2006, 02:28:12 PM
Wow, actually I've only had one screen name. Oh, good one- I haven't been to law school. I guess that precludes me from sharing my personal experience of deciding whether or not to attend. And you are exactly the kind of feminine hygiene product bag who belongs in law school! Congrats. Enjoy your loveless existence!

Share all you want. But if you notice, this board is for Students (of lawschools) and Graduates (of lawschools). Go post your negativity on the kiddy board.

Oh, my. I didn't know message boards were soooooooo important. Guess they would be to someone who takes themselves so seriously. Oh, and by the way, you're too big a female private part to think for yourself.
Also, if the Student's and Graduates sign wasn't enough, this particular is entitled "1 year later....still glad u went to lawschool". It's not entitled "Please tell me why you were too big of a female private part to go to lawschool."

Title: STUDENTS LEAVE LAW SCHOOL WITH FRAGILE MENTAL HEALTH
Post by: entelle on July 21, 2006, 07:44:54 PM

Yes I have and I found it to be basically a bunch of B.S.

Just because some people like to attribute their own inherent flaws to an externality doesn't make it true. Alcoholism and Drug dependency are personal choices that are not influenced by one's school. When a person says that the reason they do drugs or drink too much is because of "stress" they're just making excuses and rationalizing thier own behaivor.

The amazing thing is that it's not Law School that puts stress on students, it's the student's  that put all the stress on themselves. Because when you think about it, Law School is easy, there shouldn't be any stress. You basically only have to read and then take one test. What they hell is so hard about that? You don't have to turn in assignments everyday, and you don't have constant deadlines. So exactly what is so hard about lawschool?

The only "stress" involved is when people place stress on themselves. It's all internal. Nothing more. So attributing your alcoholism or drug use or depression to lawschool is simply ludicrous. Attribute it to your own f**cked up personality, but don't place the blame on a professional school. 


What they don't tell you

On a recent Tuesday during exam week at Chicago-Kent, Sahrawat and three of her classmates gathered in the school's lobby after they finished their remedies exam. All were in their third year at law school; only one had a job lined up for after graduation. Joseph Green, who will move to Washington, D.C., after graduation to take a job with an intellectual property firm, said law school was necessarily a competitive environment. "You know you're on a curve, competing against everyone around you," he said. "You want to further your cause, and not anyone else's. "I'm not training to work in a fast-food restaurant," he continued. "I'm training to go into a field where there's stress and competition ... You need to know what that feels like."

Others, though, felt law school had a more dismal effect on them.

"I walked into this place knowing I wasn't going to be a law review student," said Chris Fischer, 45, who has wanted to be a lawyer since she was five years old. She's hoping to land a job as a public defender. "The toughest lesson in the world is to know that sometimes your best isn't good enough. "I have nowhere near the level of hope that I had when I first started," she said. "That's not to say I regret my experience or have changed my plans. I think 'resigned' is the word."

Nearly 30 years after Scott Turow published One L, the chronicle of his arduous journey through the first year of Harvard Law School, it seems only a handful of things have changed about the sometimes unhealthy pressures students face in law schools. "Law school does its best to promote those feelings," Turow, a litigation partner in Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, said in a recent interview. "There's one exam at the end of the year: That's the best possible way to increase student anxiety."

Turow's not the only one who's noticed. Sharon Dolovich, now a law professor at UCLA, wrote a note for the Harvard Law Review in 1998, while she was a student there. In it, she described how the entire structure of law school -- from posting the list of those who make law review to teaching that it's necessary to argue both sides of a point, regardless of one's personal opinion -- works to destabilize students. "Graduates are by no means broken, but their sense of agency has been sorely undermined," she wrote in her Harvard Law Review note. "In general, they no longer view themselves as capable of having an impact on the world, much less setting it on fire."


http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/communicate/newspages/article_full.cfm?eventid=1911
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Budlaw on July 21, 2006, 08:29:56 PM
Wow, actually I've only had one screen name. Oh, good one- I haven't been to law school. I guess that precludes me from sharing my personal experience of deciding whether or not to attend. And you are exactly the kind of feminine hygiene product bag who belongs in law school! Congrats. Enjoy your loveless existence!

Share all you want. But if you notice, this board is for Students (of lawschools) and Graduates (of lawschools). Go post your negativity on the kiddy board.

Oh, my. I didn't know message boards were soooooooo important. Guess they would be to someone who takes themselves so seriously. Oh, and by the way, you're too big a female private part to think for yourself.
Also, if the Student's and Graduates sign wasn't enough, this particular is entitled "1 year later....still glad u went to lawschool". It's not entitled "Please tell me why you were too big of a female private part to go to lawschool."



Your mama...
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Budlaw on July 21, 2006, 08:36:17 PM
Thanks Vonhayes77.

And oh yeah...Clevland sucks.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: kmpnj on July 22, 2006, 01:27:03 AM
Thanks Vonhayes77.

And oh yeah...Clevland sucks.

Von Hayes...The single most responsible person for the downfall of the Philadelphia Phillies back in 1981.  5 for 1 my ass.

Sorry, painful childhood memory.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: taliquali on July 22, 2006, 07:46:56 AM
Thanks Vonhayes77.

And oh yeah...Clevland sucks.


if you can't spell Cleveland right, maybe you shouldn't be making fun of it
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: rev on July 22, 2006, 08:15:47 AM
Thanks Vonhayes77.

And oh yeah...Clevland sucks.


if you can't spell Cleveland right, maybe you shouldn't be making fun of it

http://www.clevland-locksmith.com/

maybe the poster is just unhappy that they couldn't get the car door open
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: veganchick on July 22, 2006, 01:51:58 PM
Whoa - this is by far the scariest sentence:

~~~~she wrote in her Harvard Law Review note. "In general, they no longer view themselves as capable of having an impact on the world, much less setting it on fire."~~~~

 :o
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: rev on July 22, 2006, 04:51:00 PM
Whoa - this is by far the scariest sentence:

~~~~she wrote in her Harvard Law Review note. "In general, they no longer view themselves as capable of having an impact on the world, much less setting it on fire."~~~~

 :o






for some, idealism is the first casualty of real life.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Budlaw on July 22, 2006, 05:04:56 PM
Thanks Vonhayes77.

And oh yeah...Clevland sucks.


if you can't spell Cleveland right, maybe you shouldn't be making fun of it

Whoa...I thought this an internet discussion board, not the national spelling bee. But thanks anyway Spelling police. I think the real lesson out of this is that I shouldn't be allowed to post when I've had a few drinks.

And for the record, most of the residents of Cleveland can't spell it correctly either. So maybe you should suck my balls.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: rhombot on July 24, 2006, 08:04:37 AM
Whoa - this is by far the scariest sentence:

~~~~she wrote in her Harvard Law Review note. "In general, they no longer view themselves as capable of having an impact on the world, much less setting it on fire."~~~~

 :o






for some, idealism is the first casualty of real life.


whoa - are we talking about real life, or about law school?
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: modena99 on July 25, 2006, 04:44:21 PM
I'm ambivalent. I wish I had never taken science in undergrad. My undergrad GPA would have been a lot higher. I could be at a better school with less stress and a better shots at landing interviews. It's already hard work. I made it even harder. However, things should get better with time. 
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: 1LDad on July 25, 2006, 08:37:54 PM
rev = erapitt
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: modesto on July 26, 2006, 01:37:48 AM

Yeah, we're going to have f-in' babies... haha


Don't take the babies thing lightly! Take a look here,

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,33732.0.html



Very interesting!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: inny on July 26, 2006, 02:27:01 AM


[...] I've been in the Marines, I've worked Construction, and I've worked as a legal assistant at a law firm. I actually like getting up and going to lawschool, [...]


But of corpse, it's much easier to go to law school or or work as an attorney than a con worker, albeit for slightly less money

Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: tickets on July 27, 2006, 01:31:19 AM
LOL inny! ;)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: tickets on July 27, 2006, 01:31:49 AM
LOL modesto as well! :)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: rev on July 27, 2006, 06:29:18 AM
rev = erapitt


rev = rev.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: capital one on July 31, 2006, 02:47:42 AM

Yeah, we're going to have f-in' babies... haha


Don't take the babies thing lightly! Take a look here,

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,33732.0.html


;)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Danijel on July 31, 2006, 07:12:23 AM
Hi, guys

I am about to start Law School in Feb.2007.
I started University when i was 17 and spent 1.5 years doing Journalism/International Relations.
I just now decided that Journalism is not for me and that if i really wnated to make a difference in his world i thing studying Law is the way to go.

I dont want to be some hot-shot lawyer - all I want to do is be a Federal politician, senator or Minister for Foreign Affairs. That is why I have droped the Journalism course and instead I will study Law/International Studies.

I am not sure why so many of you guys are so negative about Law schools, here in Australia if you have a Law degree it takes you places. A lot of Law graduates are not lawyers - and I think that is the problem a lot of Law students are single minded and just want a legal profession. But I think if a lot more students combined their Law degree with say Media, Politics, Commerce etc they would find Law school much more enjoyable !!!!.

So reading some of these comments really freaks me out -  I hope Law school is not that scary.  :-\ 
But we'll see what happens - but the Law kids that I personally know seem to love their degree, they are very satisfied, happy, healthy extremly involved in their extra curricular activities so a lot of them find Law school enjoyable - i hope I do too. :)  ;D


Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: ashley06 on July 31, 2006, 07:37:28 AM
I will go on record and say it:

Choosing to attend law school was the worst mistake of my life.

I just finished 2L at a tier 1. My GPA is right at the top 10% cutoff and I am also on Law Review. So, my displeasure does not stem from my accomplishments in a classroom. Instead, I have found that with each passing day, I simply just like the law a little bit less. There is no particular reason except I am just not interested in it any longer. The possibility that I may have to deal with law every single day until I die is almost enough to have me pull the trigger and withdraw. But, b/c of the loans, I am sticking it out. I have to pay them back and cannot figure out how I could do so if I quit law school now.

But, in answer to the OP's question, NO -- I am not glad I went to law school. Further, I would encourage every single person thinking about law school to NOT apply until you have dealt with the law in some capacity and know without a doubt that you want to pursue a JD.

If I could do it all over again, I would go to med school, or dental school, or hell . . . maybe just make cocktails on the beach ala Tom Cruise in "Cocktail."

YIKES! 

How would you recommend someone expose herself to the law before choosing law school?  Work as a paralegel?

Edit: NM, question was answered later in the thread.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: einszweidrei on September 14, 2006, 05:19:26 AM
bump
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: arianna on October 08, 2006, 08:41:53 PM

I'd have to say that after my first year, I'm definately glad that I went to lawschool. It's the best job that I've ever had. (that's right.."job") I've been in the Marines, I've worked Construction, and I've worked as a legal assistant at a law firm. I actually like getting up and going to lawschool, wheras everything else I've done as far as work (including undergrad) I hated getting up in the morning and going to. 


If you compare it to the kind of jobs you've been doing in the past, law school is definately better.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: xferlawstudent on October 10, 2006, 10:29:13 AM
I don't hate law school.  I find the material pretty interesting, but the more I think about the actual practice of law, the more I regret coming to law school.  I'll be happy, but if I had to do it over again I would go for a PhD instead.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: moneycreation on November 05, 2006, 07:58:33 PM

The public perceives lawyers as greedy, arrogant and dishonest.

If you go to law school to get rich, there's some hope that you can achieve that goal, but you will be miserable even when you are rich. Most lawyers are so unhappy with what they're doing, whether they go to work for that big firm that's offering them the big bucks or pursue a career in public interest law.


Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right; greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms, greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge — has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed, you mark my words — will save the malfunctioning corporation called the USA.

At UC Berkeley, arbitrageur Ivan Boesky, said in 1985, "Greed is all right, by the way. I want you to know that. I think greed is healthy. You can be greedy and still feel good about yourself." Ultimately the "Greed is Good" philosophy could be seen as related to what Adam Smith concluded about human nature. Smith believed that in general honest people freed to pursue their own interest would fare better than they would under a system that dictated what was "good." In the process, persons pursuing their own interests would eliminate inefficiencies and allocate commodities where they would benefit the greater society.


Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: xferlawstudent on November 06, 2006, 07:06:01 AM

The public perceives lawyers as greedy, arrogant and dishonest.

If you go to law school to get rich, there's some hope that you can achieve that goal, but you will be miserable even when you are rich. Most lawyers are so unhappy with what they're doing, whether they go to work for that big firm that's offering them the big bucks or pursue a career in public interest law.


Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right; greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms, greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge — has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed, you mark my words — will save the malfunctioning corporation called the USA.

At UC Berkeley, arbitrageur Ivan Boesky, said in 1985, "Greed is all right, by the way. I want you to know that. I think greed is healthy. You can be greedy and still feel good about yourself." Ultimately the "Greed is Good" philosophy could be seen as related to what Adam Smith concluded about human nature. Smith believed that in general honest people freed to pursue their own interest would fare better than they would under a system that dictated what was "good." In the process, persons pursuing their own interests would eliminate inefficiencies and allocate commodities where they would benefit the greater society.





Smith said, "It is not by the benevolence of the butcher or baker that I get fed, but by their own self-interest."
(paraphrased)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: pruritis on November 07, 2006, 06:46:48 PM
At the age of 4, Smith was kidnapped by a band of Gypsies. The world would have been a slightly better place to live had they handled Smith more appropriately.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: xferlawstudent on November 08, 2006, 03:10:03 PM
While Adam Smith is considered the father of economics, you would be hard pressed to find an educated economist who thinks Smith got it right.  Smith's main accomplishment was recognizing that a market, WITHOUT HUMAN UNPREDICTABILITY (strong emphasis), will clear itself. 

However, everyone knows that there is no such thing as a perfectly competitve market and that humans are very often not rational actors.

Also, Smith didn't even understand marginalism, thus his failure to resolve his diamond-water paradox.


At the age of 4, Smith was kidnapped by a band of Gypsies. The world would have been a slightly better place to live had they handled Smith more appropriately.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: butas on November 19, 2006, 09:21:35 AM
moneycreation, your signature is so fukking funny ... I couldn't stop laughing!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: clyons1179 on November 20, 2006, 08:37:16 PM
Yes.  But, as someone else has mentioned, I would highly recommend that you work in a law firm (or several, through a temp agency) before deciding to go to law school.

By the time I started law school, I had been working in law firms for five years, first as a legal secretary then as a paralegal.

Something that I noticed right away is that law school is nothing like the real life practice of law. Although having legal experience did not make law school any easier, it did make me realize that I KNOW that I enjoy the actual PRACTICE of law...even if there are some days that I feel like I hate law school.

During the 5 years I spent working in law firms, I loved my job.  That's why I went to law school in the first place (even though sometimes I have to remind myself of that!!)

So, if you're already in law school, my advice would be not to make up your mind that you hate the law just yet.  There are so many things you can do with a law degree, and so many areas you can practice in...just be positive about it and keep looking until you find the the type of law and/or law firm or other profession you really enjoy.




Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Jack Leatherman on November 25, 2006, 10:07:47 PM

[...] I've been in the Marines, I've worked Construction, and I've worked as a legal assistant at a law firm. I actually like getting up and going to lawschool, [...]


So basically you're a blue collar guy trying to become a white collar one?

Who's to say someone who's "blue collar" can't succeed in law school? Perhaps those who've actually done some manual labor for a living appreciate a desk job more than those who've never appreciated their entitlements.


No doubt about it! And they'll flaunt it real bad!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: inthelaw45 on December 06, 2006, 04:02:05 PM
one semester later...I'm not so sure.  But I worked in a law firm for two years before coming to law school.  That was better than school.  So maybe there's hope.  I enjoy the client aspect of the law, and first year of law school is all reading and analysis.  Alot of it is quite boring.  I think I'll be happier when my job enables me to talk to people and be in court from time to time
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: UChi2L on December 06, 2006, 04:03:40 PM
one semester later...I'm not so sure.  But I worked in a law firm for two years before coming to law school.  That was better than school.  So maybe there's hope.  I enjoy the client aspect of the law, and first year of law school is all reading and analysis.  Alot of it is quite boring.  I think I'll be happier when my job enables me to talk to people and be in court from time to time

Two and a half years later, still unsure.  Love the challenge, love the academic rigors, HATE the other BS.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: m a n n a on December 16, 2006, 08:41:17 PM

In my personal opinion, the only good thing about law firms are the salaries they provide.  Everything else about them is negative.  just my 2 cents.

To elaborate, most people complain about the hours...I don't really care abour hours because that's just life. Even if you're working for yourself in your own business you're going to put in hours. But keep in mind, I'm single with no kids so I'm biassed.  If you were trying to have any significant family QT, working at a manhattan firm is not exactly conducive to that.

Also, you have to accept that if you're working for big law you're working for the bad guys.  If you have a strong conscience this is not the job for you.  I handled an employment discrimination/sexual harassment claim the other day and my main job was to find case law that would allow us to conceed that harassment took place but still screw the plaintiffs over by dismissing their case because they missed the statute of limitations time period by a few weeks.  Stuff like that.

But I think my main complaint is that the work that you get at a law firm is monkey work compared to the work you get working for a judge.  Especially in NY.  Assoc's get all this doc review and depostition summaries (not fun) and junk like that.  Don't get me wrong, I've had plenty of research assignments but its just not the same.  I think the District Court experience spoiled me.  I'm used to writing court opinions and picking apart other law firms' case briefs, etc.  You get to see the big picture of the practice working for the court. From the law firm assoc' perspective you only get to see bits and pieces of litigation.

But some people have no problem doing the monkey work after spending 3 years towards a legal education so hey, to each their own.



The myth of the six-figure-plus salary for a top school top law graduate seems to be emblazoned into the collective unconscious. Every website mentions it, the US News and World Report articles report on it, and every watercooler kibbitzing session on law school invariably broaches it. This six-figure salary is often much higher than that of any law school grad. These rumors, conjectures, and statistics provide a quite alluring draw, so let's explore them a bit. In all fairness, there are many individuals who receive high salaries upon graduation.

Unfortunately, however, there is a flip side. Median compensation numbers are inflated since the schools only release statistics on self-reported information, and not all graduates reply to the survey. For example, the $115,000 median income could the average of 600 respondents, not of 778 graduates. This disconnect introduces what statisticians refer to as a "non-response bias", meaning that when it comes to reporting something as ego-sensitive as compensation, people receiving low salaries are unlikely to respond. Such a bias implies that the true average compensation is lower.

Secondly, one must beware of what I refer to as the "Keanu Reeves Factor" (in homage to his riveting performance in "A Devil's Advocate"). The Keanu Reeves factor dictates that in order to earn these six-figure salaries, one typically needs to land a job where one must sell one's soul to the devil. This underworld reference is not intended to refer to the "insert-your-favorite-corporate-crook-here" law graduates of yesteryear, but rather to the infernal quality of life that law firm associates lead. The hours are really, really, long and you completely surrender control over your life. It sucks even worse than people say it sucks.

Thirdly (if that's actually a word), the return on investment might not be as high as you might think. The student loan repayments will be a staggering, non-tax deductible $1,500/ month (assuming a 10 year repayment period). Think about it.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Budlaw on December 16, 2006, 09:05:59 PM
Here's where you stole your "post" from:

http://mbacaveatemptor.blogspot.com/

Why are you such a @ # ! * i n g loser? I bet you don't even go to law school, and I bet you weigh like 300 pounds.

Loser!



In my personal opinion, the only good thing about law firms are the salaries they provide.  Everything else about them is negative.  just my 2 cents.

To elaborate, most people complain about the hours...I don't really care abour hours because that's just life. Even if you're working for yourself in your own business you're going to put in hours. But keep in mind, I'm single with no kids so I'm biassed.  If you were trying to have any significant family QT, working at a manhattan firm is not exactly conducive to that.

Also, you have to accept that if you're working for big law you're working for the bad guys.  If you have a strong conscience this is not the job for you.  I handled an employment discrimination/sexual harassment claim the other day and my main job was to find case law that would allow us to conceed that harassment took place but still screw the plaintiffs over by dismissing their case because they missed the statute of limitations time period by a few weeks.  Stuff like that.

But I think my main complaint is that the work that you get at a law firm is monkey work compared to the work you get working for a judge.  Especially in NY.  Assoc's get all this doc review and depostition summaries (not fun) and junk like that.  Don't get me wrong, I've had plenty of research assignments but its just not the same.  I think the District Court experience spoiled me.  I'm used to writing court opinions and picking apart other law firms' case briefs, etc.  You get to see the big picture of the practice working for the court. From the law firm assoc' perspective you only get to see bits and pieces of litigation.

But some people have no problem doing the monkey work after spending 3 years towards a legal education so hey, to each their own.



The myth of the six-figure-plus salary for a top school top law graduate seems to be emblazoned into the collective unconscious. Every website mentions it, the US News and World Report articles report on it, and every watercooler kibbitzing session on law school invariably broaches it. This six-figure salary is often much higher than that of any law school grad. These rumors, conjectures, and statistics provide a quite alluring draw, so let's explore them a bit. In all fairness, there are many individuals who receive high salaries upon graduation.

Unfortunately, however, there is a flip side. Median compensation numbers are inflated since the schools only release statistics on self-reported information, and not all graduates reply to the survey. For example, the $115,000 median income could the average of 600 respondents, not of 778 graduates. This disconnect introduces what statisticians refer to as a "non-response bias", meaning that when it comes to reporting something as ego-sensitive as compensation, people receiving low salaries are unlikely to respond. Such a bias implies that the true average compensation is lower.

Secondly, one must beware of what I refer to as the "Keanu Reeves Factor" (in homage to his riveting performance in "A Devil's Advocate"). The Keanu Reeves factor dictates that in order to earn these six-figure salaries, one typically needs to land a job where one must sell one's soul to the devil. This underworld reference is not intended to refer to the "insert-your-favorite-corporate-crook-here" law graduates of yesteryear, but rather to the infernal quality of life that law firm associates lead. The hours are really, really, long and you completely surrender control over your life. It sucks even worse than people say it sucks.

Thirdly (if that's actually a word), the return on investment might not be as high as you might think. The student loan repayments will be a staggering, non-tax deductible $1,500/ month (assuming a 10 year repayment period). Think about it.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: b l a w g on December 18, 2006, 09:13:01 PM
hahaha
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: marc on December 18, 2006, 09:20:02 PM

The myth of the six-figure-plus salary for a top school top law graduate seems to be emblazoned into the collective unconscious. Every website mentions it, the US News and World Report articles report on it, and every watercooler kibbitzing session on law school invariably broaches it. This six-figure salary is often much higher than that of any law school grad. These rumors, conjectures, and statistics provide a quite alluring draw, so let's explore them a bit. In all fairness, there are many individuals who receive high salaries upon graduation.

Unfortunately, however, there is a flip side. Median compensation numbers are inflated since the schools only release statistics on self-reported information, and not all graduates reply to the survey. For example, the $115,000 median income could the average of 600 respondents, not of 778 graduates. This disconnect introduces what statisticians refer to as a "non-response bias", meaning that when it comes to reporting something as ego-sensitive as compensation, people receiving low salaries are unlikely to respond. Such a bias implies that the true average compensation is lower.

Secondly, one must beware of what I refer to as the "Keanu Reeves Factor" (in homage to his riveting performance in "A Devil's Advocate"). The Keanu Reeves factor dictates that in order to earn these six-figure salaries, one typically needs to land a job where one must sell one's soul to the devil. This underworld reference is not intended to refer to the "insert-your-favorite-corporate-crook-here" law graduates of yesteryear, but rather to the infernal quality of life that law firm associates lead. The hours are really, really, long and you completely surrender control over your life. It sucks even worse than people say it sucks.

Thirdly (if that's actually a word), the return on investment might not be as high as you might think. The student loan repayments will be a staggering, non-tax deductible $1,500/ month (assuming a 10 year repayment period). Think about it.


Wow! I did not know that investment banking was so stressful! I mean, everyone know that big law @ # ! * s the *&^% outta you, but investment banking and management consulting ??
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: furrious on December 20, 2006, 05:42:35 PM
Of course they're stressful, manna, you're being paid (whatever you're really paid) for two jobs, not just one!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: panera on December 21, 2006, 06:42:05 PM

I think the most you could have possibly commmitted yourself to the law is 10 years.  After three years of law school, and seven years of practice.  At that point reciprocity kicks in to just about every state, you can go anywhere you want, and if you planned right your loans should be paid off.  You'll be in your mid-30's for most law students, and you have at least 30 years of your working career to reinvent yourself and do whatever you want.  Also at that point, if you've been working in a firm you should have a good idea of whether you're going to be up for partner.  So you have that added option which can be explored and might change your mind about the law.


There is a myth that a law degree is the most flexible of degrees insofar as it prepares you to do almost anything. This is utterly wrong. A law degree is not a general purpose degree. A law degree does nothing but teach you about practicing law. It does not teach you how to administer, nor does it teach you how to start a business (except in the narrow sense of how to file incorporation papers). The true multipurpose degree is the MBA.

Deciding to go to law school is a risky decision that is surprisingly hard to reverse.

Many people attend law school for lack of anything better to do or despite major misgivings. They do not drop out at the top schools, despite the fact that a fair-sized portion dislike law school itself. Those who dislike law school and those who are unsure of whether they're going to like practice (having not enjoyed their summer employment between their first and second law school years) nonetheless enter practice. They console themselves in the first few years of practice that the reason they dislike it is because they are simply at the bottom of the totem pole, learning necessary skills and establishing credibility. They assume that matter will improve. After three or more years, the natural instinct is to switch practice areas within the firm or switch firms. This guarantees another few years of hoping that matters will improve.

Those who enter law are generally goal-oriented to opt out; they will leave only when forced. It is only after a dozen or more years that such lawyers will finally admit that they made the wrong career choice. Thus, law represents a decade's committment, or more. Unfortunately, they discover how untrue that notion really is. They talk with friends in other fields, headhunters and so on. They learn that they will have to cut their salaries by two-thirds and be willing to start at the bottom of another field, unless they find a job closely related to law (if they take the latter, such as the exec dir of a public interest organization they still have to accept a substantial salary cut) Given that many lawyers still owe some $100,000 in law school loans, changing professions may not be feasible. Even if they're willing and able to take the massive salary cut involved in starting over -- that is, they can give up their long-held professional identity (and their pride can handle no longer being a "professional") despite their friends' and family's comments that they are wasting their degree -- they find that the barriers to doing so are massive.

Employers value legal training only in lawyers. High-tech firms, traditional companies and everyone else in business do not believe that lawyers, uniquely, have been "taught how to think." Nor do they find that lawyers have necessarily acquired non-legal skills worth paying for. Indeed, employers view lawyers as overly contentious, not team-oriented, and very narrowly focused. Employers grant that lawyers, at least from top schools, are probably pretty smart and willing to work hard. However, they also consider them to be damaged goods. They figure that such lawyers are running away from law rather than towards something else in particular. They may also figure that because lawyers have so little background of relevance to choosing another field, they are likely to make another poor career decision the next time around, just as they did in entering law.

For those lawyers who wish finally to get the true multipurpose degree, an MBA, the outlook is also discouraging. The only lawyers able to get into top business schools are those who have had very substantial business experience along the way. Business schools value experience much more highly than do law schools. Thus, lawyers with top GPAs and GMAT scores flop in the business school admissions game because they have wasted (by business school standards anyway) many years.

Learn in advance whether law and law school are for you.

Law school is the default option for those who are bright and don't know what to do. If you you're choosing law because you like to argue, get married instead. If your parents want you to be a lawyer, then you are, by definition, immature to choose a career. If you do not know what else to do, sample, do not go to law school. Your early twenties are made for sampling. Discuss matters with friends, shadow people working in jobs that sound as if they might fit for you. And if you are choosing law because you want to help people, you might as well join the Mafia and you would be accomplishing towards that goal just as much as by becoming a lawyer.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: deming on December 21, 2006, 06:56:46 PM
Awesome post, panera!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: jarhead on December 23, 2006, 09:10:19 AM
i have zero regrets - this degree is a means of empowerment... i worked for 3 years after finishing UG - i came to realize during my limited time spent in the rat race that your career success, advancement, etc. isn't necessarily linked nor dependent in any functional way upon how smart you think you are (i.e. how well you perform your particular role / delegation of duties withinin the corporate scheme) but more related to how smart you have *proven* yourself to be - which means, in terms of a modern-day work force translation, that you: you better have a professional degree (and if you do, it better be from a good school). this is all that matters. this is how johnny Q moron ends up running company X. he has the degree, smart guy doesn't - johnny Q gets the job. this time last year i was playing my part in a very tidy hierarchy of subservience. 1L is finished and out of the way and i'm now i'm writing minute entries on summary judgment motions for a judge - he gives me the briefs, etc. and i decide the issue. granted, i'm getting paid zero (1L summer judicial internship position) but the power being placed in my hands is semi-scary ...

and i like it :) it's a step in teh right direction - last year just another automaton in a collared shirt, this year i'm deciding actual issues that actively effect people's lives ...

no - regrets - whatsoever

this time next year 2L SA position with that very handy salary of several g per week ...

yeah, i'm crying a river


so true...those of you with all the complaints about law school and the law what did you expect...i've got news for you most jobs suck no matter how how up you are... how much you get paid there will be some aspect of your job that sucks...why would you think the law would be any different...i mean who goes to law school at this point thinking that its about truth and justice...do you live in the world or what...take it from someone who's been working for 10 years a JD is a good thing to have... it will give you an advantage over anyone who doesn't have one period...all this only get get paid 100k 90k stuff is ridiculous check out the top salaries for most professions/jobs/trades etc... it isn't anywhere near 100K...it takes most people 10 years to reach that salary level and thats if they play the game well
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: unlvcrjchick on December 24, 2006, 12:44:24 PM
Panera, I agree with most of your post except for one of your assertions.  Law school does NOT teach you about practicing law...it teaches you how to THINK, period.  You only learn about practicing law by actually practicing law.  Law school does not teach you one whit regarding how to accomplish the "how"; law school is about the "why."
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: johns259 on December 24, 2006, 04:04:25 PM
Assuming you're not including clinics, skills courses, etc. There are several clinics at my school where you're given primary responsibility over cases, e.g. vaccine injury clinic. IMHO, these are the exceptions to the "how," yet the conventional wisdom is that you learn more in your first year after law school than you did throughout all of law school.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: unlvcrjchick on December 24, 2006, 07:00:10 PM
Assuming you're not including clinics, skills courses, etc. There are several clinics at my school where you're given primary responsibility over cases, e.g. vaccine injury clinic. IMHO, these are the exceptions to the "how," yet the conventional wisdom is that you learn more in your first year after law school than you did throughout all of law school.

Yes, excluding clinics, skill courses.  I'm talking about the curriculum that is actually required of students, a curriculum that does not adequately prepare them for the practice of law.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: mantoytano on December 25, 2006, 02:50:53 AM

Panera, I agree with most of your post except for one of your assertions. Law school does NOT teach you about practicing law ...


I guess that's what the poster meant, unlv .. law school does not teach you how to practice law, it just gives you a general idea what practicing law is all about ...
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: unlvcrjchick on December 25, 2006, 06:01:16 PM

Panera, I agree with most of your post except for one of your assertions. Law school does NOT teach you about practicing law ...


I guess that's what the poster meant, unlv .. law school does not teach you how to practice law, it just gives you a general idea what practicing law is all about ...

If that's what the poster meant to say, then he should have stated as such.  He said that law school is all about preparing one to practice law, which it does not.  I've learned more on the job in half a year than I've learned in almost 3 years of law school.

Law school is just a rite of passage that everyone most go through in order to join the exclusive lawyer's club.  It is a good thing that medical school is not taught in the same manner, otherwise I would be very apprehensive about going to the doctor...
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: lvs on December 26, 2006, 03:49:17 AM

For those lawyers who wish finally to get the true multipurpose degree, an MBA, the outlook is also discouraging. The only lawyers able to get into top business schools are those who have had very substantial business experience along the way. Business schools value experience much more highly than do law schools. Thus, lawyers with top GPAs and GMAT scores flop in the business school admissions game because they have wasted (by business school standards anyway) many years.


Let me enlighten you with regard to this MBA thing ... because it seems that you are pointing out what's wrong with law and a law degree, but have failed to address the huge issues a degree like an MBA presents ...

The MBA has much less value than a J.D. or M.D. degree, if it has any value at all.

For instance, top schools' admissions say that it does not really make sense to admit candidates without any work experience at all (as it is the rule for law/med schools) since after they graduate they get placed as if they had not graduated from the prestigious MBA program at all.

It is true that twenty - thirty years ago top schools took people right from college. But then, prompted by the market's demands, they developed a taste for those with some experience. Now, the pendulum's swung back a bit. Yet, the latter only results because the younger and less experienced students in a class give recruiters more flexibility. Today, many prospective MBA students leave jobs that only a few years ago would have been as suitable positions for MBA graduates. Getting back into the job market at a later stage may be a problem; younger students with less experience can be placed in a larger range of positions. What the latter means, in plain terms, is they get something like $50K instead of the customary $100K+ MBA grads get ... Now, if the MBA degree would really have any intrinsic value, would companies look down upon an inexperienced graduate and pay him much less than the experienced one?!

B-schools admission committees also say that they are reluctant to admit undergrads fresh out of college because some companies may look at their backgrounds as insufficient to justify the salaries MBAs usually get. Well, 25-year-olds fresh out of law school get $125K+ and no one says they're too young and inexperienced to earn that kind of money! You know what?! The thing is that more than half of consultants at McKinsey & Company do not have an MBA (if there is a job that ought to be connected to the MBA degree it is management consulting, which has typically been the destination for a large fraction of graduates, particularly from the elite programs). Only 40% of US CEOs have MBAs. Possessing an MBA neither guarantees business success nor prevents business failure.

Unlike other professions such as law, medicine, accounting, architecture, and some branches of engineering, the practice of business management is not restricted to people who possess a formal credential or certificate of training. Simply put, there are no barriers to entry into the profession. Consulting firms hire people without business degrees -- some of them lawyers, doctors, and philosophers. Obviously they provide some training to them, so that these individuals can go out and give advice to companies using business language and business knowledge. Many of the companies started or expanded relatively short, 3-week programs in which "new hires" learned the basics of business. These three-week programs help the "new hires" learn the vocabulary of corporate America ... it's a question of learning the jargon ... How did the hires without an MBA perform? They did no worse and, in some cases, better than their business school counterparts.

Do I really need to give any other examples to corroborate the claim that the value of an MBA is zero, zilch, nada?!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: lawkid09 on December 27, 2006, 09:13:31 AM
I'm really glad! call me crazy, but I like law school. The people are fun, the professors engaging, the reading so-so, but at times quite enjoyable. So yes, I’m glad I went…but then again, I'm only one semester later...
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: absolewd on February 25, 2007, 01:24:32 AM

If you contemplate joining the legal profession to have fun and to be happy, keep in mind that there's a higher percentage of depression and mental illness among lawyers than other professionals. Attorneys are 4 times more likely to be depressed than the public at large. They have the highest depression rate of any occupational group, and about 20% of them have a substance abuse problem, twice the rate of Americans in general. It is also estimated that 20-40% of law students -- even those entering with the same psychological profile of the public generally -- leave law school with some psychological dysfunction such as depression, substance abuse, or various stress-related disorders. She notes that this percentage is not only unusually high, but is not matched by medical students, for example, who are usually thought to undergo probably the most stressful form of professional training possible. The percentages are lower among medical students.

Now you may say, I'm going to law school for the intellectual challenge. Well, you're likely to be disappointed if you do litigation. You can look forward to endless cycles of scut work ... relentlessly repetitive and strangely unconnected to a dimly recollected purpose in choosing law. And if you go to law school to be loved and respected, forget it! The public perceives lawyers as greedy, arrogant and dishonest.

If you go to law school to get rich, there's some hope that you can achieve that goal, but you will be miserable even when you are rich. Most lawyers are so unhappy with what they're doing, whether they go to work for that big firm that's offering them the big bucks or pursue a career in public interest law.



Deborah I guess, that's her name, anyway, she has written an excellent book that I recommend to everyone here to read..


(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0940675579.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg)
Title: Deborah Rhode: "In the Interests of Justice: Reforming the Legal Profession"
Post by: peach on February 25, 2007, 01:36:24 AM

If you contemplate joining the legal profession to have fun and to be happy, keep in mind that there's a higher percentage of depression and mental illness among lawyers than other professionals. Attorneys are 4 times more likely to be depressed than the public at large. They have the highest depression rate of any occupational group, and about 20% of them have a substance abuse problem, twice the rate of Americans in general. It is also estimated that 20-40% of law students -- even those entering with the same psychological profile of the public generally -- leave law school with some psychological dysfunction such as depression, substance abuse, or various stress-related disorders. She notes that this percentage is not only unusually high, but is not matched by medical students, for example, who are usually thought to undergo probably the most stressful form of professional training possible. The percentages are lower among medical students.

Now you may say, I'm going to law school for the intellectual challenge. Well, you're likely to be disappointed if you do litigation. You can look forward to endless cycles of scut work ... relentlessly repetitive and strangely unconnected to a dimly recollected purpose in choosing law. And if you go to law school to be loved and respected, forget it! The public perceives lawyers as greedy, arrogant and dishonest.

If you go to law school to get rich, there's some hope that you can achieve that goal, but you will be miserable even when you are rich. Most lawyers are so unhappy with what they're doing, whether they go to work for that big firm that's offering them the big bucks or pursue a career in public interest law.



Deborah I guess, that's her name, anyway, she has written an excellent book that I recommend to everyone here to read..


(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0940675579.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg)


It's not from that Deborah and that book, it's from this one:

(http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/P/0195165543.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: listen on February 25, 2007, 09:45:57 PM
Very interesting, both of them!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: nonamesleftforme on February 26, 2007, 07:16:20 PM
I am still happy to be here because I like my school and I like my friends, and my grades dramatically increased over the past semester.  However, sometimes I dream of getting the hell out because there are so many poor lawyers and unhappy lawyers. 

I also know what type of law I want to do, which helps.

Good question though, it was great to see people's responses.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: mat on March 03, 2007, 11:05:32 PM

I will go on record and say it:

Choosing to attend law school was the worst mistake of my life.

I just finished 2L at a tier 1. My GPA is right at the top 10% cutoff and I am also on Law Review. So, my displeasure does not stem from my accomplishments in a classroom. Instead, I have found that with each passing day, I simply just like the law a little bit less. There is no particular reason except I am just not interested in it any longer. The possibility that I may have to deal with law every single day until I die is almost enough to have me pull the trigger and withdraw. But, b/c of the loans, I am sticking it out. I have to pay them back and cannot figure out how I could do so if I quit law school now.

But, in answer to the OP's question, NO -- I am not glad I went to law school. Further, I would encourage every single person thinking about law school to NOT apply until you have dealt with the law in some capacity and know without a doubt that you want to pursue a JD.

If I could do it all over again, I would go to med school, or dental school, or hell ... maybe just make cocktails on the beach ala Tom Cruise in "Cocktail."


Amen!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: LALaw04 on March 05, 2007, 11:19:51 PM
If you're still glad, show it by wearing one of these t-shirts!!!

Seriously, law school is a great experience whether you end up practicing or not.  Embrace it, and enjoy it!

http://www.cafepress.com/lawgear
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Buddy Holly on March 05, 2007, 11:21:30 PM
Going to law school was the best decision I ever made, I think.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Consideration on March 09, 2007, 10:33:54 AM
Root? Did you go to WVU?
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: norman on April 23, 2007, 11:33:11 PM

Let me enlighten you with regard to this MBA thing ... because it seems that you are pointing out what's wrong with law and a law degree, but have failed to address the huge issues a degree like an MBA presents ...

The MBA has much less value than a J.D. or M.D. degree, if it has any value at all.

For instance, top schools' admissions say that it does not really make sense to admit candidates without any work experience at all (as it is the rule for law/med schools) since after they graduate they get placed as if they had not graduated from the prestigious MBA program at all.

It is true that twenty - thirty years ago top schools took people right from college. But then, prompted by the market's demands, they developed a taste for those with some experience. Now, the pendulum's swung back a bit. Yet, the latter only results because the younger and less experienced students in a class give recruiters more flexibility. Today, many prospective MBA students leave jobs that only a few years ago would have been as suitable positions for MBA graduates. Getting back into the job market at a later stage may be a problem; younger students with less experience can be placed in a larger range of positions. What the latter means, in plain terms, is they get something like $50K instead of the customary $100K+ MBA grads get ... Now, if the MBA degree would really have any intrinsic value, would companies look down upon an inexperienced graduate and pay him much less than the experienced one?!

B-schools admission committees also say that they are reluctant to admit undergrads fresh out of college because some companies may look at their backgrounds as insufficient to justify the salaries MBAs usually get. Well, 25-year-olds fresh out of law school get $125K+ and no one says they're too young and inexperienced to earn that kind of money! You know what?! The thing is that more than half of consultants at McKinsey & Company do not have an MBA (if there is a job that ought to be connected to the MBA degree it is management consulting, which has typically been the destination for a large fraction of graduates, particularly from the elite programs). Only 40% of US CEOs have MBAs. Possessing an MBA neither guarantees business success nor prevents business failure.

Unlike other professions such as law, medicine, accounting, architecture, and some branches of engineering, the practice of business management is not restricted to people who possess a formal credential or certificate of training. Simply put, there are no barriers to entry into the profession. Consulting firms hire people without business degrees -- some of them lawyers, doctors, and philosophers. Obviously they provide some training to them, so that these individuals can go out and give advice to companies using business language and business knowledge. Many of the companies started or expanded relatively short, 3-week programs in which "new hires" learned the basics of business. These three-week programs help the "new hires" learn the vocabulary of corporate America ... it's a question of learning the jargon ... How did the hires without an MBA perform? They did no worse and, in some cases, better than their business school counterparts.

Do I really need to give any other examples to corroborate the claim that the value of an MBA is zero, zilch, nada?!


MBA graduates decry the degree as a joke, the biggest waste of time and money imaginable, a confidence game. No one disputes that an MBA from a highly prestigious school such as Harvard, Wharton, Chicago, or Stanford can lead to high pay, but that this is because those schools are so hard to get into (and so costly once you get there), and that only the best and brightest fast-trackers have a shot. In other words, they are people who most likely would have succeeded whether they went to B-school or not. Overall, the evidence suggests that for most managers a couple of years of extra work experience, not more time spent in classrooms, will pay off better than a graduate business degree.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: removescripts on April 24, 2007, 05:14:30 AM

MBA graduates decry the degree as a joke, the biggest waste of time and money imaginable, a confidence game. No one disputes that an MBA from a highly prestigious school such as Harvard, Wharton, Chicago, or Stanford can lead to high pay, but that this is because those schools are so hard to get into (and so costly once you get there), and that only the best and brightest fast-trackers have a shot. In other words, they are people who most likely would have succeeded whether they went to B-school or not. Overall, the evidence suggests that for most managers a couple of years of extra work experience, not more time spent in classrooms, will pay off better than a graduate business degree.


norm an, if that's true how it is possible that hundreds and hundreds of smart men and women can't figure out that the value of an MBA is zero but instead choose to attend business school? Doesn't this fact mean that what you're saying it's not true?
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: mysickukcd on April 24, 2007, 05:24:04 AM

norm an, if that\'s true how it is possible that hundreds and hundreds of smart men and women can\'t figure out that the value of an MBA is zero but instead choose to attend business school? Doesn\'t this fact mean that what you\'re saying it\'s not true?


People keep returning to the Las Vegas casinos even though they always lose. Ditto for state lotteries.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: GA-fan on April 24, 2007, 05:42:17 AM
Lol- this is true. I wouldn't go as far as your generalization that all MBAs are worthless. I'd say if it's not a well-reputed/recognized school it's worthless. Some of the dumbest and most inept people I know have been determined to get MBAs because they believe that's what is holding them back from upper management. It's a good fallback excuse for "I really don't have any business being a manager/consultant in the first place, but maybe this piece of paper from U of Phoenix will convince smarter hiring managers otherwise."

Back to the OP, I'm in finals of my 2nd semester right now, and aside from the fact I have a sinking feeling I will fail con law, I'm definitely glad I came.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: vaplaugh on April 24, 2007, 07:30:15 AM
tag for later
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: lawchick09 on April 24, 2007, 10:59:26 AM
hmmm. seeing as how it's finals time, I don't know that I could answer this totally unbiased. right now i wanna kill myself and wish i were in ANY other profession- i wouldn't mind taking a day off to flip friggin hamburgers, maybe then i'll appreciate my being in law school...so for now, no i'm not glad i went to law school. the year, while it's had its successes, has been filled with drama i thought i left back at HS, and just way too many stress-filled nights. all i can think about are the loans that are piling up and whether i'll be able to graduate with a job to pay them off. i'd probably be making more money if i skipped law school and just became a paralegal in nyc where most bank at least $70k/year. ah well. too late.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: monthly minimum on April 25, 2007, 03:53:46 AM

nor man, if that's true how it is possible that hundreds and hundreds of smart men and women can't figure out that the value of an MBA is zero but instead choose to attend business school? Doesn't this fact mean that what you're saying it's not true?


Don't you know that insanity in individuals is something rare -- but in groups, parties, nations and epochs it is the rule? 
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: starter on April 25, 2007, 05:09:29 AM
2 years later...no I'm not glad I came to law school.  Worst economic move of my life.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: galaw on April 25, 2007, 05:57:44 AM

MBA graduates decry the degree as a joke, the biggest waste of time and money imaginable, a confidence game. No one disputes that an MBA from a highly prestigious school such as Harvard, Wharton, Chicago, or Stanford can lead to high pay, but that this is because those schools are so hard to get into (and so costly once you get there), and that only the best and brightest fast-trackers have a shot. In other words, they are people who most likely would have succeeded whether they went to B-school or not. Overall, the evidence suggests that for most managers a couple of years of extra work experience, not more time spent in classrooms, will pay off better than a graduate business degree.


Lol- this is true. I wouldn\'t go as far as your generalization that all MBAs are worthless. I\'d say if it\'s not a well-reputed/recognized school it\'s worthless. Some of the dumbest and most inept people I know have been determined to get MBAs because they believe that\'s what is holding them back from upper management. It\'s a good fallback excuse for \"I really don\'t have any business being a manager/consultant in the first place, but maybe this piece of paper from U of Phoenix will convince smarter hiring managers otherwise.\"

Back to the OP, I\'m in finals of my 2nd semester right now, and aside from the fact I have a sinking feeling I will fail con law, I\'m definitely glad I came.


Read it closer, GA! The point of the post was just that: that even top b-schools are total bitches!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: GA-fan on April 25, 2007, 06:03:50 AM
Read it again! I said in my second sentence I don't completely agree!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: getitright on April 25, 2007, 05:49:56 PM
It doesn't really matter whether you agree or not, raven!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: surfshady on April 26, 2007, 01:59:15 AM

MBA graduates decry the degree as a joke, the biggest waste of time and money imaginable, a confidence game. No one disputes that an MBA from a highly prestigious school such as Harvard, Wharton, Chicago, or Stanford can lead to high pay, but that this is because those schools are so hard to get into (and so costly once you get there), and that only the best and brightest fast-trackers have a shot. In other words, they are people who most likely would have succeeded whether they went to B-school or not. Overall, the evidence suggests that for most managers a couple of years of extra work experience, not more time spent in classrooms, will pay off better than a graduate business degree.


An acquaintance of mine works at a real estate private equity company having experienced success in his two years there (promoted twice to Director). It's very hard for him to leave his job because he enjoys the industry, likes the work he's doing and sees room for future growth. He was thinking that since he was doing well in an industry he liked, he should do an MBA to further his education. However given his profile he has been getting advice to apply to a top-tier MBA school.

The thing is that his bosses think that if he leaves and takes 2 years off, even if it's at Harvard, he would be worse off than staying and working those 2 years.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: exnihilo on April 26, 2007, 02:22:26 AM

The thing is that his bosses think that if he leaves and takes 2 years off, even if it's at Harvard, he would be worse off than staying and working those 2 years.


But of course, he does not need an MBA -- the private equity industry pays top dollars and as a director he should be making at least $100K. It does not pay to attend a top-ranked school. That's because the likes of Wharton and Harvard tend to attract high earners, making it harder to get a big salary bump at graduation and recoup the investment in an MBA. How hard? For Harvard grads, the breakeven point won't come until 2020, or about 20 years shy of retirement!!!

(http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/5715/imagen01kk9.jpg)
(http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/7808/imagefnrvx3.jpg)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: dragoncloak on April 26, 2007, 03:03:47 AM
Is it just money you people are after in your life? If so, then MBA is not worth it if you like your current job and all. But as with anything else in life, you cannot just summarize MBA into ROI, Cost of Capital or IRR. As with marriage, you don't normally go around trying to find the cost of capital and ROI -- no one would get married or have kids! 

Yet, a top MBA is a signaling devices for potential employers. The MBA, while costly, does have its intrinsic value even if you learn nothing -- you network and make great contacts. It is sometimes difficult to get into a career which you will never able to attain without the degree. Take VC for example, every one in VC world will say you don't need a MBA to get to their position but 80%+ have them. So they all got introduced into the industry by friends. Where do you think they get their friends from? The MBA from a top school is just an insurance paper. Nothing more and nothing less. Is it worth the premium? IMHO, absolutely.   

As for why so many smart men and women go to business school? Men love it since it's 2 years of partying from i-banking/consulting where you were treated like a monkey. Women love it since this is the place where they can hunt down guys that are otherwise hard to find elsewhere. Business schools are not exactly casinos -- but similar to casinos you have fun while paying.
Title: Think carefully before taking the plunge
Post by: browsingatwork on April 26, 2007, 03:09:28 AM
The myth of the six-figure-plus salary for an MBA graduate seems to be emblazoned into the collective unconscious. Every MBA website mentions it, the Business Week and US News and World Report articles report on it, and every watercooler kibbitzing session on the topic of the MBA invariably broaches it. This six-figure salary is often much higher than that of your typical MBA applicant. The Graduate Management Admissions Council estimates that an MBA degree provides an increase of 35% in salary pre and post MBA.

These rumors, conjectures, and statistics provide a quite alluring draw, so let's explore them a bit. In all fairness, there are many individuals who receive high salaries upon graduation. My colleagues who have pursued the finance and consulting paths have amassed quite a respectable quantity of what the Notorious BIG refers to as "paper". One of my friends working in finance even managed to pull down a $500,000 bonus in 2003. Enough said.

Unfortunately, however, there is a flip side. Median compensation numbers are inflated a bit since the schools only release statistics on SELF-REPORTED information, and not all graduates reply to the survey. For example, the $115,000 median income from the most recent Wharton career report is the average of the 600 respondents, not of the 778 graduates. This disconnect introduces what statisticians refer to as a "non-response bias", meaning that when it comes to reporting something as ego-sensitive as compensation, people receiving low salaries are unlikely to respond. Such a bias implies that the TRUE average compensation is probably somewhat lower. To give a real world example, I personally chose not to reveal my salary information to the Career Management office because I felt slightly emasculated in admitting to my relatively meager remuneration.

Secondly, one must beware of what I refer to as the "Keanu Reeves Factor" (in homage to his riveting performance in A Devil's Advocate). The Keanu Reeves factor dictates that in order to earn these six-figure salaries, one typically needs to land a job in investment banking or management consulting where one must sell one's soul to the devil. This underworld reference is not intended to refer to the "insert-your-favorite-corporate-crook-here" MBA graduates of yesteryear, but rather to the infernal quality of life that entry level consulants and investment bankers lead. The hours are really, really, long and you completely surrender control over your life. A good friend of mine at a major investment bank said it best in a recent informal interview, "It sucks even worse than people say it sucks."

Thirdly (if that's actually a word), the return on investment might not be as high as you might think. If you will excuse the irony of using a concept learned in business school to refute the value of business school, please consider the following example:

Assume that GMAC is correct and that an MBA engenders a 35% salary increase. Also assume that the $115K salary is correct. If one were to take into account the changes in marginal tax rates, the years of lost income, et cetera, the change in Net Present Value for your ten years after business school would be -$53,000. This figure is primarily driven by the fact that the student loan repayments for such a hefty sum would have to be a staggering, non-tax deductible $1,500/ month (assuming a 10 year repayment period). Put into more simplistic terms, if one were to leave an $85K/year job today for the hope of getting a $115K/year job two years from now, your net yearly take-home pay (after loan repayments) will be actually be LOWER than if you simply stay put for the first several years. You won't even break even until about 12 years from now.

http://mbacaveatemptor.blogspot.com/2005/06/wharton-grads-caveat-emptor-for.html
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Consideration on April 26, 2007, 02:18:30 PM
I am starting law school in the fall and plan on enrolling in the joint degree JD/MBA program. My intentions are to practice securities, corporate, and real estate law in a major metropolitan area. Most books I have read so far concerning securities regulation as well as the SEC's website looks favorably upon obtaining the joint degree. I am wondering how you guys feel about the joint programs versus pursuing one or the other degree. I realize that a great deal of information is learned first hand on the job about securities but I think what is taught in the MBA program lays the foundation for what your mentors will teach you in the firm. Let me know what you guys think.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: johns259 on April 26, 2007, 04:44:21 PM
I am starting law in the fall and plan on enrolling in the joint degree JD/MBA program. My intentions are to practice securities, corporate, and real estate law in a major metropolitan area. Most books I have read so far concerning securities regulation as well as the SEC's website looks favorably obtain the joint degree. I am wondering how you guys feel about the joint programs versus pursuing one or the other degree. I realize that a great deal of information is learned first hand on the job about securities but I think what is taught in the MBA program lays the foundation for what your mentors will teach you in the firm. Let me know what you guys think.

Have you thought about just doing a Masters in a specific area of economics or finance. Specialization is the name of the game nowadays.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: the outhere brothers on April 26, 2007, 08:06:08 PM

But of course, he does not need an MBA -- the private equity industry pays top dollars and as a director he should be making at least $100K. It does not pay to attend a top-ranked school. That is because the likes of Wharton and Harvard tend to attract high earners, making it harder to get a big salary bump at graduation and recoup the investment in an MBA. How hard? For Harvard grads, the breakeven point will not come until 2020, or about 20 years shy of retirement!!!

(http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/5715/imagen01kk9.jpg)
(http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/7808/imagefnrvx3.jpg)


So basically the way they culcate the cost of attending is, for Harvard, e.g.,

tuition & living expenses $74,000 X 2 = $148,000
lost wages                        $70,000 X 2 = $140,000

total                                                $300,000

Seems to me an MBA from a top school is not only not worth it, but you have to be a complete a s s h o l e to go for it ... anyway, I was kinda wondering whether a JD from a top school is worth it when you think in the same terms as above ..
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: emmy on April 26, 2007, 08:59:53 PM

Is it just money you people are after in your life? If so, then MBA is not worth it if you like your current job and all. But as with anything else in life, you cannot just summarize MBA into ROI, Cost of Capital or IRR. As with marriage, you don\\\'t normally go around trying to find the cost of capital and ROI -- no one would get married or have kids! 


Women are self-sufficient nowadays and you end up better financially when you marry! As for kids, well, they are definitely a liability, that is why many couples have only one kid, not to mention that they have the latter years after they get married!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: zest on April 26, 2007, 09:23:29 PM

Women are self-sufficient nowadays and you end up better financially when you marry! As for kids, well, they are definitely a liability, that is why many couples have only one kid, not to mention that they have the latter years after they get married!


Well, I have to disagree! I mean, while there are definitely couples that don't have kids and marry for the sake of marrying (read fun), they are few and far between. Having children is inherent in the act of marriage -- if you simply need someone to @ # ! * and not have children, you just go gay and that is it! 
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: allbusiness on April 27, 2007, 12:46:19 AM

As for why so many smart men and women go to business school? Men love it since it's 2 years of partying from i-banking/consulting where you were treated like a monkey. Women love it since this is the place where they can hunt down guys that are otherwise hard to find elsewhere. Business schools are not exactly casinos -- but similar to casinos you have fun while paying.


Yea right!

http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/mbajournal/03levine/3.htm

Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: e p i on April 27, 2007, 12:56:21 AM

So basically the way they culcate the cost of attending is, for Harvard, e.g.,

tuition & living expenses $74,000 X 2 = $148,000
lost wages                        $70,000 X 2 = $140,000

total                                                $300,000

Seems to me an MBA from a top school is not only not worth it, but you have to be a complete a s s h o l e to go for it ... anyway, I was kinda wondering whether a JD from a top school is worth it when you think in the same terms as above ..


It appears an MBA would be somewhat worth it if you enter business school straight from college, that is to say having earnings potential of only, say, $40,000 -- but then again top b-schools very very rarely admit you without any relevant business experience, even if you have stellar academic credentials (say, 3.9 undergrad GPA and 730 GMAT).
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: amatterof on April 27, 2007, 01:18:13 AM

It appears an MBA would be somewhat worth it if you enter business school straight from college, that is to say having earnings potential of only, say, $40,000 -- but then again top b-schools very very rarely admit you without any relevant business experience, even if you have stellar academic credentials (say, 3.9 undergrad GPA and 730 GMAT).


A 3.9/730 kid would not be in his right mind to kiss business schools' asses to let him in when he could be easily accepted by Yale law or Harvard med. For one thing, if you score 730 on GMAT you'd have a LSAT 170 give or take.

Most importantly, the starting salary for a green Harvard MBA grad would be half of that of the post-MBA salary of the typical graduate with at least 4 years of work experience under his belt, whereas the baby-face, freshly graduated Yale JD or Harvard MD regularly gets $125-150K right off the bat.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Consideration on April 27, 2007, 03:54:53 AM
The College of Business offers a certification in Forensic Accounting and Fraud Investigation which is only a four course load offered during the summer. I am also thinking of completing solely this in lieu of the MBA.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: evelyn on April 27, 2007, 03:59:09 AM

It appears an MBA would be somewhat worth it if you enter business school straight from college, that is to say having earnings potential of only, say, $40,000 [...]


Nice assumption! I mean, the median entry-level salary for local prosecuting attorneys and public defenders is about $40-45K. And I won't even mention a legal services organization attorney's salary ($36,000)!

Computer science or computer engineering graduates fare pretty well (around $50K a year); however, liberal arts graduates occupy the lower rungs of the pay scale at about $30K. Even business administration and economics/finance graduates probably won't make $40K a year.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: dbmuell on April 27, 2007, 12:57:36 PM
I am currently a 0L so I have little insight to share on law school satisfaction.  That being said, I can tell you that working 40 hrs/wk in a job for which you have no passion makes easily as much of a dent in your personal happiness as 60hrs/wk in a job that you truly enjoy.  In my current career in the Computer Science field, I have seen both worlds. Mostly I have sat at a desk doing mundane work for eight hours a day, drawing a large pay check and watching the clock.  I have seen all of the unhappiness, greed, antisocial behavior and corporate nonesense described in the above posts and have pretty much reached the conclusion that unahppy people are everywhere and simply make their voices louder than everyone else's.  If you don't let them drag you into their mire, it won't happen.

I'm going to law school because I want to find something that I can actually get excited about waking up to go do every day.  If that means 45k/yr to start, then so be it.  If it means some extra hours, than so be it.  As long as it does not involve sitting at a computer terminal in a tiny cubicle watching the clock tick until it hits 5:00, I can't imagine regretting this decision.  I have no intentions of chasing money, prestige or any of the other nonesense that so many seem caught up in, and I think that there are a multitude of areas in the legal field in which one can find great happiness and success if they are not caught up in things like "highest starting salary."  I'm just a 0L and maybe this sounds pretty naive to those of you actually doing it but I just don't think any job can suck your soul unless you allow it to.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: GA-fan on April 27, 2007, 02:38:29 PM
I am currently a 0L so I have little insight to share on law school satisfaction.  That being said, I can tell you that working 40 hrs/wk in a job for which you have no passion makes easily as much of a dent in your personal happiness as 60hrs/wk in a job that you truly enjoy.  In my current career in the Computer Science field, I have seen both worlds. Mostly I have sat at a desk doing mundane work for eight hours a day, drawing a large pay check and watching the clock.  I have seen all of the unhappiness, greed, antisocial behavior and corporate nonesense described in the above posts and have pretty much reached the conclusion that unahppy people are everywhere and simply make their voices louder than everyone else's.  If you don't let them drag you into their mire, it won't happen.

I'm going to law school because I want to find something that I can actually get excited about waking up to go do every day.  If that means 45k/yr to start, then so be it.  If it means some extra hours, than so be it.  As long as it does not involve sitting at a computer terminal in a tiny cubicle watching the clock tick until it hits 5:00, I can't imagine regretting this decision.  I have no intentions of chasing money, prestige or any of the other nonesense that so many seem caught up in, and I think that there are a multitude of areas in the legal field in which one can find great happiness and success if they are not caught up in things like "highest starting salary."  I'm just a 0L and maybe this sounds pretty naive to those of you actually doing it but I just don't think any job can suck your soul unless you allow it to.

You'd be surprised how much a year of law school can make your neurotic, OCD, and suck your life away. You should definitely come back in a year and let us know how it went. I'm not saying it's that way for everybody, but usually at least for anyone gunning for hte top 20% of the class.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: starter on April 27, 2007, 02:57:56 PM
I am currently a 0L so I have little insight to share on law school satisfaction. 

You could have stopped there.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: dbmuell on April 27, 2007, 06:30:51 PM
I could have but my post had nothing to do with the specifics of LS.  It's amazing how much different of a message I hear from people that went the "non-trad" route.  Most of those that I have talked to have earned some hard miles in the real world and love their law school experience.  Perhaps a lot of these complaints are not unique to law school but are everywhere in life. Perhaps an undergraduate education does not usually give you the tools to deal with them and thus the unhappiness. I don't know and I'll probably get flamed further for even suggesting it, but it does seem that those with more life experience have much happier time in law school...
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Consideration on April 28, 2007, 03:33:53 AM
but it does seem that those with more life experience have much happier time in law school...

While I realize that everyone does not fit into a tightly sealed box, I also agree that most non-trads seem to be a little more happy about law school.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Alamo79 on April 28, 2007, 06:22:31 AM
I am currently a 0L so I have little insight to share on law school satisfaction.  That being said, I can tell you that working 40 hrs/wk in a job for which you have no passion makes easily as much of a dent in your personal happiness as 60hrs/wk in a job that you truly enjoy.  In my current career in the Computer Science field, I have seen both worlds. Mostly I have sat at a desk doing mundane work for eight hours a day, drawing a large pay check and watching the clock.  I have seen all of the unhappiness, greed, antisocial behavior and corporate nonesense described in the above posts and have pretty much reached the conclusion that unahppy people are everywhere and simply make their voices louder than everyone else's.  If you don't let them drag you into their mire, it won't happen.

I'm going to law school because I want to find something that I can actually get excited about waking up to go do every day.  If that means 45k/yr to start, then so be it.  If it means some extra hours, than so be it.  As long as it does not involve sitting at a computer terminal in a tiny cubicle watching the clock tick until it hits 5:00, I can't imagine regretting this decision.  I have no intentions of chasing money, prestige or any of the other nonesense that so many seem caught up in, and I think that there are a multitude of areas in the legal field in which one can find great happiness and success if they are not caught up in things like "highest starting salary."  I'm just a 0L and maybe this sounds pretty naive to those of you actually doing it but I just don't think any job can suck your soul unless you allow it to.

This was me, one year ago.  I've worked much harder in law school than I usually did for my old job (which was tech consulting, not exactly the same but still pretty close) because I've found the material so much more interesting.  And although I have been a little frazzled at times, I've definitely been happier than I was at my old job.  You sound like you're on the right track; pay no attention to the clowns on this board (except for me).
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: GA-fan on April 28, 2007, 07:39:13 AM
I am also a non-trad, and while I think I may be happier somewhat than the average traditional student, I think that non-trads tend to put more pressure on themsleves to do well, which is probably what made the year tough.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: grassroute on April 30, 2007, 09:32:42 PM

But of course, he does not need an MBA -- the private equity industry pays top dollars and as a director he should be making at least $100K. It does not pay to attend a top-ranked school. That is because the likes of Wharton and Harvard tend to attract high earners, making it harder to get a big salary bump at graduation and recoup the investment in an MBA. How hard? For Harvard grads, the breakeven point will not come until 2020, or about 20 years shy of retirement!!!



[...] anyway, I was kinda wondering whether a JD from a top school is worth it when you think in the same terms as above ..


The value of an JD from a top school is definitely positive; even it may take 15 years to break even, the average Harvard JD, e.g., will still have 25 years to retire -- time period during which his salary will likely be in the range of 100-150K as opposed to the $60-70K that he would get had he not gone to law school. 

tuition & living expenses $60,000 X 3 = $180,000
lost wages                          $40,000 X 3 = $120,000

total                                             $300,000
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: sally on May 01, 2007, 02:22:57 AM


So basically the way they culcate the cost of attending is, for Harvard, e.g.,

tuition & living expenses $74,000 X 2 = $148,000
lost wages                        $70,000 X 2 = $140,000

total                                                $300,000

Seems to me an MBA from a top school is not only not worth it, but you have to be a complete a s s h o l e to go for it [...]


Bear in mind that close to 50% of MBA students, especially part-time ones, are sponsored by their employers; the latter do not pay for living expenses though.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: 1.1.1 on May 01, 2007, 02:30:19 AM

Bear in mind that close to 50% of MBA students, especially part-time ones, are sponsored by their employers; the latter do not pay for living expenses though.


I don't think "living expenses" should be factored in the the equation ... unless you're living with your family/s.a. and you're not paying on your own for rent and food.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: pittylaw on May 01, 2007, 02:39:36 AM

The value of an JD from a top school is definitely positive; even it may take 15 years to break even, the average Harvard JD, e.g., will still have 25 years to retire -- time period during which his salary will likely be in the range of 100-150K as opposed to the $60-70K that he would get had he not gone to law school. 

tuition & living expenses $60,000 X 3 = $180,000
lost wages                          $40,000 X 3 = $120,000

total                                             $300,000


So basically if you graduate from, say, a TTT school and earn, say, $60,000 a year once you graduate and/or after a while after you graduate, it'll take some 30 years to reach the break-even point ?
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: the equation on May 01, 2007, 03:22:04 AM

Bear in mind that close to 50% of MBA students, especially part-time ones, are sponsored by their employers [...]


That does not really change the ugly picture of the MBA ... if you think it thru, it is because companies know full well that the value of an MBA is zero that they out of a sense of guilt decide to cover their employees' tuition costs. The latter still incur losses in the process, though, their lost wages. 
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: lovelaw on May 01, 2007, 03:36:17 AM



That does not really change the ugly picture of the MBA ... if you think it thru, it is because companies know full well that the value of an MBA is zero that they out of a sense of guilt decide to cover their employees' tuition costs. The latter still incur losses in the process, though, their lost wages. 


Are you implying that employer companies slow their employees down when they encourage/demand their employees to get an MBA?! That those companies are part of a system that makes possible the very survival of business schools and the like?!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: m e on May 01, 2007, 03:55:43 AM

Nice assumption! I mean, the median entry-level salary for local prosecuting attorneys and public defenders is about $40-45K. And I won't even mention a legal services organization attorney's salary ($36,000)!

Computer science or computer engineering graduates fare pretty well (around $50K a year); however, liberal arts graduates occupy the lower rungs of the pay scale at about $30K. Even business administration and economics/finance graduates probably won't make $40K a year.


So basically if you graduate from, say, a TTT school and earn, say, $60,000 a year once you graduate and/or after a while after you graduate, it'll take some 30 years to reach the break-even point ?


Oh please -- are you really aware who goes to TTTs?! These are people whose earnings potential is not even $20K a year, assuming they are employable in the first place!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: parent on May 01, 2007, 11:43:52 AM

The value of an JD from a top school is definitely positive; even it may take 15 years to break even, the average Harvard JD, e.g., will still have 25 years to retire -- time period during which his salary will likely be in the range of 100-150K as opposed to the $60-70K that he would get had he not gone to law school. 

tuition & living expenses $60,000 X 3 = $180,000
lost wages                          $40,000 X 3 = $120,000

total                                             $300,000


So basically if you graduate from, say, a TTT school and earn, say, $60,000 a year once you graduate and/or after a while after you graduate, it'll take some 30 years to reach the break-even point ?


Keep in mind that,

1. Third/Fourth Tier schools' tuition is not $35K, it's more in the range of $25K.
2. Living expenses (if they should be taken into account for the purpose of this analysis) are usually no more than $18K a year, instead of $25K.
3. Third/Fourth Tier students pre-JD (potential) salaries are more in the range of $25-30K, instead of $40K.
4. A JD from a Third/Fourth Tier school lands you a position that pays -- with the passing of time -- more than $60K a year. For instance, the median starting salary for a local prosecutor is about $40K in rural areas and $45K in metropolitan areas, but with 11-15 years of experience, the respective salaries jump to $65K and $85K.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: overdraft on May 01, 2007, 11:57:01 AM

[...] anyway, I was kinda wondering whether a JD from a top school is worth it when you think in the same terms as above ..


The value of an JD from a top school is definitely positive; even it may take 15 years to break even, the average Harvard JD, e.g., will still have 25 years to retire -- time period during which his salary will likely be in the range of 100-150K as opposed to the $60-70K that he would get had he not gone to law school. 

tuition & living expenses $60,000 X 3 = $180,000
lost wages                          $40,000 X 3 = $120,000

total                                             $300,000


Oh please, stop comparing JD students to MBA ones -- they are totally different animals. The average MBA student is 28 years old, is working and is living on his own, while the typical JD student is 22 years old and probably still living with her family ... she has not yet learned to take responsibility for her stupid actions, in fact mommy and daddy are paying for law school. This JD student operates under the principle, "My parents' loss is not my loss."
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: utu on May 01, 2007, 12:11:19 PM

Oh please, stop comparing JD students to MBA ones -- they are totally different animals. The average MBA student is 28 years old, is working and is living on his own, while the typical JD student is 22 years old and probably still living with her family ... she has not yet learned to take responsibility for her stupid actions, in fact mommy and daddy are paying for law school. This JD student operates under the principle, "My parents' loss is not my loss."


Are you somewhat implying that the parents of TTT students are stupid ?
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: xroxy on May 01, 2007, 01:21:45 PM


So basically if you graduate from, say, a TTT school and earn, say, $60,000 a year once you graduate and/or after a while after you graduate, it'll take some 30 years to reach the break-even point ?


Keep in mind that,

1. Third/Fourth Tier schools' tuition is not $35K, it's more in the range of $25K.
2. Living expenses (if they should be taken into account for the purpose of this analysis) are usually no more than $18K a year, instead of $25K.
3. Third/Fourth Tier students pre-JD (potential) salaries are more in the range of $25-30K, instead of $40K.
4. A JD from a Third/Fourth Tier school lands you a position that pays -- with the passing of time -- more than $60K a year. For instance, the median starting salary for a local prosecutor is about $40K in rural areas and $45K in metropolitan areas, but with 11-15 years of experience, the respective salaries jump to $65K and $85K.


Well, well, well, with your help, parent, TTT wrecks -- I mean -- grads will likely reach their break-even point in just 25 years .
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: xroxy on May 01, 2007, 01:26:36 PM

[...] in fact mommy and daddy are paying for law school. This JD student operates under the principle, "My parents' loss is not my loss."


Now we're talking! This probably means the above-mentioned wreck (damn it, I mean grad) will begin to actually make profits after 15 years, instead of 25 ... which means when he's 40 years old ... point in time when he'll have kids of his own to take care of ... oops!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: dbmuell on May 01, 2007, 07:04:52 PM
Quote
Oh please -- are you really aware who goes to TTTs?! These are people whose earnings potential is not even $20K a year, assuming they are employable in the first place!


What dream world are you living in?  There are a hell of a lot of people applying to and attending Tier 2 and 3 schools that are already successful engineers, doctors, computer programmers, accountants, etc.  I can assure you (being one of them) that these people are not choosing to go to law school because they are not employable elsewhere.  Wake up and smell the real world. 
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: kdXtv on May 01, 2007, 07:42:15 PM

[...] if you think it thru, it is because companies know full well that the value of an MBA is zero that they out of a sense of guilt decide to cover their employees' tuition costs. [...]


I don't really believe in some kind of "sense of guilt" that American businesses would rack with ... in fact, with them you're guaranteed to have a balls-deep experience, they just @ # ! * the *&^% outta you!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: d a n a on May 01, 2007, 07:59:17 PM

I don't think "living expenses" should be factored in the the equation ... unless you're living with your family/s.a. and you're not paying on your own for rent and food.


You mean you've not been paying yourself for food and rent up until starting law school, but you get financial aid to cover your living expenses as well once in school? That's very likely to happen, taken into account that that way the student could "brag" she finally does not have to rely on her family for everyday expenses ... not to mention that she'd be able to utilize her space to @ # ! * as many people, and as often, as she can.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: roses are for the rich on May 02, 2007, 04:01:03 AM

Oh please, stop comparing JD students to MBA ones -- they are totally different animals. The average MBA student is 28 years old, is working and is living on his own, while the typical JD student is 22 years old and probably still living with her family ... she has not yet learned to take responsibility for her stupid actions, in fact mommy and daddy are paying for law school. This JD student operates under the principle, "My parents' loss is not my loss."


Are you somewhat implying that the parents of TTT students are stupid ?


Both parents and TTT students are stupid, utu.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: vaplaugh on May 02, 2007, 09:09:59 AM
This thread has become pretty lame thanks to flaming comments such as

Oh please -- are you really aware who goes to TTTs?! These are people whose earnings potential is not even $20K a year, assuming they are employable in the first place!

and

Both parents and TTT students are stupid, utu.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: rudelaw on May 02, 2007, 11:00:01 PM

You mean you've not been paying yourself for food and rent up until starting law school, but you get financial aid to cover your living expenses as well once in school? That's very likely to happen, taken into account that that way the student could "brag" she finally does not have to rely on her family for everyday expenses ... not to mention that she'd be able to utilize her space to @ # ! * as many people, and as often, as she can.


I wouldn't doubt it -- a sizeable portion of TTT students go to school just to get financial aid -- they are full aware they will never be able to pay the loans back and they don't care.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Wanda on May 03, 2007, 12:05:39 AM

I wouldn't doubt it -- a sizeable portion of TTT students go to school just to get financial aid -- they are full aware they will never be able to pay the loans back and they don't care.


I wouldn't put it exactly in the words you put it -- I think many TTT students enter law school because they want to delay entering into workforce -- basically they don't know what to do with themselves. As for being "full aware" or not whether they'll be able to pay their loans back, I'd say they do have unrealistic expectations in the beginning, but with passing of time they "get it" what the deal is -- yet, very few quit school.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: lawhaw on May 03, 2007, 12:49:16 AM

[...] in fact mommy and daddy are paying for law school. This JD student operates under the principle, "My parents' loss is not my loss."


Now we're talking! This probably means the above-mentioned wreck (d**mn it, I mean grad) will begin to actually make profits after 15 years, instead of 25 ... which means when he's 40 years old ... point in time when he'll have kids of his own to take care of ... oops!


I just don't understand what's wrong with parents helping their children go to school! However, I do agree with the other poster above when saying that such children can not really take pride in the fact that the money thrown down the TTT hole is not their own, but their parents'
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: a strange affair on May 03, 2007, 01:25:35 AM

Are you implying that employer companies slow their employees down when they encourage/demand their employees to get an MBA?! That those companies are part of a system that makes possible the very survival of business schools and the like?!


So basically many MBA students simply do not have a choice when going to b-school because they are told by their employers they need an MBA to advance? And that others are so brainwashed as to the negative value of the degree as not to even be able to figure out why employers of the first group are so "generous" as to cover their employees tuition costs?
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: vaplaugh on May 03, 2007, 09:07:54 AM

I wouldn't doubt it -- a sizeable portion of TTT students go to school just to get financial aid -- they are full aware they will never be able to pay the loans back and they don't care.


I wouldn't put it exactly in the words you put it -- I think many TTT students enter law school because they want to delay entering into workforce -- basically they don't know what to do with themselves. As for being "full aware" or not whether they'll be able to pay their loans back, I'd say they do have unrealistic expectations in the beginning, but with passing of time they "get it" what the deal is -- yet, very few quit school.

It's unfair to single-out TTT students in this fashion.  I seriously doubt that TTT students attend law school to "delay the real world" in a proportion significantly greater than T1 and T14 students.  I've met plenty of T14 graduates who admit "I had high grades, and I did well on the LSAT - so I went to law school."  The intent to delay the real world is persistent regardless of school ranking.

The major difference, as y'all have said, is the reasonable expectation to repay the loans.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: rich dad, dumb kid on May 03, 2007, 07:11:25 PM

[...] anyway, I was kinda wondering whether a JD from a top school is worth it when you think in the same terms as above ..


The value of an JD from a top school is definitely positive; even it may take 15 years to break even, the average Harvard JD, e.g., will still have 25 years to retire -- time period during which his salary will likely be in the range of 100-150K as opposed to the $60-70K that he would get had he not gone to law school. 

tuition & living expenses $60,000 X 3 = $180,000
lost wages                          $40,000 X 3 = $120,000

total                                             $300,000


Which ones do you exactly consider to be "top" schools? Top 5, 10, 14, 50?
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: financial aid on May 03, 2007, 07:35:22 PM
I tend to believe only T14s are real "top" schools.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Cory on May 03, 2007, 09:06:47 PM

I wouldn\'t put it exactly in the words you put it -- I think many TTT students enter law school because they want to delay entering into workforce -- basically they don\'t know what to do with themselves. As for being \"full aware\" or not whether they\'ll be able to pay their loans back, I\'d say they do have unrealistic expectations in the beginning, but with passing of time they \"get it\" what the deal is -- yet, very few quit school.


Well, to nab a job at a top firm it is critical that you attend a prestigious school and receive top grades. Those who do not measure up set out on their own, in fact a lot of people go into sole practice out of necessity rather than preference. You interview and you do not have a job when you graduate and the same is true for your future partner. You and your partner are living off of credit cards, so you form a partnership that will hopefully work.

It is really tough, though, if you have not had a year or two working with another attorney. Law schools do not teach the nuts and bolts of a practice. The difficult part is riding out the ups and downs of a new business. It is really not a competition problem, it is a business development problem. There may be two weeks where the phone does not ring.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: shinglaw on May 03, 2007, 09:24:10 PM

Well, to nab a job at a top firm it is critical that you attend a prestigious school and receive top grades. Those who do not measure up set out on their own, in fact a lot of people go into sole practice out of necessity rather than preference. You interview and you do not have a job when you graduate and the same is true for your future partner. You and your partner are living off of credit cards, so you form a partnership that will hopefully work.

It is really tough, though, if you have not had a year or two working with another attorney. Law schools do not teach the nuts and bolts of a practice. The difficult part is riding out the ups and downs of a new business. It is really not a competition problem, it is a business development problem. There may be two weeks where the phone does not ring.



[...]

4. A JD from a Third/Fourth Tier school lands you a position that pays -- with the passing of time -- more than $60K a year. For instance, the median starting salary for a local prosecutor is about $40K in rural areas and $45K in metropolitan areas, but with 11-15 years of experience, the respective salaries jump to $65K and $85K.


Senator male private part Durbin back in 2003 sponsored legislation that would grant student loan relief to public sector lawyers in the criminal justice system. The average young lawyer from a private law school graduated with $78,763 in debt last year, according to the ABA. The average graduate of a public law school owed $51,056. Durbin's office puts the numbers higher, with the average private law school graduate carrying $97,763 in debt, and public school graduates owing $66,810 .  Attorney Murray -- who had $14,000 in debt when he graduated in 1983 -- says the trend is forcing lawyers to leave the state's attorney's office, and persuading third-year law students not to apply. "It definitely weighs on me. I'm going to be paying it for the rest of my life," said assistant Cook County State's Attorney Jullian Brevard, who owes about $90,000.

Durbin's legislation would alleviate the burden of student loans, and help prosecutors and defenders offices attract and retain top lawyers, who often leave when "big bucks beckon" from private sector jobs (the Enron task force attorneys are a recent example of this phenomenon, most of whom fled government for private practice once their prosecutions had concluded)  The Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act would pay up to $10,000 a year of the law school loans of any prosecutor or public defender. To qualify, a lawyer would have to commit to three years of service. Loan assistance would be capped at $60,000 per lawyer and would apply only to loans made through federal programs.

Why lawyers going into solo practice don't qualify for loan forgiveness? Many new solos serve lower income populations or handle court appointed work similar to defenders' offices. Moreover, solo attorneys don't receive the same benefits as prosecutors or defenders, like health insurance or formal training, like trial bootcamp or CLE. Instead, they pay these expenses out of pocket. And because of student loan debt, some new solos feel pressured to run a volume practice, where they don't adequately serve lower income clients or to turn down lower income clients who can't pay the bills. 

Many lawyers who accept prosecutor or defendants positions do so because they want the training, and are willing to make a financial sacrifice to get it. Loan forgiveness would make this choice easier, but I don't think that an extra $10,000 per year is going to give a lawyer set on earning $145,000 a year to think about a job with the Public Defender. By contrast, because fewer quality attorneys start their own solo practice, loan forgiviness would make a difference to those who choose to do so.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: byproxy on May 03, 2007, 09:32:49 PM

So basically if you graduate from, say, a TTT school and earn, say, $60,000 a year once you graduate and/or after a while after you graduate, it'll take some 30 years to reach the break-even point ?


Getting into a top university — or any university — will not guarantee success. I've met Ivy Leaguers who have experienced unemployment, bankruptcy and even homelessness. I've met high school drop outs who flourished on their own initiative. In my own small town, a couple with graduate degrees dropped out to pursue artistic careers — and they clean houses to pay the bills. Recently a minimum wage job was posted by a nonprofit — and several unemployed lawyers applied.

Career-changers who face the future with an attitude of "I can handle anything" are the ones who win today. Tossed into the ocean, they'll improvise a set of oars and keep up their spirits till they figure out what to do next. Those who feel betrayed ("I thought I was set for life") flounder around for weeks, months, even years. Entitlement is over. Those who have a positive outlook, who can seize the unexpected opportunity, can count on reaching the shore.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: fork in the ass on May 07, 2007, 12:39:36 AM

The value of an JD from a top school is definitely positive; even it may take 15 years to break even, the average Harvard JD, e.g., will still have 25 years to retire -- time period during which his salary will likely be in the range of 100-150K as opposed to the $60-70K that he would get had he not gone to law school. 

tuition & living expenses $60,000 X 3 = $180,000
lost wages                          $40,000 X 3 = $120,000

total                                             $300,000


tuition & living expenses $60,000 X 3 = $180,000 huh? And what about the interest you'd be paying on the original amount borrowed? How about $260,000 + $120,000 = $380,000 for a total?

(http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/7384/imagejh0oi4.jpg)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: allocate on May 07, 2007, 02:51:09 AM

tuition & living expenses $60,000 X 3 = $180,000 huh? And what about the interest you\'d be paying on the original amount borrowed? How about $260,000 + $120,000 = $380,000 for a total?

(http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/7384/imagejh0oi4.jpg)


Most T14 kids have rich parents, I don\'t think they have to borrow some $180,000 -- the average debt for such students is $80,000.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: loan payer on May 09, 2007, 05:06:17 AM

The value of an JD from a top school is definitely positive; even it may take 15 years to break even, the average Harvard JD, e.g., will still have 25 years to retire -- time period during which his salary will likely be in the range of 100-150K as opposed to the $60-70K that he would get had he not gone to law school. 

tuition & living expenses $60,000 X 3 = $180,000
lost wages                          $40,000 X 3 = $120,000

total                                             $300,000


So basically if you graduate from, say, a TTT school and earn, say, $60,000 a year once you graduate and/or after a while after you graduate, it'll take some 30 years to reach the break-even point ?


According to this logic, no one should go to college, especially a private college --

tuition and living expenses $35,000 X 4 = $140,000

You earn some $30,000 a year after you graduate, and it'll take some 40 years to reach your break-even point, isn't it so?

(http://img15.imgspot.com/u/07/128/07/imageRTT.JPG)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: wakaranai on May 09, 2007, 05:48:58 AM
I think a lot of financial aid counselors will recommend that students who have to take out full loans for private undergrad consider a cheaper option for that very reason. Plus, I'd imagine that those who do choose to go are probably going to be getting some grants from both the government and the school and will be doing work study as well along with doing other things to lower the expenses.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: veganvenus on May 09, 2007, 09:26:28 AM
The value of an JD from a top school is definitely positive; even it may take 15 years to break even, the average Harvard JD, e.g., will still have 25 years to retire -- time period during which his salary will likely be in the range of 100-150K as opposed to the $60-70K that he would get had he not gone to law school. 

tuition & living expenses $60,000 X 3 = $180,000
lost wages                          $40,000 X 3 = $120,000

total                                             $300,000

You're right, but I think that that is a conservative estimate of how long it will take to break even.

Starting salaries for BigLaw are actually $160k plus $30k bonus, increasing $20-$25k per year afterward.  That means that assuming a 40% tax rate and $5k/mo. living expenses, you're saving $266k in the first three years. 

Tuition + living expenses are about $50k per year, which means that most would graduate with $150k in debt. While lost wages are part of an overall calculus, they aren't part of student loans.  If one lives frugally (which I'd imagine few first year biglaw associates do), you could really pay off those loans in two years.  Even at the high COL numbers above, you're paid off in three.

If you're calculating 'break even', not actual loan debt, you will factor in lost wages, but not living expenses, which you would have had to pay whether you were a law student or not.  $33k/year tuition plus $40k/year of lost wages comes out to $219k.  Since your salary was increased the first year by $150k - let's say $125k to optimistically assume three years of raises you missed - the degree pays for the expenses and missed opportunities in two years. 

If it wasn't so much work it would be one of the best investment opportunities there is.

The other thing about "top" schools is they have better loan forgiveness programs.  If you're not making the big bucks from these schools, odds are good that you're choosing to take a do-gooder job.  The calculus still works, since much of your loan debt then gets paid by the school.

ETA: Of course, not everyone is going to be as diligent about saving; I'm sure many see that paycheck and change their style of living dramatically, or are influenced by the culture to live high (I know a lot of i-bankers who fell pray to that) Furthermore, the rates of loan interest vs. savings interest may not make that the wisest use of your money.  This is not really intended to be 'how long will you be in debt' as much as addressing the question of whether T14s are worth the high tuition.

I'm two years in.  Law School was one of the best decisions I ever made.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: veganvenus on May 09, 2007, 02:01:13 PM
i think your calculations are pretty good for the most part except that they ignore interest on your loan (not that high if you truly pay it off in three years, and assuming interest was deferred until graduation):

year 1: salary 160K + 30K bonus = 190K - 40% tax = 114K
year 2: salary 180K + 30K bonus = 210K - 40% tax = 126K
year 3: salary 200K + 30K bonus = 230K - 40% tax = 138K
__________________

Total earnings [3yrs]............................. .378K
Total [3 yr] interest accrued on a 180K loan......(~30K)
Living expenses [3yrs]*...........................(~150K)
Principal.................... .....................(~180K)
---------------------------------------------------------
                                      remaining    ~48K

Assuming you were replying to me:
The $180k principle is inflated; most law schools calculate tuition + COL @ $50k/year.

My numbers actually indicated earning more in the first three years than the principal, so I built in a cushion for interest, which would not be that much after three years.  Maybe my cushion wasn't high enough, but I was assuming a chunk of the loans were federal.

Assuming your interest numbers, plugging in actual salaries, and adjusting down the principal:
year 1: salary 160K + 30K bonus = 190K - 40% tax = 114K
year 2: salary 170K + 35K bonus = 205K - 40% tax = 123K
year 3: salary 185K + 40K bonus = 230K - 40% tax = 135K
__________________

Total earnings [3yrs]............................. .372K
Total [3 yr] interest accrued on a 180K loan......(~30K)
Living expenses [3yrs]*...........................(~150K)
Principal.................... .....................(~150K)
---------------------------------------------------------
                                      remaining    +72

Of course, you're free to dispute the idea that one can live on $17k a year.  I sure haven't - but I live with a spouse who has a job, so my own situation doesn't apply.  But these are the numbers that law schools use to calculate loan amounts, so I am going to assume they have some basis.

BUT, this is the absolute best case scenario in which you land a very high paying job at a top law firm with substantial salary increases and a growing economy that permits the assumption of a consistent bonus...and of course that you remain at your job for 3 years (not burning out).  How many people actually land those jobs? Should this same calculus really apply if you're just in the top 30% of your class at a tier 2 school...? probably not.
Your point is dead-on for burning out.  My friends in BigLaw gave me the impression that it does happen, but not in the first three years.

But since my post was about T14s the rest doesn't apply.  The salary increased I talked about are set by BigLaw across the board, so those salaries and raises will happen as long as you stay.   Everyone I know who went to a T14 and wanted BigLaw got it.  Of course, maybe the people I know at, say GULC are at the top of their class, but even those at the bottom here get those offers.

Still, if these are your goals and you feel confident you can make it, then as you say its a good investment. (uh, provided you actually like being a lawyer!)
Well, again I will definitely state that it was a good investment for me.  I worked in law several years before LS, and already got my offer, so I'm pretty confident it will pay off.  I do recommend it.  A paralegal gig won't help you get into law school, but getting one at a small firm will help you see what being a lawyer is like and buy you the extra time you need to really prep for the LSATs, which leads one down the road to securing that BigLaw gig.

But as they say YMMV, and I have zero knowledge of what it is like for those at T2s or so. 
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: mae on May 09, 2007, 02:11:31 PM
Although I hate exams, I really enjoy the law so am still glad I went to law school.  I don't anticipate that I will be "breaking even" anytime soon after school, but for me, the knowledge and information I've gained is worth it to me regardless.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: (r)evolution on May 09, 2007, 07:44:27 PM

According to this logic, no one should go to college, especially a private college --

tuition and living expenses $35,000 X 4 = $140,000

You earn some $30,000 a year after you graduate, and it'll take some 40 years to reach your break-even point, isn't it so?

(http://img15.imgspot.com/u/07/128/07/imageRTT.JPG)


Smart kids getting ready for college know they're better off having mom and dad pay for it. They beg to them, guilt them into it, or blackmail them with that honeymoon video of theirs they found in the closet. They do whatever it takes to get their parents to pay for their college education. Even if they don't have the cash on hand, they let them take out a loan on their home equity to pay for their education. It's a far better option for a set of employed parents to take on the debt than it is for someone under 20 who won't have a comparable job for years to do so.

Also, these kids live at home. Unless they're planning to major in something highly specialized like Forensic Journalism or Fire Eating, they try to find a college close to home that has what they want. This way they can cut their college costs in half. They don't worry about how "uncool" this may seem because carrying thousands of dollars in debt their first day out of college is even more uncool.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: torturedbylawschool on May 09, 2007, 11:31:29 PM
I'm at a top 40 school and have hated just about every minute of it since I walked in the door. I feel like I'm in high school all over again. The people are preppy, arrogant, greedy, selfish, judgmental.
I've wanted to be an attorney for a really long time. I worked for almost four years for a sole practitioner in a small-medium sized town prior to coming to law school (on top of various other jobs I had throughout undergrad and beyond), and loved it. But now? "Love" is soooo far from how I fell. I hate reading 24/7 and doing NOTHING else. I miss interacting with people (real people..not the above described kind). I hate looking at my potential earning "power" in the public interest sector (which is the only work I could really see myself doing) and realizing that I would have been better off NOT going to law school, fiscally speaking. I hate being stressed out...feeling like no matter how hard I work it is never enough. Basically, I just miss living. So I'm thinking about dropping out. Very seriously thinking about it. I came very close to leaving after the first semester, but told myself that I would stay if my grades were favorable. I was in the top 5% of my class after the first semester, so I stayed. But my finals did not go very well this time around, and I know that that number is going to drop significantly. But regardless of grades, I cannot help asking myself "do I really want this to be my 'life'?" Since finals ended, I've had a week to myself (in which I originally was supposed to be competing for law review/journals, but I've blown that off) and I've been incredibly depressed. I start my internship at a local PDs office on Monday. If I hate that anywhere near as much as I hate law school, I'm done. Life is too short to feel so horrible all the time.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: polycephalous on May 10, 2007, 02:48:24 AM

i think your calculations are pretty good for the most part except that they ignore interest on your loan (not that high if you truly pay it off in three years, and assuming interest was deferred until graduation):

year 1: salary 160K + 30K bonus = 190K - 40% tax = 114K
year 2: salary 180K + 30K bonus = 210K - 40% tax = 126K
year 3: salary 200K + 30K bonus = 230K - 40% tax = 138K
__________________

Total earnings [3yrs]............................. .378K
Total [3 yr] interest accrued on a 180K loan......(~30K)
Living expenses [3yrs]*...........................(~150K)
Principal.................... .....................(~180K)
---------------------------------------------------------
                                      remaining    ~48K

[/quote]


Bracewell & Patterson (Houston)
1st year: $105,000 plus bonus up to $10,000
2d year: $105,000-$115,000 plus bonus up to $10,000
3d year: $107,000-$120,000 plus bonus up to $20,000
4th year: $110,000-$125,000 plus bonus up to $25,000
5th year: $113,000-$135,000 plus bonus up to $30,000
6th year: $122,000-$145,000 plus bonus up to $30,000
7th year: $131,000-$155,000 plus bonus up to $30,000

 
Covington & Burling (Washington, D.C.)
1st year: $125,000
2d year: $135,000
3d year: $150,000
4th year: $155,000
5th year: $165,000
6th year: $175,000
7th year: $185,000
8th year: $195,000

 
Drinker Biddle & Reath (Philadelphia)
1st year: up to $115,000
2d year: up to $122,500
3d year: up to $132,500
4th year: up to $140,000
5th year: up to $152,500
6th year: up to $162,500
7th year: up to $172,500
 
Foley, Hoag & Eliot (Boston)
1st year: $125,000
2d year: $135,000
3d year: $145,000
4th year: $155,000
5th year: $170,000
6th year: $175,000
7th year: $180,000
Discretionary bonuses in all classes
 
Jenner & Block (Chicago)
1st year: $125,000
2d year: $135,000 plus $9,600 bonus
3d year: $150,000 plus $12,250 bonus
4th year: $160,000 plus $15,600 bonus
5th year: $165,000 plus $16,300 bonus
6th year: $170,000 plus $16,900 bonus
7th year: $175,000 plus $18,250 bonus

 
Locke Liddell & Sapp (Houston/Dallas)
1st year: $110,000 plus $1,000 bonus
2d year: $114,000 plus $5,000 bonus
3d year: $121,000 to $122,200 plus $7,500 bonus
4th year: $125,000-$131,600 plus $7,500-$10,000 bonus
5th year: $135,000-$141,400 plus $5,000-$10,000 bonus
6th year: $141,800-$148,600 plus $5,000-$10,000 bonus
7th year: $150,100-$157,500 plus $6,250-$12,500 bonus

 
McCarter & English (Newark, N.J.)
1st year: $75,000 plus $5,000 signing bonus plus $17,500 bonus
2d year: $81,000 plus $17,500 bonus
3d year: $88,000 plus $17,500 bonus
4th year: $94,000 plus $20,000 bonus
5th year: $98,000 plus $20,000 bonus
6th year: $102,000 plus $25,000 bonus
7th year: $106,000 plus $25,000 bonus
 
Patton Boggs (Washington, D.C.)
1st year: $115,000
2d year: $120,000
3d year: $130,000
4th year: $140,000
5th year: $150,000
6th year: $160,000
7th year: $170,000
 
Pennie & Edmonds (New York)
1st year: $125,000
2d year: $135,000 plus $10,000 bonus
3d year: $150,000 plus $15,000 bonus
4th year: $165,000 plus $20,000 bonus
5th year: $185,000 plus $25,000 bonus
6th year: $200,000 plus $25,000 bonus
7th year: $210,000 plus $25,000 bonus
 
Stoock & Stroock & Lavan (Dallas)
1st year: $125,000
2d year: $135,000
3d year: $150,000
4th year: $170,000
5th year: $190,000
6th year: $205,000
7th year: $210,000

 
Weil, Gotshal & Manges (New York)
1st year: $125,000
2d year: $135,000
3d year: $150,000
4th year: $165,000
5th year: $190,000
6th year: $205,000
7th year: $215,000
Bonuses in all classes
 
Winstead Sechrest & Minick (Dallas)
1st year: $105,000 plus $10,000-$12,000 bonus
2d year: $114,000 plus $10,000-$13,000 bonus
3d year: $120,000 plus $16,000-$18,000 bonus
4th year: $125,000 plus $25,000-$28,000 bonus
5th year: $135,000 plus $25,000-$29,000 bonus
6th year: $145,000 plus $25,000-$30,000 bonus
7th year: $155,000 plus $25,000-$31,000 bonus
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: factorial on May 10, 2007, 03:53:24 AM

What's worse, a one bedroom apartment in SF (home for me) is about 1400/month = ~17K/year. ouch.
:)


But of course, let's assume you're paid $150K in SF -- employers in Chicago, for example, pay 10% less than those in San Francisco. If you take the same type of job in the same type of company in Chicago, you are likely to earn something like $135K.

The cost of living in Chicago is 45% lower than in SF -- you need a salary of just $80K to maintain your current standard of living.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: veganvenus on May 10, 2007, 02:19:55 PM
Weil, Gotshal & Manges (New York)
1st year: $125,000
2d year: $135,000
3d year: $150,000
4th year: $165,000
5th year: $190,000
6th year: $205,000
7th year: $215,000
Bonuses in all classes

Since we're law students who will enter the workforce in 2007-2010, I don't see how salary figures from five years ago are relevant.  I'm not bored enough to go find all the problems with your numbers, but suffice it to say that your numbers for Weil are way off, so whatever your source is, it is unreliable.

Next time try this http://www.lawfirmdiscussion.com/compensation/newyork07salary.php (http://www.lawfirmdiscussion.com/compensation/newyork07salary.php), NALP, Infirmation.com or the company's own website, all of which indicate a starting salary of $160k for Weil.

Nearly every BigLaw firm in NY, and many in other markets pay these rates.  If you would have paid attention, we were discussing the value of the degree from top schools:  If you go to a top school and then take a job in Newark with hideously below-market pay, that is your own fault and you are not permitted to complain.  It is not relevant to the positive value of the degree.

Edited to Add: Just checked Covington and Jenner, both are also at $160k to start. 
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: torturedbylawschool on May 10, 2007, 08:09:08 PM
jeesh that really sucks - i'm sorry to hear it's such a nightmare for you. I'm curious...when you worked at that law firm, why did you like it so much? Can't you imagine getting a similar job to the lawyers who employed you and enjoying that?

Do you think that the kind of classmates you cant stand are particular to your school or do you feel like all law students are like that?



I'm at a top 40 school and have hated just about every minute of it since I walked in the door. I feel like I'm in high school all over again. The people are preppy, arrogant, greedy, selfish, judgmental.
I've wanted to be an attorney for a really long time. I worked for almost four years for a sole practitioner in a small-medium sized town prior to coming to law school (on top of various other jobs I had throughout undergrad and beyond), and loved it. But now? "Love" is soooo far from how I fell. I hate reading 24/7 and doing NOTHING else. I miss interacting with people (real people..not the above described kind). I hate looking at my potential earning "power" in the public interest sector (which is the only work I could really see myself doing) and realizing that I would have been better off NOT going to law school, fiscally speaking. I hate being stressed out...feeling like no matter how hard I work it is never enough. Basically, I just miss living. So I'm thinking about dropping out. Very seriously thinking about it. I came very close to leaving after the first semester, but told myself that I would stay if my grades were favorable. I was in the top 5% of my class after the first semester, so I stayed. But my finals did not go very well this time around, and I know that that number is going to drop significantly. But regardless of grades, I cannot help asking myself "do I really want this to be my 'life'?" Since finals ended, I've had a week to myself (in which I originally was supposed to be competing for law review/journals, but I've blown that off) and I've been incredibly depressed. I start my internship at a local PDs office on Monday. If I hate that anywhere near as much as I hate law school, I'm done. Life is too short to feel so horrible all the time.

I worked for a sole practitioner. What did I like about it? I interacted with people a lot. I delt with people who were at really low points in their lives (facing criminal prosecution) and I helped them...let them know that it was going to be okay and that we (as in the sole practitioner and I) were going to do everything we could to help. I even liked some of the menial work (i.e. filing motions, getting background checks, etc.). I was good at it--told I was the best legal assistant he ever had. It was exciting. Nothing is exciting about reading case after case, alone, at home. Nothing is exciting about the $50,000 debt and the slim job prospects (even for a $35,000/yr. job). Nothing is exciting about a 60 hour work week. How can a person help someone when they are exhausted and overworked like that?
Do I feel like all laws schools are like the one I'm in? I don't know. I would imagine that the better ones are. Law school fosters intense competition, and if you happen to be a person who cares at all about looking good compared to your classmates, or getting a job after law school--and you probably ARE going to be one of those people if you got into a good school in the first place--then you're going to feed into that, and the worst of you is going to "shine" through. You don't have enough time to see the other side of these people, assuming that there is another side. You really don't even have enough time to remember who YOU are.
I start my internship with a local PDs office on Monday. I can't even get them to respond to my email to let me know what time to arrive. Do I think that my life will be so busy that I won't have time to respond to emails if I take a PD position? Yes. Does that make me feel comfortable? Take a guess.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Burning Sands on May 11, 2007, 08:45:54 AM
i think your calculations are pretty good for the most part except that they ignore interest on your loan (not that high if you truly pay it off in three years, and assuming interest was deferred until graduation):

year 1: salary 160K + 30K bonus = 190K - 40% tax = 114K
year 2: salary 180K + 30K bonus = 210K - 40% tax = 126K
year 3: salary 200K + 30K bonus = 230K - 40% tax = 138K
__________________

Total earnings [3yrs]............................. .378K
Total [3 yr] interest accrued on a 180K loan......(~30K)
Living expenses [3yrs]*...........................(~150K)
Principal.................... .....................(~180K)
---------------------------------------------------------
                                      remaining    ~48K



The $160k is taxed about about 35% to 37%
The bonuses (of which there are potentially more than just one per year) are taxed at 40% like you show them here.

Other than that, your numbers are fairly close to real life.

At my firm we can get up to $50k in bonuses the first year on top of the $160k salary.  At others, like Wachtell for example, they get an additional $160,000 bonus (no that's not a typo) on top of their $160,000 salary, for a total of $320,000 (three hundred twenty thousand dollars and 00 cents) in their first year (before taxes, of course).

 
EDIT: and YES I'm glad that I went to law school.  Although I admit that I may be singing a different tune if I was unemployed.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Burning Sands on May 11, 2007, 08:56:29 AM
Weil, Gotshal & Manges (New York)
1st year: $125,000
2d year: $135,000
3d year: $150,000
4th year: $165,000
5th year: $190,000
6th year: $205,000
7th year: $215,000
Bonuses in all classes

Since we're law students who will enter the workforce in 2007-2010, I don't see how salary figures from five years ago are relevant.  I'm not bored enough to go find all the problems with your numbers, but suffice it to say that your numbers for Weil are way off, so whatever your source is, it is unreliable.

Next time try this http://www.lawfirmdiscussion.com/compensation/newyork07salary.php (http://www.lawfirmdiscussion.com/compensation/newyork07salary.php), NALP, Infirmation.com or the company's own website, all of which indicate a starting salary of $160k for Weil.

Nearly every BigLaw firm in NY, and many in other markets pay these rates.  If you would have paid attention, we were discussing the value of the degree from top schools:  If you go to a top school and then take a job in Newark with hideously below-market pay, that is your own fault and you are not permitted to complain.  It is not relevant to the positive value of the degree.

Edited to Add: Just checked Covington and Jenner, both are also at $160k to start. 


Hey hey hey, not so fast. I feel that I must speak up for the Newark market since I currently live here because they don't have hideously below-market pay.  The average for Newark firms is about $135,000/yr (see Latham & Watkins, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, etc.), which, when you consider the hideously below-market cost of living for NJ when compared to the hideously above-market cost of living for NY, you are actually saving a bundle.

But you are absolutely correct about those figures being 5 years old.  Market rate in NY is a standard $160,000/yr across the board.


Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: veganvenus on May 11, 2007, 09:52:55 AM
Hey hey hey, not so fast. I feel that I must speak up for the Newark market since I currently live here because they don't have hideously below-market pay.  The average for Newark firms is about $135,000/yr (see Latham & Watkins, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, etc.), which, when you consider the hideously below-market cost of living for NJ when compared to the hideously above-market cost of living for NY, you are actually saving a bundle.

Granted - I know zero about the Newark market.  I was just referring to the numbers quoted for one Newark firm, which were disgusting even for 5 years ago.

The COL thing is a myth though - one premised on the idea that everyone who works in NY lives in Manhattan.  There are lots of safe and affordable places to live in the Bronx, Queens, and maybe in Brooklyn.  If you're willing to sacrifice neighborhood prestige, you can even find a place with a 15 minute commute and very cool restaurants.  Considering the relative livability of Newark, I'd imagine a lot of those associates live in the same neighborhoods as the commuter set anyway.

Either way, a $25k/year paycut seems awfully steep for an office less than an hour away.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Burning Sands on May 11, 2007, 03:40:58 PM
Did you just use "safe" and "the bronx" in the same sentence?   ;D


I agree though, there are definitely plenty of places to live outside of Manhattan while still working for a Manhattan law firm.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: veganvenus on May 11, 2007, 03:50:54 PM
Did you just use "safe" and "the bronx" in the same sentence?   ;D

Well, it all depends on who you ask, since it hinges on considering Riverdale to be part of the Bronx.
Title: "Anchor Men"
Post by: JudasPriest on May 11, 2007, 07:55:17 PM

[...] Everyone I know who went to a T14 and wanted BigLaw got it. Of course, maybe the people I know at, say GULC are at the top of their class, but even those at the bottom here get those offers. [...]


Not really! As the glut of excess lawyers continues unabated (and as technology makes many things possible with far fewer lawyers) further adjustments are not far behind. Currently, the top 10-15% (gradewise) from 1st tier schools (roughly, the 40 or so best schools in the U.S.) go to two kinds of jobs. They go to "traditional firms" (these firms used to hire from the top 50%) and government jobs (that used to go to the bottom 50% of the class from the bottom 50% of the schools). Worse, after a year of so of looking for work, the very status of length out of law school is a permanent barrier to most employment. A history in a small firm, as a solo or in a District Attorney's Office qualifies an attorney only to go to work for herself or himself.

The "ticket punching" era has come to an end -- in some states slowly, in some states with great drama. In one instance (when the great "crunch" hit Texas) schools went from full placement by Christmas of the senior year to 20% placement at graduation in the course of one class. Virtually all of the Harvard class of '75 made partner by the 10-year reunion. Of the Harvard class of '85, so few made partner by the 10-year reunion it was a Section B front page story in the Wall Street Journal.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: secndmortgage on May 12, 2007, 05:33:51 AM
i think your calculations are pretty good for the most part except that they ignore interest on your loan (not that high if you truly pay it off in three years, and assuming interest was deferred until graduation):

year 1: salary 160K + 30K bonus = 190K - 40% tax = 114K
year 2: salary 180K + 30K bonus = 210K - 40% tax = 126K
year 3: salary 200K + 30K bonus = 230K - 40% tax = 138K
__________________

Total earnings [3yrs]............................. .378K
Total [3 yr] interest accrued on a 180K loan......(~30K)
Living expenses [3yrs]*...........................(~150K)
Principal.................... .....................(~180K)
---------------------------------------------------------
                                      remaining    ~48K



The $160k is taxed about about 35% to 37%
The bonuses (of which there are potentially more than just one per year) are taxed at 40% like you show them here.

Other than that, your numbers are fairly close to real life.

At my firm we can get up to $50k in bonuses the first year on top of the $160k salary.  At others, like Wachtell for example, they get an additional $160,000 bonus (no that's not a typo) on top of their $160,000 salary, for a total of $320,000 (three hundred twenty thousand dollars and 00 cents) in their first year (before taxes, of course).

 
EDIT: and YES I'm glad that I went to law school.  Although I admit that I may be singing a different tune if I was unemployed.


When I was in college I took a law course (First Amendment Law) and my black professor (teaching part-time on the side while working for Sidley Austin LLP) kissed one of my classmates' ass to go with him (the former was really hot granted) but we were all speechless to see him, being a 125K practicing lawyer, beg the guy to go with him!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: threestrikes on May 12, 2007, 06:21:16 AM

(http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/7384/imagejh0oi4.jpg)


In Europe, the state pays for the institutional costs of instruction; students pay little or no tuition, but are responsible for living costs; and most universities are public.

In the US, by contrast, student loans have become the most profitable, uncompetitive, oppressive, and predatory type of debt of any in the nation. This has occurred due to legislation that was largely paid for by the the lobbying machine of Sallie Mae, the largest student loan company in America. Vast personal fortunes are being made by both Sallie Mae executives, and others who paid for this legislation, at the expense of decent citizens who were not able to capitalize on their education. This has effectively crippled MILLIONS of decent citizens who want to repay their original debt, but are prevented from doing so by staggeringly higher amounts being demanded from them by both "non-profit", and for-profit student loan companies.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: lawbydefault on May 12, 2007, 11:34:18 PM

In Europe, the state pays for the institutional costs of instruction; students pay little or no tuition, but are responsible for living costs; and most universities are public.

In the US, by contrast, student loans have become the most profitable, uncompetitive, oppressive, and predatory type of debt of any in the nation. This has occurred due to legislation that was largely paid for by the the lobbying machine of Sallie Mae, the largest student loan company in America. Vast personal fortunes are being made by both Sallie Mae executives, and others who paid for this legislation, at the expense of decent citizens who were not able to capitalize on their education. This has effectively crippled MILLIONS of decent citizens who want to repay their original debt, but are prevented from doing so by staggeringly higher amounts being demanded from them by both non-profit, and for-profit student loan companies.


That is the reason why many medical students enroll in a foreign school -- the Caribbean Medical Schools are usually less expensive and much more affordable compared to US medical schools. Often the education is a bargain even when extra costs, such as traveling abroad, health insurance and other miscellaneous costs, are included.

The downside is that not all of these schools are accredited. They must make sure their MD degree will be accepted in the US, though. Four states (California, Florida, New Jersey, and New York) evaluate foreign medical schools individually, with most Caribbean medical schools not being accredited in all four of these states. Schools like Ross School of Medicine, Saba School of Medicine, and St. George University (SGU) have the best reputations among Caribbean schools.

What this means is that students completing their studies in such schools might be at a disadvantage when competing for strong residencies. However, the USMLE scores are an important determinant of the residency match, so strong USMLE scores make up for a lot and can be a great equalizer. Another disadvantage is that often the clinical rotations are done in US medical schools. Many Caribbean Medical Schools have arrangements with US hospitals, but the students options in rotations might be limited compared to the options available to a student in a US medical school.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: r o v e r on May 13, 2007, 12:07:58 AM

According to this logic, no one should go to college, especially a private college --

tuition and living expenses $35,000 X 4 = $140,000

You earn some $30,000 a year after you graduate, and it'll take some 40 years to reach your break-even point, isn't it so?


Exactly, loan payer, according to this line of reasoning few families in the US should take mortgages. If you take, say, a $300,000 mortgage and are able to pay monthly only some $2,000 -- it'll take 20 years to pay it off and become the owner, point in time when you can sell it and hopefully make some profit.

(http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/8522/image5lgdw7.jpg)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: lawn on May 13, 2007, 08:20:37 AM

Exactly, loan payer, according to this line of reasoning few families in the US should take mortgages. If you take, say, a $300,000 mortgage and are able to pay monthly only some $2,000 -- it'll take 20 years to pay it off and become the owner, point in time when you can sell it and hopefully make some profit.

(http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/8522/image5lgdw7.jpg)


Somebody please explain to me how you make profits after you become the owner of your house and sell it ...

You need at least two houses to be able to make profits.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: c a b r i o l e t on May 13, 2007, 09:39:00 PM

[...] However, the USMLE scores are an important determinant of the residency match, so strong USMLE scores make up for a lot and can be a great equalizer. [...]


USMLE scores are not very heavily relied upon because it is a well-known fact that the exam content is regularly posted in Internet chat rooms.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: oopslaw on May 13, 2007, 10:46:51 PM


Weil, Gotshal & Manges (New York)
1st year: $125,000
2d year: $135,000
3d year: $150,000
4th year: $165,000
5th year: $190,000
6th year: $205,000
7th year: $215,000
Bonuses in all classes


Just checked Covington and Jenner, both are also at $160k to start. 


There  was a dip in cocaine prices in the 90s, but they're back up now. I was going to make a joke about that and the firms' salary raises, but you can just imagine it instead ... Oh, BTW, keep in mind that cocaine costs a lot less when you buy it by the kilogram as opposed to by the gram. It's like Sam's Club, only for coke.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: toomuchwork on May 14, 2007, 12:00:20 AM

I think your calculations are pretty good for the most part except that they ignore interest on your loan (not that high if you truly pay it off in three years, and assuming interest was deferred until graduation):

year 1: salary 160K + 30K bonus = 190K - 40% tax = 114K
year 2: salary 180K + 30K bonus = 210K - 40% tax = 126K
year 3: salary 200K + 30K bonus = 230K - 40% tax = 138K
__________________

Total earnings [3yrs]............................. .378K
Total [3 yr] interest accrued on a 180K loan......(~30K)
Living expenses [3yrs]*...........................(~150K)
Principal.................... .....................(~180K)
---------------------------------------------------------
                                      remaining    ~48K






Still, if these are your goals and you feel confident you can make it, then as you say its a good investment. (uh, provided you actually like being a lawyer!)


Big firms buy associates' time 'wholesale' and sell it 'retail' As a new associate in a large firm, you will be paid about one-third of what you bring into the firm. If you bill, say, 2000 hours at $100 per hour, you will generate $200,000 in revenue for your firm. About a third of that -- $70,000 or so -- will be paid to you. Another third will go toward paying the expenses of the firm. And the final third will go into the pockets of the firm's partners. Firms make money off associates. That is why it's in the interests of big firms to hire lots of associates and to make very few of them partners. The more associates there are, the more profits for the partners to split, and the fewer partners there are, the bigger each partner's share.

After you make partner (if you make partner -- your chances will likely be about 1 in 10), you will still be exploited, although somewhat less. You may take home 40% or so of what you bring into the firm as a junior partner. Your take will gradually increase with your seniority. At some point, you will reach equilibrium -- that is, you will take home roughly what you bring into the firm, minus your share of the firm's overhead. And, if you stick with it long enough, some day you will reach Big Firm Nirvana: You will take home more than you bring into the firm (minus your share of overhead). You will become the exploiter instead of the exploited. It should not surprise you that, generally speaking, the bigger the firm, the more the leverage. The median ratio of associates to partners ranges dramatically, from .33 in firms of 8 or fewer attorneys in the northeastern United States, to 1.50 in firms of 25+ attorneys in the same region. In general, though, the ratio increases with the size of the firm. Nationally, the median ratio is .51 in firms of 8or fewer attorneys, .66 in firms of 9-20 attorneys, .64 in firms of 21-40 attorneys, .75 in firms of 41-74 attorneys, and .93 in firms of 75+ attorneys. As a result of the disparity in leverage between big and small firms, partners in big firms make dramatically more money than partners in small firms.

This, then, is life in the big firm: It is in the interests of clients that senior partners work inhuman hours, year after year, and constantly be anxious about retaining their business. And it is in the interests of senior partners that junior partners work inhuman hours, year after year, and constantly be anxious about retaining old clients and attracting new clients. And it is in the interests of junior partners that senior associates work inhuman hours, year after year, and constantly be anxious about retaining old clients and attracting new clients and making partner. And most of all, it is in everyone's interests that the newest members of the profession -- the junior associates -- be willing to work inhuman hours, year after year, and constantly be anxious about everything -- about retaining old clients and attracting new clients and making partner and keeping up their billable hours. The result? Long hours, large salaries, and one of the unhealthiest and unhappiest professions on earth.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: peniesonthedollar on May 14, 2007, 12:56:23 AM

BUT, this is the absolute best case scenario in which you land a very high paying job at a top law firm with substantial salary increases and a growing economy that permits the assumption of a consistent bonus ... and of course that you remain at your job for 3 years (not burning out).


By SAIRA RAO

December 31, 2006 -- The city largest, most prestigious law firms are suffering from serious brain drain. Young, Gen-X lawyers in their third to fifth year in the business are walking away from their $200,000-a-year positions in record numbers -- at times without another job in view. The reason? They are unhappy with their Blackberry lifestyle -- being tethered to the job 24/7 and having to rush back to the office at a moment notice when e-mail orders pop up on the ubiquitous PDA. The exodus of law firm associates is unprecedented, according to NALP which found that 37% of associates leave large firms within the first 3 years. A whopping 77% of associates leave within 5 years, according to NALP latest survey. That is up sharply from recent years, and the resulting brain drain is wrecking havoc on law firms.

There is a significant drain on your potential as a firm if you cannot mitigate it, says Mike, a partner at a 400-plus lawyer Big Apple firm, said of the young legal eagle exodus. Mike, like many lawyers interviewed for this story, spoke only if neither they or their firm were identified, fearing client losses. While increased attrition is a typical effect of a relatively healthy economy, Mike claimed, It would be a mistake to say it is all driven by the economics. The big-firm brain drain is also giving partners a major case of agita -- forcing them to do the yeoman grunt work usually assigned to associates. In addition, the firms are being forced to scramble to fill the mid-level talent void. Some are even doing the previously unheard of -- hiring from second-tier law schools.

John, a fifth year associate at a prominent Wall Street firm, is, like many young lawyers, walking out the door. He is leaving for a coveted in-house position at an investment bank. \'I am just waiting for my bonus,\' the 31-year-old says. In fact, the next major wave of legal brain drain will occur over the next few weeks as young lawyers jump ship after collecting their bonus checks. \'It is the mid-levels, the 3rd through 5th years that are leaving, so you are losing people you have spent lots of money on training, and just as they start to run things, they leave, and firms become less profitable, Mike, the partner, adds. John, the associate ready to leave, notices the effect of the mid-level brain drain at his own firm. Gone, he said, is the traditional pyramid of power, from the numerous first-year associates up to select first-year partners.

It is gone from a pyramid to a strange hourglass shape, John says. It is bizarre. Now you will see deal teams with a partner and a first-year associate, with nobody in the middle. You should see the partners. They are doing the work of mid-levels to pick up the slack. And even though they make over $1 million, they never see their family. There is little reward in that for me. Tagg Grant, 31, could not agree more. The self-described \'recovering lawyer\' removed himself from firm life last year, as a third-year corporate associate. I did not want to sleep on my office floor anymore or wonder if I had a change of underwear somewhere in my file cabinet, he says.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12312006/business/lawyers__fun__money_business_saira_rao.htm?page=1
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: sub rosa on May 14, 2007, 01:26:39 AM
I am Generation X -- (28 yrs old), and when I graduated from law school I didnt have the tiniest inkling of trying to get into a big firm -- or even a medium firm. And there are plenty of both in Chicago. I went into private practice for myself, with the help of a few other solo's, whom I had clerked for during law school. I office with them now and do criminal defense work.

I dont have billable hours, a salary, a manager, or anything set in stone. I guess I am the opposite of the big firm types. I sometimes have problems with clients paying and that affects the timeliness of the payment of my bills, but would i exchange my freedom for a higher paying gig with a definite paycheck? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

I would gladly be poor for a few yrs until I get my loans paid off and my practice settled, than be miserable and overworked with money I dont have time to spend, or children I dont have time to see (and trust me, I have been quite poor, especially at the beginning) And in the 5 years it takes an associate to figure out he needs to leave the firm, I will hopefully be at a place where my practice is settled, work is plentiful, and vacations are often. The associate who leaves, on the other hand, will be exactly at the same place I was when I first left school (assuming they dont just leave for another firm) Do I pity the associate? No, not really. I do pity his family and friends though.

The salaries the firms pay are enticing, but what good is it all if your overworked and miserable? I can take off work to see a cubs game, any day I want. Who at Jenner and Block at my age can say the same? The firms should just cut their billable hours to a max of 1700 or so, pay the younger associates less to correspond to lesser amount of work,(say 90k instead of 140k) and keep them happier. Then they wont be fighting their way out the door and trying to steal my clients :) Just a thought...
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: equifax on May 14, 2007, 02:12:05 AM
I know a third-year associate at an elite New York law firm. He says that good grades in law school are a generally reliable indication of "intellect" or "smarts." The vast majority of those who reflexively scoff at the idea of working as an associate at an elite law firm do so out of pure jealousy. If they could land such employment, they would accept gladly (save, perhaps, for those too paralyzed by the fear of incompetence).

He concedes that he regularly experiences intense frustration caused by the combined idiosyncrasies of his co-workers and the inevitable disappointments of a business day. However, he is confident to a metaphysical certainty that such frustrations exist in every work place (including the quaint, little home-office setup described by the above poster).

It is a fair trade to work under such conditions and, on occasion, to suffer the involuntary sacrifices of time you would have otherwise preferred to reserve for personal use, in exchange for a quite handsome total compensation package and the respect (earned or not) that accompanies employment at an elite law firm.

Indeed, he has difficulty understanding what others find so loathsome about working at an elite law firm (judging from the comments, it seems these are individuals who have either never held such employment, or did so in a manner that failed to satisfy the expectations of their employer).

His "Biglaw" job allows him to indulge his mild acquisitiveness, pay his student loans faithfully, and save a more than modest amount each month, all of which is more than many are able to do on salaries from "lesser" employers. Further, should he decide to leave his current employment in the future, he believes that his time spent as an associate in the elite law firm, working with preeminent figures in the area of his specialization, will open more doors, more widely, than would be the case had he spent his time engaged in most other legal jobs.

Maybe he could be a little happier in his employment (like maybe he could be in San Francisco instead of Manhattan, or maybe working half-days), but one thing is for sure: he could be a lot less happy.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Morgan on May 14, 2007, 02:57:39 AM

What this means is that students completing their studies in such schools might be at a disadvantage when competing for strong residencies. However, the USMLE scores are an important determinant of the residency match, so strong USMLE scores make up for a lot and can be a great equalizer. Another disadvantage is that often the clinical rotations are done in US medical schools. [...]


Even top USMLE scores (such as 240-250) won't really compensate for the fact that you completed your medical studies at a non-US school (even if your med school GPA was high). It is practically impossible to get residency spots in the highly competitive specialties like Radiology, Orthopedics and Dermatology being an IMG, US or non-US one. You end up as a general family practice physician or internal medicine resident, specialties which pay much less than the highly sought-after specialties such as Surgery, Anesthesiology, Obstetrics/gynecology, etc.

Equally important, almost all training slots filled by IMGs are in teaching hospitals in large urban areas that have traditionally served large numbers of minorities, uninsured, and low-income patients. It is a bit easier for US-IMGs compared to non-US IMGs. The latter, for example, who usually are on J-1 Visas (with 80% of these physicians actually staying in the US) are compelled to practice in designated rural or inner city physician shortage areas in order to have the "2-year return" requirement for J-1 visa waived. Both the initial training location and the subsequent service locations of IMGs frequently put them in minority communities where other doctors are scarce. In essence IMGs provide primary care to poor and underserved populations, with many inner-city hospitals in the U.S. relying almost exclusively on IMGs to provide services to America's poor.

 
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: j-p on May 14, 2007, 03:48:28 AM

[...] You end up as a general family practice physician or internal medicine resident, specialties which pay much less than the highly sought-after specialties such as Surgery, Anesthesiology, Obstetrics/gynecology, etc.

Equally important, almost all training slots filled by IMGs are in teaching hospitals in large urban areas that have traditionally served large numbers of minorities, uninsured, and low-income patients. It is a bit easier for US-IMGs compared to non-US IMGs. The latter, for example, who usually are on J-1 Visas (with 80% of these physicians actually staying in the US) are compelled to practice in designated rural or inner city physician shortage areas in order to have the "2-year return" requirement for J-1 visa waived. [...]


It is true that the average national annual salaries for Internal Medicine is some $160K and $145 for Family Practice as opposed to $340K for Cardiology and $350K for Radiology -- after all, this is the reason why US med grads with huge student loans take up these specialties, while IMGs with much less or nil loans do not mind taking up primary care.

Typically Primary Care pays in Houston, TX around $150K, in Miami and New York and L.A. $170K. You have to bear in mind, however, that in rural areas family physicians with years of experience might earn up to $300K, because they do the full scope of care, including pediatrics and obstetrics.

Due to the restructuring of health system economy in the US, aimed to cut down spending on specialist and improve primary care, the demand for Family practitioners has seen a whopping growth. There are ways to increase the bottom line with Family Practice. For instance, office procedures and cosmetic procedures shoot one's income up, so the family practice resident should choose a program that trains him enough, say, in colonoscopies. Also some residency programs offer dual training, like Family Practice-Psychiatry, which by the way is pretty hot at the moment. As a friend tells me, his senior resident in Family-Psychiatry program recently accepted a job offer in an underserved area of Texas for a salary of $335K per annum!!

Another pathway is gaining hotness with family practice guys and other family practice folks (internal medicine, pediatrics, etc). The Hospitalist Pathway. Technically, a hospitalist is someone who devotes more than 25% of his time to a hospital.

Yet another pathway that is helping family physicians rope in big money and have more relaxed, contolled lifestyles is that of "concierge medicine," "concierge practicing" (also known as "boutique" or "retainer practice") Instead of cramming tons of patients in a single day that are insured by third-party payers like Medicare, Medicaid and private insurances, you let loyal patients in your area "sign-up" or "subscribe" to your clinical primary care service for a yearly fee. In other words, you provide your own insurance and provide a prepaid primary care model. The PCPs no longer need to work 12 hours a day just to have critical volume to make a good salary, but rather only need to see about 2-5 patients a day or less and make the same or even MORE money. The patients in turn get more quality time with their doctor and less waiting time. I once read an article on how a family physician made $300K a year with 3-4 hours work a day after having about 200 patients subscribe to his practice at two-levels, Basic Service at $1,200 a year, and Plus Service that includes round-the-clock access even on weekends at a higher fee.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: experiam on May 15, 2007, 12:31:33 AM

By SAIRA RAO

December 31, 2006 -- The city largest, most prestigious law firms are suffering from serious brain drain. Young, Gen-X lawyers in their third to fifth year in the business are walking away from their $200,000-a-year positions in record numbers -- at times without another job in view. The reason? They are unhappy with their Blackberry lifestyle -- being tethered to the job 24/7 and having to rush back to the office at a moment notice when e-mail orders pop up on the ubiquitous PDA. The exodus of law firm associates is unprecedented, according to NALP which found that 37% of associates leave large firms within the first 3 years. A whopping 77% of associates leave within 5 years, according to NALP latest survey. That is up sharply from recent years, and the resulting brain drain is wrecking havoc on law firms.

There is a significant drain on your potential as a firm if you cannot mitigate it, says Mike, a partner at a 400-plus lawyer Big Apple firm, said of the young legal eagle exodus. Mike, like many lawyers interviewed for this story, spoke only if neither they or their firm were identified, fearing client losses. While increased attrition is a typical effect of a relatively healthy economy, Mike claimed, It would be a mistake to say it is all driven by the economics. The big-firm brain drain is also giving partners a major case of agita -- forcing them to do the yeoman grunt work usually assigned to associates. In addition, the firms are being forced to scramble to fill the mid-level talent void. Some are even doing the previously unheard of -- hiring from second-tier law schools.

John, a fifth year associate at a prominent Wall Street firm, is, like many young lawyers, walking out the door. He is leaving for a coveted in-house position at an investment bank. \'I am just waiting for my bonus,\' the 31-year-old says. In fact, the next major wave of legal brain drain will occur over the next few weeks as young lawyers jump ship after collecting their bonus checks. \'It is the mid-levels, the 3rd through 5th years that are leaving, so you are losing people you have spent lots of money on training, and just as they start to run things, they leave, and firms become less profitable, Mike, the partner, adds. John, the associate ready to leave, notices the effect of the mid-level brain drain at his own firm. Gone, he said, is the traditional pyramid of power, from the numerous first-year associates up to select first-year partners.

It is gone from a pyramid to a strange hourglass shape, John says. It is bizarre. Now you will see deal teams with a partner and a first-year associate, with nobody in the middle. You should see the partners. They are doing the work of mid-levels to pick up the slack. And even though they make over $1 million, they never see their family. There is little reward in that for me. Tagg Grant, 31, could not agree more. The self-described "recovering lawyer" removed himself from firm life last year, as a third-year corporate associate. I did not want to sleep on my office floor anymore or wonder if I had a change of underwear somewhere in my file cabinet, he says.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12312006/business/lawyers__fun__money_business_saira_rao.htm?page=1


I recognize her name, she's written this book

(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/417iT4B7+xL._SS500_.jpg)

The devil holds a gavel in this wickedly entertaining debut novel about a young attorney’s eventful year clerking for a federal judge. Sheila Raj is a recent graduate of a top-ten law school with dreams of working for the ACLU, but law school did not prepare her for the power-hungry sociopath, Judge Helga Friedman, who greets her on her first day. While her beleaguered colleagues begin quitting their jobs, Sheila is assigned to a high-profile death penalty case and suddenly realizes that she has to survive the year as Friedman’s chambermaid — not just her sanity, but actual lives hang in the balance. With Chambermaid, debut novelist Saira Rao breaks the code of silence surrounding the clerkship and boldly takes us into the mysterious world of the third branch of US government, where the leaders are not elected and can never be fired. With its biting wit and laugh-out-loud humor, this novel will change everything you think you know about how great lawyers, and great judges, are made.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: marcusbarnes30 on May 15, 2007, 11:05:24 AM
I know a third-year associate at an elite New York law firm. He says that good grades in law school are a generally reliable indication of "intellect" or "smarts." The vast majority of those who reflexively scoff at the idea of working as an associate at an elite law firm do so out of pure jealousy. If they could land such employment, they would accept gladly (save, perhaps, for those too paralyzed by the fear of incompetence).

He concedes that he regularly experiences intense frustration caused by the combined idiosyncrasies of his co-workers and the inevitable disappointments of a business day. However, he is confident to a metaphysical certainty that such frustrations exist in every work place (including the quaint, little home-office setup described by the above poster).

It is a fair trade to work under such conditions and, on occasion, to suffer the involuntary sacrifices of time you would have otherwise preferred to reserve for personal use, in exchange for a quite handsome total compensation package and the respect (earned or not) that accompanies employment at an elite law firm.

Indeed, he has difficulty understanding what others find so loathsome about working at an elite law firm (judging from the comments, it seems these are individuals who have either never held such employment, or did so in a manner that failed to satisfy the expectations of their employer).

His "Biglaw" job allows him to indulge his mild acquisitiveness, pay his student loans faithfully, and save a more than modest amount each month, all of which is more than many are able to do on salaries from "lesser" employers. Further, should he decide to leave his current employment in the future, he believes that his time spent as an associate in the elite law firm, working with preeminent figures in the area of his specialization, will open more doors, more widely, than would be the case had he spent his time engaged in most other legal jobs.

Maybe he could be a little happier in his employment (like maybe he could be in San Francisco instead of Manhattan, or maybe working half-days), but one thing is for sure: he could be a lot less happy.

This gentleman sounds like a very sad and pathetic sole. If I were a betting man I would say he doesn't have a wife, family, girlfriend, boyfriend, lover, dog, cat, gerbil or imaginary friend. Anyone that has trouble understanding what others find "loathsome" about working 65+ hours a week needs to wake and smell the blunt smoke. Christ, I would hate to work side by side with him
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: moneylaw on May 15, 2007, 10:04:17 PM

Even top USMLE scores (such as 240-250) won't really compensate for the fact that you completed your medical studies at a non-US school (even if your med school GPA was high).


I tend to believe USMLE scores do not matter that much, provided you get a passing score (185 I believe) -- just like the case is with state bar exams.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: transunion on May 15, 2007, 10:32:38 PM

The city largest, most prestigious law firms are suffering from serious brain drain. Young, Gen-X lawyers in their third to fifth year in the business are walking away from their $200,000-a-year positions in record numbers -- at times without another job in view. The reason? They are unhappy with their Blackberry lifestyle -- being tethered to the job 24/7 and having to rush back to the office at a moment notice when e-mail orders pop up on the ubiquitous PDA. The exodus of law firm associates is unprecedented, according to NALP which found that 37% of associates leave large firms within the first 3 years. A whopping 77% of associates leave within 5 years, according to NALP latest survey. That is up sharply from recent years, and the resulting brain drain is wrecking havoc on law firms.


So basically most associates go thru that hell for some 3-5 years to make a bit money to pay the student loans and that's it ?!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Weezer1223 on May 15, 2007, 10:46:13 PM
Pretty much. I've decided to go the Government route. The pay isn't that great, but boy do you have time to enjoy your life. Working for Westlaw looks like a pretty good gig, too.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: helga on May 15, 2007, 11:21:37 PM

Exactly, loan payer, according to this line of reasoning few families in the US should take mortgages. If you take, say, a $300,000 mortgage and are able to pay monthly only some $2,000 -- it'll take 20 years to pay it off and become the owner, point in time when you can sell it and hopefully make some profit.

(http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/8522/image5lgdw7.jpg)

Somebody please explain to me how you make profits after you become the owner of your house and sell it ...


I think you'll have real value in the house you own (equity) in case you pay less interest over the course of the years than the actual value of the house. In the case above, you clearly are at a profit after 20 years of repaying mortgage.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: fill-in-the-blanks on May 16, 2007, 12:38:51 AM

It is a fair trade to work under such conditions and, on occasion, to suffer the involuntary sacrifices of time you would have otherwise preferred to reserve for personal use, in exchange for a quite handsome total compensation package and the respect (earned or not) that accompanies employment at an elite law firm.


Exactly, equifax, even assuming you're working some 60 works a week, your hourly rate would still be $60, as opposed to a lousy $30 an hour, say, a typical entry-level prosecutor gets!

Quote


Further, should he decide to leave his current employment in the future, he believes that his time spent as an associate in the elite law firm, working with preeminent figures in the area of his specialization, will open more doors, more widely, than would be the case had he spent his time engaged in most other legal jobs.



Not to mention that you take clients with yourself when you leave and set up your own firm!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: grand slam on May 16, 2007, 05:20:42 AM

[...] as opposed to a lousy $30 an hour, say, a typical entry-level prosecutor gets!


I wouldn't grant even $25/hr, let alone $30/hr


Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Consideration on May 16, 2007, 01:37:47 PM
what happened to the topic
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: playhouse on May 16, 2007, 03:42:35 PM

Equally important, almost all training slots filled by IMGs are in teaching hospitals in large urban areas that have traditionally served large numbers of minorities, uninsured, and low-income patients. It is a bit easier for US-IMGs compared to non-US IMGs. The latter, for example, who usually are on J-1 Visas (with 80% of these physicians actually staying in the US) are compelled to practice in designated rural or inner city physician shortage areas in order to have the "2-year return" requirement for J-1 visa waived. Both the initial training location and the subsequent service locations of IMGs frequently put them in minority communities where other doctors are scarce. In essence IMGs provide primary care to poor and underserved populations, with many inner-city hospitals in the U.S. relying almost exclusively on IMGs to provide services to America's poor.



It is true that the average national annual salaries for Internal Medicine is some $160K and $145 for Family Practice as opposed to $340K for Cardiology and $350K for Radiology -- after all, this is the reason why US med grads with huge student loans take up these specialties, while IMGs with much less or nil loans do not mind taking up primary care.

Typically Primary Care pays in Houston, TX around $150K, in Miami and New York and L.A. $170K. [...]


So basically you really can make a lot of money as a physician treating n-word patients?!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Soon2be1L on May 16, 2007, 10:52:21 PM
THREAD HIJACKERS SUCK!! ;)

Anyway- first year will be done tomorrow- am I glad I went? What a loaded question!

First, as of right now- no, I'm not glad I went- I feel like my brain is in a mixing bowl being whisked in two directions and there's no relief in sight!  When mixed with impleader, supplemental jurisdiction, res judicata issues, JOINDER SUCKS!!
As does calculating damages under the Restatement 2d!!

Ask me this question about a month AFTER I get my grades and I'll be able to give you a valid response...

 ;)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: The Negotiator on May 17, 2007, 04:27:02 AM

I tend to believe USMLE scores do not matter that much, provided you get a passing score (185 I believe) -- just like the case is with state bar exams.
 

money, it's not the same thing ... when you apply for residency it's just like you're applying to medical school, or law school ... you're being evaluated by the program directors in terms of your med school GPA, USMLE Step 1 & 2 scores, resume, recommendations, and so on.

Yearwise, it looks smth like this,

Law school --> 4...3(bar exam)
Med school --> 4...4...(USMLE)...3-7
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: GwenK on May 17, 2007, 06:45:04 AM
For those just finishing up 1L, congrats! So, whether you're glad you went or not, perhaps you can pass along some advice? As an incoming 1L, I'm wondering:

-What was the hardest part of 1L (that maybe you didn't think was going to be hard, but was?)
-What was the easiest (or least hard)?
-Study groups -- good/bad?
-Anything that really surprised you that you didn't expect?

Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: sweeney601 on May 17, 2007, 07:41:26 AM
Anything is better than becoming a statistic lol. ;D
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: amoebalaw on May 17, 2007, 09:01:15 AM
-Hardest part of being a 1L: Staying positive while being on a forced curve.

-Easiest part: Finding fun things to do to distract oneself from the above pain.

-Study Groups: Didn't do it myself -- preferred to learn things at my
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Soon2be1L on May 17, 2007, 09:21:28 AM
-What was the hardest part of 1L (that maybe you didn't think was going to be hard, but was?) The time it takes away from your life

-What was the easiest (or least hard)? Sitting in class during lectures-really wasn't bad at
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: loki13 on May 17, 2007, 11:43:33 AM
-What was the hardest part of 1L (that maybe you didn't think was going to be hard, but was?) The time it takes away from your life

-What was the easiest (or least hard)? Sitting in class during lectures-really wasn't bad at all

-Study groups -- good/bad? depends on you and who your group is

-Anything that really surprised you that you didn't expect? The pickiness of some professors

Allow me to expand on these (basically correct) answers:
1. You're a 1L. You have no life. Or, more correctly, the law is your life. If, midway through the semester, you find yourself doing kegstands, you're probably going to finish towards the bottom of your class. If, otoh, you find yourself wondering what wwould have happened had Learned Hand decided the Hairy Hand case, you're going to do fine.

2. Lectures *are* the easiest part- for most people. Really, showing up is 80% of the battle. Law school is a job, and showing up each and every day is your responsibility. This is not ug, and your 8am lecture is not optional based upon your previous night's desire to watch Adult Swim (that's what TIVO is for). The unfortunate unstated side for that is the studying- do not get behind. Do the reading for each lecture ahead of time so you understand and can follow (and be engaged in) the lecture. Don't 'catch up' on the weekend. Can you do it? Sure. But it makes the lectures useless... Best strategy is to read for some of your classes the weekend before the assignments are due. Of course, some professors don't like to give you a comprehensive syllabus ahead of time *grin*.

3. Study groups, usually, are great. They can force you to really hit the books when you'd rather not. Do not choose study groups based on who you like and get along with, though. Choose people who you can learn from. If you find your study group is meeting to discuss House or American Idol, find a new study group. Another good reason for a study group is it helps you with networking and allows you to have a source of information (other students) who might know about things going on with the class or school in general that you don't know about.

4. Every professor is different. As an example, one professor swore by the IRAC system and demanded that all exam answers followed it. Another professor swore at the IRAC system and downgraded exam answers that followed it. One professor recommended a study guide and there was material on the exam that you could only answer successfully if you had used a study guide. Another professor (brilliant) hated study guides, and if you used information from them that conflicted with what he taught, he marked you down severely. One professor wanted your normative answers to be what his normative beliefs were, another professor preferred that you had provocative normative beliefs (well-supported) that she disagrees with. And so on... Long story short- for each class, find out what each professor is like (it should be evident during class, but ask 2Ls and 3Ls) and study and write your exams accordingly.

Also- learn the 3d Amendment. That's the key to everything.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: lawmama09 on May 17, 2007, 01:34:49 PM
My experiences are probably different from a lot of 1Ls because I am a non-traditional student.

The hardest part, which I knew it would be, was finding the right schoolwork/life balance. I have a small child and a husband who works crazy hours, so finding enough time to study and keep up was hard. But I managed to do it.

Surprisingly, the easiest for me was getting back into the swing of school since I had been out for 8 years. Once I started classes, it was like I had never left.

My study group was helpful because it made me accountable to other people. We only met for the few weeks before finals but when we met, we would spend 6-8 hours per day studying. Since I knew my group was counting on me to be there, I had to show up. If I was on my own, I would procrastinate and play on the Internet (like I am doing right now when I should be working on my Law Review write-on submission).

I was surprised by how much I genuinely enjoyed my first year of law school. Everyone told me that it would be hell and while it was hard, I liked it a lot.

Good luck next year!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: jd06 on May 17, 2007, 01:55:08 PM
My experiences are probably different from a lot of 1Ls because I am a non-traditional student.

The hardest part, which I knew it would be, was finding the right schoolwork/life balance. I have a small child and a husband who works crazy hours, so finding enough time to study and keep up was hard. But I managed to do it.

Surprisingly, the easiest for me was getting back into the swing of school since I had been out for 8 years. Once I started classes, it was like I had never left.

My study group was helpful because it made me accountable to other people. We only met for the few weeks before finals but when we met, we would spend 6-8 hours per day studying. Since I knew my group was counting on me to be there, I had to show up. If I was on my own, I would procrastinate and play on the Internet (like I am doing right now when I should be working on my Law Review write-on submission).

I was surprised by how much I genuinely enjoyed my first year of law school. Everyone told me that it would be hell and while it was hard, I liked it a lot.

Good luck next year!

You have the makings of a successful and happy attorney.  I was similarly situated and my experience mirrored yours.  Despite all the rhetoric I had heard, I found that I truly enjoyed law school.  And the really cool thing is that I enjoy being an attorney even more. Best of luck!  :)

Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Lisa Hartman on May 17, 2007, 05:52:51 PM

Equally important, almost all training slots filled by IMGs are in teaching hospitals in large urban areas that have traditionally served large numbers of minorities, uninsured, and low-income patients. It is a bit easier for US-IMGs compared to non-US IMGs. The latter, for example, who usually are on J-1 Visas (with 80% of these physicians actually staying in the US) are compelled to practice in designated rural or inner city physician shortage areas in order to have the "2-year return" requirement for J-1 visa waived. Both the initial training location and the subsequent service locations of IMGs frequently put them in minority communities where other doctors are scarce. In essence IMGs provide primary care to poor and underserved populations, with many inner-city hospitals in the U.S. relying almost exclusively on IMGs to provide services to America's poor.



It is true that the average national annual salaries for Internal Medicine is some $160K and $145 for Family Practice as opposed to $340K for Cardiology and $350K for Radiology -- after all, this is the reason why US med grads with huge student loans take up these specialties, while IMGs with much less or nil loans do not mind taking up primary care.

Typically Primary Care pays in Houston, TX around $150K, in Miami and New York and L.A. $170K. [...]


So basically you really can make a lot of money as a physician treating n-word patients?!


What a foul-mouthed moron you are, playhouse!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: AVATAR on May 17, 2007, 11:33:16 PM

I tend to believe USMLE scores do not matter that much, provided you get a passing score (185 I believe) -- just like the case is with state bar exams.
 

money, it's not the same thing ... when you apply for residency it's just like you're applying to medical school, or law school ... you're being evaluated by the program directors in terms of your med school GPA, USMLE Step 1 & 2 scores, resume, recommendations, and so on.

Yearwise, it looks smth like this,

Law school --> 4...3(bar exam)
Med school --> 4...4...(USMLE)...3-7


For one thing, AMA (American Medical Association) believes that USMLE scores should only be reported as "pass" or "fail" and that residency programs should not discriminate against applicants by country of medical education. You may score 75% (to pass the exam you need approximately 60%) and have difficulty in being accepted into a residency program. Often program directors screen out applicants with criteria such as USMLE scores and experience in U.S. hospitals.

Getting into a residency program is a very competetive process -- and it is extremely competitive for IMGs. There are approximately twice as many IMGs applying as there are available residency positions. IMGs should get experience in a U.S. healthcare facility before applying to a residency program (especially a facility with a teaching program) If one is unable to get experience in a clinical setting, s/he should try to obtain a research position in a hospital laboratory, which may may lead to clinical opportunities.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: staplelaw on May 18, 2007, 03:25:42 AM


(http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/8522/image5lgdw7.jpg)



[...] In the case above, you clearly are at a profit after 20 years of repaying mortgage.


Not really, helga, you break even in the example shown above only after 35 years. If you pay $215,800 in interest that means that $900 a month out of the $2,150 monthly payment has gone to the bank's pockets and you'd pay $1,250 to rent the same house. This means that you could pay the same amount of rent for another 14-15 years using the $215,000 amount that you paid in interest. It is only then that you'd need additional money to cover the rent.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: four of a kind on May 19, 2007, 04:40:16 AM

Equally important, almost all training slots filled by IMGs are in teaching hospitals in large urban areas that have traditionally served large numbers of minorities, uninsured, and low-income patients. It is a bit easier for US-IMGs compared to non-US IMGs. The latter, for example, who usually are on J-1 Visas (with 80% of these physicians actually staying in the US) are compelled to practice in designated rural or inner city physician shortage areas in order to have the "2-year return" requirement for J-1 visa waived. Both the initial training location and the subsequent service locations of IMGs frequently put them in minority communities where other doctors are scarce. In essence IMGs provide primary care to poor and underserved populations, with many inner-city hospitals in the U.S. relying almost exclusively on IMGs to provide services to America's poor.



It is true that the average national annual salaries for Internal Medicine is some $160K and $145 for Family Practice as opposed to $340K for Cardiology and $350K for Radiology -- after all, this is the reason why US med grads with huge student loans take up these specialties, while IMGs with much less or nil loans do not mind taking up primary care.

Typically Primary Care pays in Houston, TX around $150K, in Miami and New York and L.A. $170K. [...]


So basically you really can make a lot of money as a physician treating n-word patients?!


What a foul-mouthed moron you are, playhouse!


Exactly, a sick body is a sick body is a sick body. What difference does it make whether it's black or white?
Title: Re: "Anchor Men"
Post by: merriam webster on May 19, 2007, 05:30:09 AM

Not really! As the glut of excess lawyers continues unabated (and as technology makes many things possible with far fewer lawyers) further adjustments are not far behind. Currently, the top 10-15% (gradewise) from 1st tier schools (roughly, the 40 or so best schools in the U.S.) go to two kinds of jobs. They go to "traditional firms" (these firms used to hire from the top 50%) and government jobs (that used to go to the bottom 50% of the class from the bottom 50% of the schools). Worse, after a year of so of looking for work, the very status of length out of law school is a permanent barrier to most employment. A history in a small firm, as a solo or in a District Attorney's Office qualifies an attorney only to go to work for herself or himself.

The "ticket punching" era has come to an end -- in some states slowly, in some states with great drama. In one instance (when the great "crunch" hit Texas) schools went from full placement by Christmas of the senior year to 20% placement at graduation in the course of one class. Virtually all of the Harvard class of '75 made partner by the 10-year reunion. Of the Harvard class of '85, so few made partner by the 10-year reunion it was a Section B front page story in the Wall Street Journal.


(http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/1688/imagek28ay2.jpg)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: m-w on May 19, 2007, 05:40:43 AM
(http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/2831/imageecign2.jpg)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: gluklich zu sehen on May 19, 2007, 06:15:17 AM

The myth of the six-figure-plus salary for an MBA graduate seems to be emblazoned into the collective unconscious. Every MBA website mentions it, the Business Week and US News and World Report articles report on it, and every watercooler kibbitzing session on the topic of the MBA invariably broaches it. This six-figure salary is often much higher than that of your typical MBA applicant. The Graduate Management Admissions Council estimates that an MBA degree provides an increase of 35% in salary pre and post MBA.

These rumors, conjectures, and statistics provide a quite alluring draw, so let's explore them a bit. In all fairness, there are many individuals who receive high salaries upon graduation. My colleagues who have pursued the finance and consulting paths have amassed quite a respectable quantity of what the Notorious BIG refers to as "paper". One of my friends working in finance even managed to pull down a $500,000 bonus in 2003. Enough said.

Unfortunately, however, there is a flip side. Median compensation numbers are inflated a bit since the schools only release statistics on SELF-REPORTED information, and not all graduates reply to the survey. For example, the $115,000 median income from the most recent Wharton career report is the average of the 600 respondents, not of the 778 graduates. This disconnect introduces what statisticians refer to as a "non-response bias", meaning that when it comes to reporting something as ego-sensitive as compensation, people receiving low salaries are unlikely to respond. Such a bias implies that the TRUE average compensation is probably somewhat lower. To give a real world example, I personally chose not to reveal my salary information to the Career Management office because I felt slightly emasculated in admitting to my relatively meager remuneration.

Secondly, one must beware of what I refer to as the "Keanu Reeves Factor" (in homage to his riveting performance in A Devil's Advocate). The Keanu Reeves factor dictates that in order to earn these six-figure salaries, one typically needs to land a job in investment banking or management consulting where one must sell one's soul to the devil. This underworld reference is not intended to refer to the "insert-your-favorite-corporate-crook-here" MBA graduates of yesteryear, but rather to the infernal quality of life that entry level consulants and investment bankers lead. The hours are really, really, long and you completely surrender control over your life. A good friend of mine at a major investment bank said it best in a recent informal interview, "It sucks even worse than people say it sucks."

Thirdly (if that's actually a word), the return on investment might not be as high as you might think. If you will excuse the irony of using a concept learned in business school to refute the value of business school, please consider the following example:

Assume that GMAC is correct and that an MBA engenders a 35% salary increase. Also assume that the $115K salary is correct. If one were to take into account the changes in marginal tax rates, the years of lost income, et cetera, the change in Net Present Value for your ten years after business school would be -$53,000. This figure is primarily driven by the fact that the student loan repayments for such a hefty sum would have to be a staggering, non-tax deductible $1,500/ month (assuming a 10 year repayment period). Put into more simplistic terms, if one were to leave an $85K/year job today for the hope of getting a $115K/year job two years from now, your net yearly take-home pay (after loan repayments) will be actually be LOWER than if you simply stay put for the first several years. You won't even break even until about 12 years from now.

http://mbacaveatemptor.blogspot.com/2005/06/wharton-grads-caveat-emptor-for.html


Very interesting! Here are the projections for MBAs,

(http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/6151/imagef6bjb1.jpg)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: tipsy on May 19, 2007, 09:56:42 AM
Indeed, an excellent way to get your point across ...


Since we're law students who will enter the workforce in 2007-2010, I don't see how salary figures from five years ago are relevant.  I'm not bored enough to go find all the problems with your numbers, but suffice it to say that your numbers for Weil are way off, so whatever your source is, it is unreliable.

Next time try this http://www.lawfirmdiscussion.com/compensation/newyork07salary.php (http://www.lawfirmdiscussion.com/compensation/newyork07salary.php), NALP, Infirmation.com or the company's own website, all of which indicate a starting salary of $160k for Weil.

Nearly every BigLaw firm in NY, and many in other markets pay these rates.  If you would have paid attention, we were discussing the value of the degree from top schools:  If you go to a top school and then take a job in Newark with hideously below-market pay, that is your own fault and you are not permitted to complain.  It is not relevant to the positive value of the degree.

Edited to Add: Just checked Covington and Jenner, both are also at $160k to start. 


(http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/252/image0tjnk7.jpg)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: tipsy on May 19, 2007, 10:08:43 AM
It looks like the most profitable "law" job is that of law professors -- lazy asses who get a hell of a lot of money for doing practically nothing with no real stress. 

(http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/7817/imagek6aar1.jpg)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: 22 on May 21, 2007, 02:24:57 AM


(http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/8522/image5lgdw7.jpg)




Not really, helga, you break even in the example shown above only after 35 years. If you pay $215,800 in interest that means that $900 a month out of the $2,150 monthly payment has gone to the bank's pockets and you'd pay $1,250 to rent the same house. This means that you could pay the same amount of rent for another 14-15 years using the $215,000 amount that you paid in interest. It is only then that you'd need additional money to cover the rent.


If you can't afford to pay mortgage at the very least $2,000 a month then don't get a $300,000 mortgage, get a $125,000 one!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: mm11 on May 22, 2007, 03:42:45 AM

(http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/7384/imagejh0oi4.jpg)


In Europe, the state pays for the institutional costs of instruction; students pay little or no tuition, but are responsible for living costs; and most universities are public.

In the US, by contrast, student loans have become the most profitable, uncompetitive, oppressive, and predatory type of debt of any in the nation. This has occurred due to legislation that was largely paid for by the the lobbying machine of Sallie Mae, the largest student loan company in America. Vast personal fortunes are being made by both Sallie Mae executives, and others who paid for this legislation, at the expense of decent citizens who were not able to capitalize on their education. This has effectively crippled MILLIONS of decent citizens who want to repay their original debt, but are prevented from doing so by staggeringly higher amounts being demanded from them by both "non-profit", and for-profit student loan companies.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: 9 on May 22, 2007, 03:47:11 AM
;)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Everything But The Girl on May 24, 2007, 03:14:09 AM


(http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/8522/image5lgdw7.jpg)




Not really, helga, you break even in the example shown above only after 35 years. If you pay $215,800 in interest that means that $900 a month out of the $2,150 monthly payment has gone to the bank's pockets and you'd pay $1,250 to rent the same house. This means that you could pay the same amount of rent for another 14-15 years using the $215,000 amount that you paid in interest. It is only then that you'd need additional money to cover the rent.


If you can't afford to pay mortgage at the very least $2,000 a month then don't get a $300,000 mortgage, get a $125,000 one!


LOL 22, you're so @ # ! * i n g funny!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: motiva on May 24, 2007, 05:45:39 PM

[...] The latter, for example, who usually are on J-1 Visas (with 80% of these physicians actually staying in the US) are compelled to practice in designated rural or inner city physician shortage areas in order to have the "2-year return" requirement for J-1 visa waived. [...]


Here it is an overview of the visa process

(http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/8500/matchingprocesssf1.jpg)

For specific information on J-1 visa waivers go here

http://www.visalaw.com/04jan3/conrad30.pdf
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Gwiz on May 25, 2007, 01:34:12 PM

[...] The latter, for example, who usually are on J-1 Visas (with 80% of these physicians actually staying in the US) are compelled to practice in designated rural or inner city physician shortage areas in order to have the "2-year return" requirement for J-1 visa waived. [...]


Here it is an overview of the visa process

(http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/8500/matchingprocesssf1.jpg)

For specific information on J-1 visa waivers go here

http://www.visalaw.com/04jan3/conrad30.pdf
WTF
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Lynn Cox on May 26, 2007, 04:57:40 AM

Exactly, a sick body is a sick body is a sick body. What difference does it make whether it's black or white?


The human body is not unlike an automobile.

Thus, doctors, like mechanics, do take better care when working on a BMW than on a Volkswagen!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Gwiz on May 26, 2007, 07:52:58 AM

Exactly, a sick body is a sick body is a sick body. What difference does it make whether it's black or white?


The human body is not unlike an automobile.

Thus, doctors, like mechanics, do take better care when working on a BMW than on a Volkswagen!
Hmm someone is an ass.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: caesar salad on May 26, 2007, 02:46:15 PM

The human body is not unlike an automobile.

Thus, doctors, like mechanics, do take better care when working on a BMW than on a Volkswagen!


;)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: interestoninterest on May 26, 2007, 08:59:40 PM

Exactly, a sick body is a sick body is a sick body. What difference does it make whether it's black or white?


The human body is not unlike an automobile.

Thus, doctors, like mechanics, do take better care when working on a BMW than on a Volkswagen!


I doubt it white people would feel flattered by this comment, even though you are certainly trying to be sympathetic to them.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: regulus on May 28, 2007, 02:29:00 AM

(http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/8522/image5lgdw7.jpg)


Not really, helga, you break even in the example shown above only after 35 years. If you pay $215,800 in interest that means that $900 a month out of the $2,150 monthly payment has gone to the bank's pockets and you'd pay $1,250 to rent the same house. This means that you could pay the same amount of rent for another 14-15 years using the $215,000 amount that you paid in interest. It is only then that you'd need additional money to cover the rent.


In actuality, this example may have a pretty good ROI (return on investment), close to 30%; for instance, if you take the mortgage when you're, say 30, you'll be breaking even at 65, having 10 years to "make profits," that is to say not pay rent (with the average life expectancy 75 years) -- you'd make $150,000 profit on a $515,000 investment.   

The problem is that most mortgages nowadays extend over a 30 year period. 
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: o n e on May 29, 2007, 12:05:08 AM
Your contributions to this thread appear to be done with a spirit of self-sacrifice and a desire to help others, being more conscious of other people's needs and wants, given the fact that your own ego needs aren't very great, isn't that so?

The problem is, I think, that you should watch out for the temptation to view yourself as some kind of "savior" helping others who may still be in the difficult position you once were. Illusions are to be guarded against, since you may think you are being totally unselfish when you are really on one of the strongest but subtlest ego trips of all.

I think you should look at what you're doing objectively to see what it really is without judging or condemning.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: harvesteroftruth on May 29, 2007, 07:01:21 AM
Actually I think this person is an eccentric outsider with an unpredictable and revolutionary style of behaviour stirring up excitement and unrest. I think he actually likes this role of provocative stirrer, disregarding all public opinion and following his own path.

Is it possible that this person is more concerned about appearing unusual and different than engaging in a genuine search for truth? Whatever the case might be, I think he has a leaning towards a type of Robin Hood mentality, a sort of self-righteous law and order.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: paladin on May 30, 2007, 02:33:20 AM

(http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/8522/image5lgdw7.jpg)


Not really, helga, you break even in the example shown above only after 35 years. If you pay $215,800 in interest that means that $900 a month out of the $2,150 monthly payment has gone to the bank's pockets and you'd pay $1,250 to rent the same house. This means that you could pay the same amount of rent for another 14-15 years using the $215,000 amount that you paid in interest. It is only then that you'd need additional money to cover the rent.


In actuality, this example may have a pretty good ROI (return on investment), close to 30%; for instance, if you take the mortgage when you're, say 30, you'll be breaking even at 65, having 10 years to "make profits," that is to say not pay rent (with the average life expectancy 75 years) -- you'd make $150,000 profit on a $515,000 investment.   

The problem is that most mortgages nowadays extend over a 30 year period. 


Well, after you're gone your kids will inherit the house, so there's more profit than you describe here.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: kidslaw on May 30, 2007, 04:13:19 AM

In Europe, the state pays for the institutional costs of instruction; students pay little or no tuition, but are responsible for living costs; and most universities are public.


This is the reason why colleges in Europe that have lost ground. Students in Europe do not have an incentive to acquire knowledge as they do not pay tuition as they do in America. On the other hand, while the percentage of students qualified to attend or who do attend institutions of higher learning has continued to increase in the United States as well as in many Asian nations, it has remained stagnant or even decreased in a large portion of European countries.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: g e r u n d on May 30, 2007, 04:31:43 AM

In Europe, the state pays for the institutional costs of instruction; students pay little or no tuition, but are responsible for living costs; and most universities are public.


This is the reason why colleges in Europe that have lost ground. Students in Europe do not have an incentive to acquire knowledge as they do not pay tuition as they do in America.


Quite the opposite, kidslaw! In the mid 1980s when federal and state funding for higher education became more limited and schools were forced to assume a business-like model of operation that has not changed since. Once you start treating students like consumers, you want to make them happy, and one way to make them happy is by giving consistently high grades. The customer is always right. Here:

www.lawschooldiscussion.org/students/index.php/topic,1025.msg56132.html#msg56132
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: caviard on May 30, 2007, 08:53:39 PM
tag
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: my stepson my lover on May 31, 2007, 03:28:36 AM

Well, after you're gone your kids will inherit the house, so there's more profit than you describe here.


No doubt about it, paladin! :)

Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: internist on June 03, 2007, 12:25:15 AM

The value of an JD from a top school is definitely positive; even it may take 15 years to break even, the average Harvard JD, e.g., will still have 25 years to retire -- time period during which his salary will likely be in the range of 100-150K as opposed to the $60-70K that he would get had he not gone to law school. 

tuition & living expenses $60,000 X 3 = $180,000
lost wages                          $40,000 X 3 = $120,000

total                                             $300,000


tuition & living expenses $60,000 X 3 = $180,000 huh? And what about the interest you'd be paying on the original amount borrowed? How about $260,000 + $120,000 = $380,000 for a total?

(http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/7384/imagejh0oi4.jpg)


I guess that's how they come up with the $300K+ figure, they factor in the equation the interest paid, but not the lost wages and/or the living expenses in the way the guy said .
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Kathleen Turner on June 03, 2007, 12:40:00 AM

Tuition & living expenses $60,000 X 3 = $180,000 huh? And what about the interest you'd be paying on the original amount borrowed? How about $260,000 + $120,000 = $380,000 for a total?

(http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/7384/imagejh0oi4.jpg)


I guess that's how they come up with the $300K+ figure, they factor in the equation the interest paid, but not the lost wages and/or the living expenses in the way the guy said .





Exactly, internist.




But of course, he does not need an MBA -- the private equity industry pays top dollars and as a director he should be making at least $100K. It does not pay to attend a top-ranked school. That is because the likes of Wharton and Harvard tend to attract high earners, making it harder to get a big salary bump at graduation and recoup the investment in an MBA. How hard? For Harvard grads, the breakeven point will not come until 2020, or about 20 years shy of retirement!!!

(http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/5715/imagen01kk9.jpg)
(http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/7808/imagefnrvx3.jpg)


So basically the way they culcate the cost of attending is, for Harvard, e.g.,

tuition & living expenses $74,000 X 2 = $148,000
lost wages                        $70,000 X 2 = $140,000

total                                                $300,000

Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: christy on June 03, 2007, 01:06:51 AM

You're right, but I think that that is a conservative estimate of how long it will take to break even.

Starting salaries for BigLaw are actually $160k plus $30k bonus, increasing $20-$25k per year afterward.  That means that assuming a 40% tax rate and $5k/mo. living expenses, you're saving $266k in the first three years. 

Tuition + living expenses are about $50k per year, which means that most would graduate with $150k in debt. While lost wages are part of an overall calculus, they aren't part of student loans. If one lives frugally (which I'd imagine few first year biglaw associates do), you could really pay off those loans in two years. Even at the high COL numbers above, you're paid off in three.

If you're calculating 'break even', not actual loan debt, you will factor in lost wages, but not living expenses, which you would have had to pay whether you were a law student or not.  $33k/year tuition plus $40k/year of lost wages comes out to $219k.  Since your salary was increased the first year by $150k - let's say $125k to optimistically assume three years of raises you missed - the degree pays for the expenses and missed opportunities in two years. 



Exactly, internist.



But of course, he does not need an MBA -- the private equity industry pays top dollars and as a director he should be making at least $100K. It does not pay to attend a top-ranked school. That is because the likes of Wharton and Harvard tend to attract high earners, making it harder to get a big salary bump at graduation and recoup the investment in an MBA. How hard? For Harvard grads, the breakeven point will not come until 2020, or about 20 years shy of retirement!!!

(http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/5715/imagen01kk9.jpg)
(http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/7808/imagefnrvx3.jpg)


So basically the way they culcate the cost of attending is, for Harvard, e.g.,

tuition & living expenses $74,000 X 2 = $148,000
lost wages                        $70,000 X 2 = $140,000

total                                                $300,000


Very interesting!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: estella on June 06, 2007, 03:35:17 AM

money, it's not the same thing ... when you apply for residency it's just like you're applying to medical school, or law school ... you're being evaluated by the program directors in terms of your med school GPA, USMLE Step 1 & 2 scores, resume, recommendations, and so on.

Yearwise, it looks smth like this,

Law school --> 4...3(bar exam)
Med school --> 4...4...(USMLE)...3-7


For one thing, AMA (American Medical Association) believes that USMLE scores should only be reported as "pass" or "fail" and that residency programs should not discriminate against applicants by country of medical education. You may score 75% (to pass the exam you need approximately 60%) and have difficulty in being accepted into a residency program. Often program directors screen out applicants with criteria such as USMLE scores and experience in U.S. hospitals.

Getting into a residency program is a very competetive process -- and it is extremely competitive for IMGs. There are approximately twice as many IMGs applying as there are available residency positions. IMGs should get experience in a U.S. healthcare facility before applying to a residency program (especially a facility with a teaching program) If one is unable to get experience in a clinical setting, s/he should try to obtain a research position in a hospital laboratory, which may may lead to clinical opportunities.


Here it is a guide for FMGs:

http://www.internationaldoc.com/
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: my husband my lover on June 06, 2007, 08:43:30 PM

(http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/8522/image5lgdw7.jpg)


Not really, helga, you break even in the example shown above only after 35 years. If you pay $215,800 in interest that means that $900 a month out of the $2,150 monthly payment has gone to the bank pockets and you would pay $1,250 to rent the same house. This means that you could pay the same amount of rent for another 14-15 years using the $215,000 amount that you paid in interest. It is only then that you would need additional money to cover the rent.


In actuality, this example may have a pretty good ROI (return on investment), close to 30%; for instance, if you take the mortgage when you are, say 30, you will be breaking even at 65, having 10 years to \'make profits,\' that is to say not pay rent (with the average life expectancy 75 years) -- you would make $150,000 profit on a $515,000 investment.   

The problem is that most mortgages nowadays extend over a 30 year period. 


The system is designed to make you work yourself in exhaustion -- simply to accumulate wealth for the companies you do business with and not for you. The most staggering of these examples is a home mortgage. Nearly two-thirds of the amount you pay over a 30 year mortgage is for interest. Interest is the profit of the mortgage company makes for lending you the money to buy the house. A 75,000 home at 9% interest would give you payments around $603.47 per month. At the end of thirty years you would have paid over $217,248.11 to the bank. In this example the interest earned by the bank was $142,248.11. That is over 200% return. Something is wrong with this picture. It is actually much worst than this. In order to pay the bank that $142,248.11 you would have to work and earn $197,566 because we have to pay taxes. It gets even worse when you take in account the lost interest due to not having the money gaining interest. If you had invested that interest in monthly installments then you would have had a nest-egg of only $723,143. THAT IS THREE-QUARTERS OF A MILLION DOLLARS!!!!!

Are the banks doing us such a tremendous favor that you should wear yourself out for over three decades. IT IS YOUR MONEY. You worked for it. It is not fair. You work for it. Yet they end up with it. It is simple legal larceny. They are stealing your wealth right from under you. Now, granted it is very difficult for anyone to get a house without a loan. But it does not make since to pay on a mortgage for over thirty years. For the past 15 years this information has been out about pre-paying your mortgage. And for fifteen years the banks have misled the people into saying that it could not be paid off. It is the same scam that the Credit Bureaus have run on people for years. They know that they cannot tell you the truth because it would eliminate their profits. The solution is to put as much cash down as possible and pay off the loan by using bi-weekly equity acceleration to save hundreds of thousands of dollars interest. I can not believe that people are still paying on thirty year mortgages. If you have an accountant to tell you not to get rid of the mortgage,\' because it is the last good tax shelter\', GET A NEW ACCOUNTANT. What he really is saying is to spend a dollar in order to get 28 cents back on tax dollars.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: @ on June 12, 2007, 02:43:05 AM

They know that they cannot tell you the truth because it would eliminate their profits. The solution is to put as much cash down as possible and pay off the loan by using bi-weekly equity acceleration to save hundreds of thousands of dollars interest. I can not believe that people are still paying on thirty year mortgages. If you have an accountant to tell you not to get rid of the mortgage,' because it is the last good tax shelter', GET A NEW ACCOUNTANT. What he really is saying is to spend a dollar in order to get 28 cents back on tax dollars.


I'd assume few banks allow you to do the bi-weekly thing you mention here
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: chordatympani on June 12, 2007, 04:15:44 PM

So basically if you graduate from, say, a TTT school and earn, say, $60,000 a year once you graduate and/or after a while after you graduate, it'll take some 30 years to reach the break-even point ?


It can get even worse -- I read about a 53-year-old woman going for an Ph.D. She had about $138,500 in federal loans and about $14,000 in private loans. You could estimate $800 a month for some 30 years. As a college instructor at a college (very competitive to get such a position) her starting salary would be around $50,000 a year.

Now what the h e l l is this woman doing? With the relatively limited time left in her work life, there will not be time to earn the benefits of her education. Imagine paying student loans into your 60's, 70's and possibly 80's?
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: locksley on June 12, 2007, 05:02:48 PM

It can get even worse -- I read about a 53-year-old woman going for an Ph.D. She had about $138,500 in federal loans and about $14,000 in private loans. You could estimate $800 a month for some 30 years. As a college instructor at a college (very competitive to get such a position) her starting salary would be around $50,000 a year.

Now what the h e l l is this woman doing? With the relatively limited time left in her work life, there will not be time to earn the benefits of her education. Imagine paying student loans into your 60's, 70's and possibly 80's?


Actually, if you think it through this woman is smart.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Alamo79 on June 13, 2007, 02:40:14 PM

It can get even worse -- I read about a 53-year-old woman going for an Ph.D. She had about $138,500 in federal loans and about $14,000 in private loans. You could estimate $800 a month for some 30 years. As a college instructor at a college (very competitive to get such a position) her starting salary would be around $50,000 a year.

Now what the h e l l is this woman doing? With the relatively limited time left in her work life, there will not be time to earn the benefits of her education. Imagine paying student loans into your 60's, 70's and possibly 80's?


Actually, if you think it through this woman is smart.

That's odd.  I thought it through, and economically speaking, I think she's an idiot.  I wonder where I went wrong.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: motherlaw on June 16, 2007, 03:25:09 PM
It's that simple -- she'll never pay off her student loans.

The question is, How it is possible that banks are so stupid to lend her more money?
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: employmentlaw on June 16, 2007, 05:29:24 PM

Here it is a guide for FMGs:

http://www.internationaldoc.com


Great avatar, estella! :)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: piece of america on June 19, 2007, 10:55:58 PM
tag
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: kind law on June 23, 2007, 08:23:16 AM

(http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/8522/image5lgdw7.jpg)


Not really, helga, you break even in the example shown above only after 35 years. If you pay $215,800 in interest that means that $900 a month out of the $2,150 monthly payment has gone to the bank's pockets and you'd pay $1,250 to rent the same house. This means that you could pay the same amount of rent for another 14-15 years using the $215,000 amount that you paid in interest. It is only then that you'd need additional money to cover the rent.


In actuality, this example may have a pretty good ROI (return on investment), close to 30%; for instance, if you take the mortgage when you're, say 30, you'll be breaking even at 65, having 10 years to "make profits," that is to say not pay rent (with the average life expectancy 75 years) -- you'd make $150,000 profit on a $515,000 investment.   

The problem is that most mortgages nowadays extend over a 30 year period. 


Well, after you're gone your kids will inherit the house, so there's more profit than you describe here.


Well, I guess you were less lucky than your children will hopefully be..
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: papabear on June 25, 2007, 01:58:41 AM
LOL kindlaw ;)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: ad astra per alia porci on July 03, 2007, 07:14:04 PM

The College of Business offers a certification in Forensic Accounting and Fraud Investigation which is only a four course load offered during the summer. I am also thinking of completing solely this in lieu of the MBA.


That's a very good idea. People should really consider completing degrees like MA and MS in an appropriate area of study. My buddy, for instance, did an MIS -- which is part of the business school, differing from CS programs and emphasizing management coursework and business computing courses. He found a position as database analyst and is responsible for maintaining key databases and worksheets for reporting and analytical purposes grossing some $60K a year.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Nicorino on July 04, 2007, 06:18:56 PM

Exactly, a sick body is a sick body is a sick body. What difference does it make whether it's black or white?


The human body is not unlike an automobile.

Thus, doctors, like mechanics, do take better care when working on a BMW than on a Volkswagen!


That's correct from the perspective of the automobile in need of repairs; I'm not so sure it is correct from the viewpoint the mechanic.


Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: whitearbiter on July 08, 2007, 06:13:07 PM
I was just told by a friend of mine who's a field engineer at a big local construction firm that high-school graduates who get a license to operate heavy machinery end up with around $80k per year salary in a relatively low cost of living area (SE Virginia). Contrast that to a ~$35-45k (upwards of $60k for certain agencies if you're lucky) per year starting salary at a Federal position after 4 years of college and 3 years of law school in a high cost market like DC.

Felt like an idiot after hearing that, $60k college and $20k for a year of law school after. Don't get me wrong, operating heavy machinery is prolly not something I would've done anyway... but sheesh.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: coquita on July 08, 2007, 07:21:57 PM
^^^ totally understand. I found out that union workers that do welding make like 100k a year out of high school.

Maybe you should consider moving to a better market after law school?
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: ayn on July 08, 2007, 09:03:15 PM
Exactly - garbage collectors make smth like $50K a year and they don't have to complete even high school.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Gwiz on July 09, 2007, 08:31:27 AM
Exactly - garbage collectors make smth like $50K a year and they don't have to complete even high school.
Yes but a garbage collector that is a high school drop out will never make any more that that unless he deals drugs or has the street smarts to build a successful legal business that is legal. 

What is your potential max as a J.D.? Even if you are average you may max at $100k, and work 9 - 5 in an air conditioned office.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: r a m s e y on July 09, 2007, 10:06:49 PM
I guess that's what "ayn" says, Gwiz, although in a "kinky" way.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: theblackemma on July 24, 2007, 04:25:53 PM

The human body is not unlike an automobile.

Thus, doctors, like mechanics, do take better care when working on a BMW than on a Volkswagen!


There's a difference in that the under-/uninsured predominantly black people go the inner city hospitals served by the physicians you're talking about, while the predominantly middle-class white people go to different hospitals staffed by the other physicians. I'd have to agree, though, that dealing with black patients is not that different from dealing with the predominantly black defendants in court.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: horwitz on July 26, 2007, 03:19:05 AM

[...] I'd have to agree, though, that dealing with black patients is not that different from dealing with the predominantly black defendants in court.


Excuse me? Attorneys in court send black people to jail, doctors in those hospitals cure them.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: bermuda on July 30, 2007, 07:38:00 PM

[...] I'd have to agree, though, that dealing with black patients is not that different from dealing with the predominantly black defendants in court.


Excuse me? Attorneys in court send black people to jail, doctors in those hospitals cure them.


True, but it'd be better if you'd adopt a less objective tone when writing this post.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: ANBUDOM on July 30, 2007, 09:29:49 PM
after speaking to my unemployed/minimum wage/temp jobs friends... i'm sorta glad i'm going to law school with much better job prospects...
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: harbinger on August 01, 2007, 08:35:35 PM

Yes but a garbage collector that is a high school dropout will never make any more that that unless he deals drugs or has the street smarts to build a successful business that is legal. What is your potential max as a J.D.? Even if you are average you may max at $100k, and work 9-5 in an air conditioned office.


The A/C office granted, one'd have to find out as to whether he'd really be able to make $100K working 9-5 doing the bad kind of work attorneys do. 

Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: marcusbarnes30 on August 02, 2007, 12:25:36 PM

(http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/8522/image5lgdw7.jpg)


Not really, helga, you break even in the example shown above only after 35 years. If you pay $215,800 in interest that means that $900 a month out of the $2,150 monthly payment has gone to the bank pockets and you would pay $1,250 to rent the same house. This means that you could pay the same amount of rent for another 14-15 years using the $215,000 amount that you paid in interest. It is only then that you would need additional money to cover the rent.


In actuality, this example may have a pretty good ROI (return on investment), close to 30%; for instance, if you take the mortgage when you are, say 30, you will be breaking even at 65, having 10 years to \'make profits,\' that is to say not pay rent (with the average life expectancy 75 years) -- you would make $150,000 profit on a $515,000 investment.   

The problem is that most mortgages nowadays extend over a 30 year period. 


The system is designed to make you work yourself in exhaustion -- simply to accumulate wealth for the companies you do business with and not for you. The most staggering of these examples is a home mortgage. Nearly two-thirds of the amount you pay over a 30 year mortgage is for interest. Interest is the profit of the mortgage company makes for lending you the money to buy the house. A 75,000 home at 9% interest would give you payments around $603.47 per month. At the end of thirty years you would have paid over $217,248.11 to the bank. In this example the interest earned by the bank was $142,248.11. That is over 200% return. Something is wrong with this picture. It is actually much worst than this. In order to pay the bank that $142,248.11 you would have to work and earn $197,566 because we have to pay taxes. It gets even worse when you take in account the lost interest due to not having the money gaining interest. If you had invested that interest in monthly installments then you would have had a nest-egg of only $723,143. THAT IS THREE-QUARTERS OF A MILLION DOLLARS!!!!!

Are the banks doing us such a tremendous favor that you should wear yourself out for over three decades. IT IS YOUR MONEY. You worked for it. It is not fair. You work for it. Yet they end up with it. It is simple legal larceny. They are stealing your wealth right from under you. Now, granted it is very difficult for anyone to get a house without a loan. But it does not make since to pay on a mortgage for over thirty years. For the past 15 years this information has been out about pre-paying your mortgage. And for fifteen years the banks have misled the people into saying that it could not be paid off. It is the same scam that the Credit Bureaus have run on people for years. They know that they cannot tell you the truth because it would eliminate their profits. The solution is to put as much cash down as possible and pay off the loan by using bi-weekly equity acceleration to save hundreds of thousands of dollars interest. I can not believe that people are still paying on thirty year mortgages. If you have an accountant to tell you not to get rid of the mortgage,\' because it is the last good tax shelter\', GET A NEW ACCOUNTANT. What he really is saying is to spend a dollar in order to get 28 cents back on tax dollars.

Great Point. You argument is flawed nonetheless. It would not benefit you even in the slightest to take part in equity acceleration if you have no intention on staying in your house for 10 or more years. I do agree that equity acceleration really starts to kick ass 10+ years down the road, but if you buy a condo or townhouse with the intention of living there 5 years the only thing you have accomplished is reducing your liquidity.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Shall We Dance on August 03, 2007, 06:51:54 PM

The A/C office granted, one'd have to find out as to whether he'd really be able to make $100K working 9-5 doing the bad kind of work attorneys do. 


;)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Saturday night on August 03, 2007, 07:49:00 PM

[...] I'd have to agree, though, that dealing with black patients is not that different from dealing with the predominantly black defendants in court.


It is mostly lower-tiered schools' graduates that take positions as prosecutors and public defenders in criminal courts -- others do not deal with "predominantly black defendants," as you put it.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: K a r i on August 10, 2007, 03:21:29 AM

(http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/8522/image5lgdw7.jpg)


Not really, helga, you break even in the example shown above only after 35 years. If you pay $215,800 in interest that means that $900 a month out of the $2,150 monthly payment has gone to the bank's pockets and you'd pay $1,250 to rent the same house. This means that you could pay the same amount of rent for another 14-15 years using the $215,000 amount that you paid in interest. It is only then that you'd need additional money to cover the rent.


In actuality, this example may have a pretty good ROI (return on investment), close to 30%; for instance, if you take the mortgage when you're, say 30, you'll be breaking even at 65, having 10 years to "make profits," that is to say not pay rent (with the average life expectancy 75 years) -- you'd make $150,000 profit on a $515,000 investment.   

The problem is that most mortgages nowadays extend over a 30 year period. 


Well, after you're gone your kids will inherit the house, so there's more profit than you describe here.


Well, I guess you were less lucky than your children will hopefully be..


;)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Anna Ogordova on September 05, 2007, 01:53:38 AM

The system is designed to make you work yourself in exhaustion -- simply to accumulate wealth for the companies you do business with and not for you. The most staggering of these examples is a home mortgage. Nearly two-thirds of the amount you pay over a 30 year mortgage is for interest. Interest is the profit of the mortgage company makes for lending you the money to buy the house. A 75,000 home at 9% interest would give you payments around $603.47 per month. At the end of thirty years you would have paid over $217,248.11 to the bank. In this example the interest earned by the bank was $142,248.11. That is over 200% return. Something is wrong with this picture. It is actually much worst than this. In order to pay the bank that $142,248.11 you would have to work and earn $197,566 because we have to pay taxes. It gets even worse when you take in account the lost interest due to not having the money gaining interest. If you had invested that interest in monthly installments then you would have had a nest-egg of only $723,143. THAT IS THREE-QUARTERS OF A MILLION DOLLARS!!!!!

Are the banks doing us such a tremendous favor that you should wear yourself out for over three decades. IT IS YOUR MONEY. You worked for it. It is not fair. You work for it. Yet they end up with it. It is simple legal larceny. They are stealing your wealth right from under you. Now, granted it is very difficult for anyone to get a house without a loan. But it does not make since to pay on a mortgage for over thirty years. For the past 15 years this information has been out about pre-paying your mortgage. And for fifteen years the banks have misled the people into saying that it could not be paid off. It is the same scam that the Credit Bureaus have run on people for years. They know that they cannot tell you the truth because it would eliminate their profits. The solution is to put as much cash down as possible and pay off the loan by using bi-weekly equity acceleration to save hundreds of thousands of dollars interest. I can not believe that people are still paying on thirty year mortgages. If you have an accountant to tell you not to get rid of the mortgage,' because it is the last good tax shelter', GET A NEW ACCOUNTANT. What he really is saying is to spend a dollar in order to get $0.28 back on tax dollars.


Great Point. You argument is flawed nonetheless. It would not benefit you even in the slightest to take part in equity acceleration if you have no intention on staying in your house for 10 or more years. [...]

Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: everyman on September 06, 2007, 09:02:11 PM
;)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: animalaw on September 14, 2007, 12:28:44 PM

The system is designed to make you work yourself in exhaustion -- simply to accumulate wealth for the companies you do business with and not for you. The most staggering of these examples is a home mortgage. Nearly two-thirds of the amount you pay over a 30 year mortgage is for interest. Interest is the profit of the mortgage company makes for lending you the money to buy the house. A 75,000 home at 9% interest would give you payments around $603.47 per month. At the end of thirty years you would have paid over $217,248.11 to the bank. In this example the interest earned by the bank was $142,248.11. That is over 200% return. Something is wrong with this picture. It is actually much worst than this. In order to pay the bank that $142,248.11 you would have to work and earn $197,566 because we have to pay taxes. It gets even worse when you take in account the lost interest due to not having the money gaining interest. If you had invested that interest in monthly installments then you would have had a nest-egg of only $723,143. THAT IS THREE-QUARTERS OF A MILLION DOLLARS!!!!!

Are the banks doing us such a tremendous favor that you should wear yourself out for over three decades. IT IS YOUR MONEY. You worked for it. It is not fair. You work for it. Yet they end up with it. It is simple legal larceny. They are stealing your wealth right from under you. Now, granted it is very difficult for anyone to get a house without a loan. But it does not make since to pay on a mortgage for over thirty years. For the past 15 years this information has been out about pre-paying your mortgage. And for fifteen years the banks have misled the people into saying that it could not be paid off. It is the same scam that the Credit Bureaus have run on people for years. They know that they cannot tell you the truth because it would eliminate their profits. The solution is to put as much cash down as possible and pay off the loan by using bi-weekly equity acceleration to save hundreds of thousands of dollars interest. I can not believe that people are still paying on thirty year mortgages. If you have an accountant to tell you not to get rid of the mortgage,' because it is the last good tax shelter', GET A NEW ACCOUNTANT. What he really is saying is to spend a dollar in order to get $0.28 back on tax dollars.


Great Point. You argument is flawed nonetheless. It would not benefit you even in the slightest to take part in equity acceleration if you have no intention on staying in your house for 10 or more years. [...]



So are you saying anything ot not, Anna?
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: jarhead on September 15, 2007, 07:19:10 PM
yes its one year later and im still glad i went to law school.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: unexceptionable on September 17, 2007, 09:16:21 AM
:)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: xferlawstudent on September 28, 2007, 11:41:33 AM

(http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/8522/image5lgdw7.jpg)


Not really, helga, you break even in the example shown above only after 35 years. If you pay $215,800 in interest that means that $900 a month out of the $2,150 monthly payment has gone to the bank pockets and you would pay $1,250 to rent the same house. This means that you could pay the same amount of rent for another 14-15 years using the $215,000 amount that you paid in interest. It is only then that you would need additional money to cover the rent.


In actuality, this example may have a pretty good ROI (return on investment), close to 30%; for instance, if you take the mortgage when you are, say 30, you will be breaking even at 65, having 10 years to \'make profits,\' that is to say not pay rent (with the average life expectancy 75 years) -- you would make $150,000 profit on a $515,000 investment.   

The problem is that most mortgages nowadays extend over a 30 year period. 


The system is designed to make you work yourself in exhaustion -- simply to accumulate wealth for the companies you do business with and not for you. The most staggering of these examples is a home mortgage. Nearly two-thirds of the amount you pay over a 30 year mortgage is for interest. Interest is the profit of the mortgage company makes for lending you the money to buy the house. A 75,000 home at 9% interest would give you payments around $603.47 per month. At the end of thirty years you would have paid over $217,248.11 to the bank. In this example the interest earned by the bank was $142,248.11. That is over 200% return. Something is wrong with this picture. It is actually much worst than this. In order to pay the bank that $142,248.11 you would have to work and earn $197,566 because we have to pay taxes. It gets even worse when you take in account the lost interest due to not having the money gaining interest. If you had invested that interest in monthly installments then you would have had a nest-egg of only $723,143. THAT IS THREE-QUARTERS OF A MILLION DOLLARS!!!!!

Are the banks doing us such a tremendous favor that you should wear yourself out for over three decades. IT IS YOUR MONEY. You worked for it. It is not fair. You work for it. Yet they end up with it. It is simple legal larceny. They are stealing your wealth right from under you. Now, granted it is very difficult for anyone to get a house without a loan. But it does not make since to pay on a mortgage for over thirty years. For the past 15 years this information has been out about pre-paying your mortgage. And for fifteen years the banks have misled the people into saying that it could not be paid off. It is the same scam that the Credit Bureaus have run on people for years. They know that they cannot tell you the truth because it would eliminate their profits. The solution is to put as much cash down as possible and pay off the loan by using bi-weekly equity acceleration to save hundreds of thousands of dollars interest. I can not believe that people are still paying on thirty year mortgages. If you have an accountant to tell you not to get rid of the mortgage,\' because it is the last good tax shelter\', GET A NEW ACCOUNTANT. What he really is saying is to spend a dollar in order to get 28 cents back on tax dollars.


As to the pre-payment, there was an article published by the Federal Reserve in the past few months that calculated that you are better off taking the pre=payment money and putting into 401K or IRA, than to prepay a mortgage.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: by extension on November 09, 2007, 01:37:12 PM

The system is designed to make you work yourself in exhaustion -- simply to accumulate wealth for the companies you do business with and not for you. The most staggering of these examples is a home mortgage. Nearly two-thirds of the amount you pay over a 30 year mortgage is for interest. Interest is the profit of the mortgage company makes for lending you the money to buy the house. A 75,000 home at 9% interest would give you payments around $603.47 per month. At the end of thirty years you would have paid over $217,248.11 to the bank. In this example the interest earned by the bank was $142,248.11. That is over 200% return. Something is wrong with this picture. It is actually much worst than this. In order to pay the bank that $142,248.11 you would have to work and earn $197,566 because we have to pay taxes. It gets even worse when you take in account the lost interest due to not having the money gaining interest. If you had invested that interest in monthly installments then you would have had a nest-egg of only $723,143. THAT IS THREE-QUARTERS OF A MILLION DOLLARS!!!!!

Are the banks doing us such a tremendous favor that you should wear yourself out for over three decades. IT IS YOUR MONEY. You worked for it. It is not fair. You work for it. Yet they end up with it. It is simple legal larceny. They are stealing your wealth right from under you. Now, granted it is very difficult for anyone to get a house without a loan. But it does not make since to pay on a mortgage for over thirty years. For the past 15 years this information has been out about pre-paying your mortgage. And for fifteen years the banks have misled the people into saying that it could not be paid off. It is the same scam that the Credit Bureaus have run on people for years. They know that they cannot tell you the truth because it would eliminate their profits. The solution is to put as much cash down as possible and pay off the loan by using bi-weekly equity acceleration to save hundreds of thousands of dollars interest. I can not believe that people are still paying on thirty year mortgages. If you have an accountant to tell you not to get rid of the mortgage,' because it is the last good tax shelter', GET A NEW ACCOUNTANT. What he really is saying is to spend a dollar in order to get $0.28 back on tax dollars.


Great Point. You argument is flawed nonetheless. It would not benefit you even in the slightest to take part in equity acceleration if you have no intention on staying in your house for 10 or more years. [...]



So are you saying anything ot not, Anna?


Do you think she really needs to say anything else?! :)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: JackTaylorsPlace on November 09, 2007, 01:50:35 PM
I was a 1L night student last year, switched to full time this go around and am finishing up the first semester of my second year.


This might be the worst mistake I ever made.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: al so on February 05, 2008, 11:54:37 AM

In Europe, the state pays for the institutional costs of instruction; students pay little or no tuition, but are responsible for living costs; and most universities are public.

In the US, by contrast, student loans have become the most profitable, uncompetitive, oppressive, and predatory type of debt of any in the nation. This has occurred due to legislation that was largely paid for by the the lobbying machine of Sallie Mae, the largest student loan company in America. Vast personal fortunes are being made by both Sallie Mae executives, and others who paid for this legislation, at the expense of decent citizens who were not able to capitalize on their education. This has effectively crippled MILLIONS of decent citizens who want to repay their original debt, but are prevented from doing so by staggeringly higher amounts being demanded from them by both non-profit, and for-profit student loan companies.


That is the reason why many medical students enroll in a foreign school -- the Caribbean Medical Schools are usually less expensive and much more affordable compared to US medical schools. Often the education is a bargain even when extra costs, such as traveling abroad, health insurance and other miscellaneous costs, are included.

The downside is that not all of these schools are accredited. They must make sure their MD degree will be accepted in the US, though. Four states (California, Florida, New Jersey, and New York) evaluate foreign medical schools individually, with most Caribbean medical schools not being accredited in all four of these states. Schools like Ross School of Medicine, Saba School of Medicine, and St. George University (SGU) have the best reputations among Caribbean schools.

What this means is that students completing their studies in such schools might be at a disadvantage when competing for strong residencies. However, the USMLE scores are an important determinant of the residency match, so strong USMLE scores make up for a lot and can be a great equalizer. Another disadvantage is that often the clinical rotations are done in US medical schools. Many Caribbean Medical Schools have arrangements with US hospitals, but the students options in rotations might be limited compared to the options available to a student in a US medical school.


One could have exciting opportunities to contribute to medical science without having necessarily to suffer through a few years of 80- or 100-hour sleepless clinical training.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Ordinary L. Student on February 05, 2008, 11:59:23 AM
Absolutely.  Most interesting thing I've ever done.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: heinz on February 16, 2008, 04:50:36 PM


You know what? I've never been afraid of law school. Maybe during the first week or two, or the week before my oral arguments in 1L I was NERVOUS or ANXIOUS about the public speaking aspect, but I certainly wasn't hiding under my bed vomiting like these people make it sound.


Oral is always stressful. Oral exams in the format of a general chat are one-sided with the pacing and topic all up to the examiner. The latter's prompts provided are crucial to the performance of the student, whilst the attitude and mood of examiner becomes a large factor in the student's performance. For instance, a poor student performance could well be due to the examiner not being able to establish a rapport with the student. It is difficult for the student to play a natural, active role during an oral exam. Not to mention that some students get so tense that they "freeze up," and blank out due to extreme pressure. Thus, they may not demonstrate their knowledge and preparation, given the fact that they muddle through the exam as if they were incapable of functioning under the stress of the oral.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: To Those Who Do on February 17, 2008, 06:46:46 AM


You know what? I've never been afraid of law school. Maybe during the first week or two, or the week before my oral arguments in 1L I was NERVOUS or ANXIOUS about the public speaking aspect, but I certainly wasn't hiding under my bed vomiting like these people make it sound.


Oral is always stressful. Oral exams in the format of a general chat are one-sided with the pacing and topic all up to the examiner. The latter's prompts provided are crucial to the performance of the student, whilst the attitude and mood of examiner becomes a large factor in the student's performance. For instance, a poor student performance could well be due to the examiner not being able to establish a rapport with the student. It is difficult for the student to play a natural, active role during an oral exam. Not to mention that some students get so tense that they "freeze up," and blank out due to extreme pressure. Thus, they may not demonstrate their knowledge and preparation, given the fact that they muddle through the exam as if they were incapable of functioning under the stress of the oral.


That's all nice and dandy, Heinz, but we're talking about the oral argument, not oral exams; after all, there aren't any oral exams in law school.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Dr. Balsenschaft on February 17, 2008, 07:53:00 AM
That's not true.  There actually used to be a professor at my school who used to give oral exams.  He was one of those eccentric brilliant academics (read: "crazy and out of touch with reality") so who knows what the hell he was thinking.  I heard that his oral exams were a hell of a lot tougher than most written exams.  Anyway, oral exams are extremely rare but they're out there.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: lollipop on February 20, 2008, 11:16:15 AM

Oral is always stressful. Oral exams in the format of a general chat are one-sided with the pacing and topic all up to the examiner. The latter's prompts provided are crucial to the performance of the student, whilst the attitude and mood of examiner becomes a large factor in the student's performance. For instance, a poor student performance could well be due to the examiner not being able to establish a rapport with the student. It is difficult for the student to play a natural, active role during an oral exam. Not to mention that some students get so tense that they "freeze up," and blank out due to extreme pressure. Thus, they may not demonstrate their knowledge and preparation, given the fact that they muddle through the exam as if they were incapable of functioning under the stress of the oral.


Quite the opposite! Oral exams are the best and fairest way to assess a student's understanding. The goal is to find out the limits of the student's understanding, and the strength of oral exams is the flexibility of the questions. So when the student easily answers one question, the examiner responds with a harder question on the same general topic. If this is answered well, the next question will be even harder. Any question the candidate can't answer defines one boundary of their knowledge. The examiner responds by changing topics, again starting with an easy question and moving to harder questions if the student's answers are good, until another boundary is reached.

So taking an oral exam may be a scary experience. No matter how well or how badly you are doing, you'll still spend a substantial fraction of the time dealing with questions you find very challenging, and you probably will be unable to answer some questions. But knowing that this is supposed to happen to even the best students can save you from panicking when it happens to you.

It is true that the oral exams give absolute power to your professors; yet, by the same token, a bit strangely, it gives much flexibility to the student (if you are good enough). If you miss anything in your written work, you have no way to change it -- well, not until the appeal. On the contrary, oral exams allows you to fix it immediately, you just notice that the examiner is unsatisfied, rethink you answer and give a correct one. At least it works if you can think fast. I prefer oral exams.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: libo on February 24, 2008, 11:37:58 AM

What this means is that students completing their studies in such schools might be at a disadvantage when competing for strong residencies. [...]


In a humerous way to characterize the stereotypes of the various specialties, here it is a classic joke:

Title: “You Have to be a Surgeon with Testicles”
Post by: herr en on February 24, 2008, 12:50:30 PM

[...] It is practically impossible to get residency spots in the highly competitive specialties like Radiology, Orthopedics and Dermatology being an IMG, US or non-US one. You end up as a general family practice physician or internal medicine resident, specialties which pay much less than the highly sought-after specialties such as Surgery, Anesthesiology, Obstetrics/gynecology, etc.

[...]


As to OB-GYN: I'd say it's a specialty with a lot of joy in it especially for females -- delivering a baby is always kind of fun. Until the middle 1970s female doctors traditionally chose such specialties as pediatrics, psychiatry and internal medicine, which allowed them the most time with their families. Obstetrics-gynecology had long been an unpopular field with them, mainly because of its erratic hours, because it is a surgical specialty requiring an extra (4th) year of residency and because of a widespread belief in the profession that many patients would not accept female OB-GYNs. The major problem a lot of these residents have is with older women patients -- women in their 50's and above. They seem to have trouble accepting young females as doctors. They say things like, 'Gee, you look too young to be a doctor,' or 'You're too pretty to be a doctor.' They'd never say things like that to a male resident.


What this means is that students completing their studies in such schools might be at a disadvantage when competing for strong residencies. [...]


In a humerous way to characterize the stereotypes of the various specialties, here it is a classic joke:

  • Internal medicine doctors know everything, but can't do anything.
  • Surgeons can do everything, but don't know anything (what do you call two surgeons looking at an EKG? -- a double-blind study).
  • Psychiatrists know nothing and do nothing.
  • Pathologists know everything and can do everything -- but it's too late.

As to surgeons:

Nasstasjia, actually 1½ years out of medical school and awaiting a surgical residency says how while performing a hernia operation, the supervising surgeon told her "You have the skills but if you want to remain a woman in a man's world, you have to be a surgeon with testicles!!!! Or don't be a surgeon at all!!!"

Deeply offensive chauvinistic and sexist tones when surgery as a residency is concerned. Surgeons may indeed be more egotistical than other doctors -- their rapport with patients tends to be worse than other doctors. While this egotism may motivate some surgeons to work for their patients, I cannot believe that it is, or should be, the primary motivator for surgeons in general. Egotism my help in some instances, but it will also be counter-productive in other instances. Competence is certainly very important for surgeons, and confidence can be one of many aspects that has a bearing on this. Generally the best surgeons in most specialties are the ones who have performed the greatest number of procedures, therefore confidence and familiarity must be relevant. Egotism is something very different, and I believe that competence with humility is much more desirable since egotism and arrogance can lead to mistakes and coverups. Women can be excellent surgeons and "manliness" is not a requisite trait. It's just that medical students and residents are still being innundated with sexist attitudes.

A close friend of mine was the top student in anatomy and had a strong aptitude for spatial reasoning. Some thought that he should naturally be a surgeon including some in the surgery department. He did not like the competetive and often mean social atmosphere and made a different choice. For many years he wondered if he had missed his calling. He sees now clearly, however, that he would have never made a good surgeon despite the intellectual aptitude for the anatomical/technical aspects. He is much more at home with clinical work that benefits from reflection and patience. The chauvinistic traditions in surgery serve a useful function in forcing a self-selection of just the personality type most suited to the work. Specialty selection in medicine is largely a matter of matching personality to work, residents all pretty much have the aptitude to learn any of it. It would be interesting to see more research on personality and specialty selection in this regard. The flip side of the egotism allowing surgeons to make bold and irreversible decisions is that they make sometimes unavoidingly wrong decisions. That, of course, comes with a price.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: zan on March 07, 2008, 01:40:44 PM

  • Surgeons can do everything, but don't know anything (what do you call two surgeons looking at an EKG? -- a double-blind study).

Indeed, the overwhelming majority of surgeons lack the finesse, the subtlety of touch that their profession requires, most of them are arrogant, ignorant and coarse.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: c h e a p i e on March 12, 2008, 03:25:41 PM
My friend is doing Occupational and Environmental Medicine with the US Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine in Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD and is very satisfied so far.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: satangrader on March 13, 2008, 05:18:23 PM

A close friend of mine was the top student in anatomy and had a strong aptitude for spatial reasoning. Some thought that he should naturally be a surgeon including some in the surgery department. He did not like the competetive and often mean social atmosphere and made a different choice. For many years he wondered if he had missed his calling. He sees now clearly, however, that he would have never made a good surgeon despite the intellectual aptitude for the anatomical/technical aspects. [...]

Spatial intelligence is considered such a valued faculty -- and to think that MCAT, LSAT, GMAT, GRE do not test an applicant's spatial intelligence (a territory that is covered by typical IQ tests, BTW). Math ability has been historically esteemed by society, but spatial ability is probably and silently the most vital aspect of the humans mental capabilities. After all, remembering how to get to the front door of your house (from the living room!) would be beyond us were it not for this kind of ability. The spatial intelligence concept touches upon the ability to convey a sense of the "whole" of a subject, a "gestalt" organization, different from the logical-math type.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: liebelei on March 15, 2008, 10:28:58 AM

Spatial intelligence is considered such a valued faculty -- and to think that MCAT, LSAT, GMAT, GRE do not test an applicant's spatial intelligence (a territory that is covered by typical IQ tests, BTW). Math ability has been historically esteemed by society, but spatial ability is probably and silently the most vital aspect of the humans mental capabilities. After all, remembering how to get to the front door of your house (from the living room!) would be beyond us were it not for this kind of ability. The spatial intelligence concept touches upon the ability to convey a sense of the "whole" of a subject, a "gestalt" organization, different from the logical-math type.


(http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/4206/untitlqx3.jpg)

Only DAT tests your spatial reasoning abilities -- DAT has 4 sections: survey of the natural sciences (90 minutes), perceptual ability (often called the PAT, 60 minutes), reading comprehension (60 minutes), and quantitative reasoning (45 minutes). PAT, the second section is divided into 6 different problems sets designed to test perceptual ability, specifically in the areas of three dimensional manipulation and spatial reasoning.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: emma on March 15, 2008, 01:11:00 PM

Spatial intelligence is considered such a valued faculty -- and to think that MCAT, LSAT, GMAT, GRE do not test an applicant's spatial intelligence (a territory that is covered by typical IQ tests, BTW). Math ability has been historically esteemed by society, but spatial ability is probably and silently the most vital aspect of the humans mental capabilities. After all, remembering how to get to the front door of your house (from the living room!) would be beyond us were it not for this kind of ability. The spatial intelligence concept touches upon the ability to convey a sense of the "whole" of a subject, a "gestalt" organization, different from the logical-math type.


Spatial intelligence is indeed a very important aspect of the concept/notion of intelligence. And speaking of gestalt organization and systems -- invariance, for instance, is a key principle of them.

(http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/196/f862897de0ja2.jpg)

Invariance is the property of perception whereby simple geometrical objects are recognized independent of rotation, translation, and scale, as well as several other variations such as elastic deformations, different lighting, and different component features. For example, the objects in A in the figure are all immediately recognized as the same basic shape, which are immediately distinguishable from the forms in B. They are even recognized despite perspective and elastic deformations as in C, and when depicted using different graphic elements as in D. Web-based forums and email providers rely on invariance of human perception to prevent automated bots from exploiting the services. A CAPTCHA test presents a distorted image of letters and numbers, not readable by computers, and prompts user to correctly type the string.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Cleo on March 16, 2008, 03:05:47 PM

(http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/4206/untitlqx3.jpg)

Only DAT tests your spatial reasoning abilities -- DAT has 4 sections: survey of the natural sciences (90 minutes), perceptual ability (often called the PAT, 60 minutes), reading comprehension (60 minutes), and quantitative reasoning (45 minutes). PAT, the second section is divided into 6 different problems sets designed to test perceptual ability, specifically in the areas of three dimensional manipulation and spatial reasoning.


I believe DAT's PAT specific questions types are these ones

Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: cen on March 18, 2008, 12:34:07 PM

[...] she has not yet learned to take responsibility for her stupid actions, in fact mommy and daddy are paying for law school. This JD student operates under the principle, "My parents' loss is not my loss."


That's especially true with private school deadwoods who are merely bludging off daddy's money.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: bratgirl9 on March 19, 2008, 05:42:22 PM
I will go on record and say it:

Choosing to attend law school was the worst mistake of my life.

I just finished 2L at a tier 1. My GPA is right at the top 10% cutoff and I am also on Law Review. So, my displeasure does not stem from my accomplishments in a classroom. Instead, I have found that with each passing day, I simply just like the law a little bit less. There is no particular reason except I am just not interested in it any longer. The possibility that I may have to deal with law every single day until I die is almost enough to have me pull the trigger and withdraw. But, b/c of the loans, I am sticking it out. I have to pay them back and cannot figure out how I could do so if I quit law school now.

But, in answer to the OP's question, NO -- I am not glad I went to law school. Further, I would encourage every single person thinking about law school to NOT apply until you have dealt with the law in some capacity and know without a doubt that you want to pursue a JD.

If I could do it all over again, I would go to med school, or dental school, or hell . . . maybe just make cocktails on the beach ala Tom Cruise in "Cocktail."


I agree with your comment on being sure.  I feel that things will be different for me because I have been in law for 13 years.  I am a paralegal for an IP firm, and the main thing that I do is legal research.  I am given the responsibility to research complex legal issues, and I write about them.  I took two legal research classes of increasing difficulty and both of my teachers were very impressed with my work and said that I had the best legal research and memorandums in the class.  I have had a love hate relationship with law for years.  I have thought about law school for 12 years.  I have an advanced degree (in education, which I do not use and do consider a waste of time except that I gained intrinsically from it by volumes).  I need to reach the next level, and I have come to a place where I love more than hate law.  What I hated in the beginning was being support staff and having to mix the research and legal stuff with stupid clerical stuff.  That's what I hated.  It is funny though to hear you say how you feel as a student in a 1st tier school.  I would pull my eye teeth to study at a first tier school, and I know that I would do very very well.  However, I am forced to choose from amongst the lower tiers. 

Realize that all people go through burn out especially when you have been studying your brains out for years.  Grad school was the same way for me.  However, you may find something to do with your law degree that you really love.  You may just need to get away from the academia side of it.  There is tedium in law, but there are alternatives that you might be quite pleased with.  I think having a law degree from a first tier school is going to open up doors you cannot yet imagine.  Hang in there and good luck.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: multifarious on March 22, 2008, 03:43:27 PM

I believe DAT's PAT specific questions types are these ones

  • angle discrimination
  • block counting
  • paper folding
  • form development
  • two forms of object visualization


The Keyholes present a challenge I would say:

(http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/5194/untibo4.jpg)

e.g., you are asked which hole the 'key' on the left will fit through. The object on the left can be rotated in any direction prior to entering the hole, but can not be rotated while going through. Also, the hole must be an exact fit for the key.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: santropez on March 22, 2008, 11:24:41 PM
What the hell is going on in this thread

I was expecting to read the woes of naive people who jumped head first into law school without realizing what it entailed....

Instead I got some weirdass diagrams...entertaining nonetheless
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: hotel on April 03, 2008, 08:15:42 AM

[...] Just look at the statistics on job-related depression. Law is #1 by far. A majority of lawyers say they wish they had gone into something else. [...]

[...] I don't care much about money, status, etc. I enjoy interacting with people in a more personal way. [...]


One'd have to figure out for oneself whether this is just as important as that, or that is just as important of this ..
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: mucho on April 03, 2008, 08:50:41 AM

[...] Just look at the statistics on job-related depression. Law is #1 by far. A majority of lawyers say they wish they had gone into something else. [...]

[...] I don't care much about money, status, etc. I enjoy interacting with people in a more personal way. [...]


One'd have to figure out for oneself whether this is just as important as that, or that is just as important of this ..


You mean whether money is equally important to one's well-being or you're better off entering into a less stressful field although you may earn less money? 
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: becky on April 03, 2008, 10:57:55 AM

[...] Just look at the statistics on job-related depression. Law is #1 by far. A majority of lawyers say they wish they had gone into something else. [...]

[...] I don't care much about money, status, etc. I enjoy interacting with people in a more personal way. [...]


One'd have to figure out for oneself whether this is just as important as that, or that is just as important of this ..


You mean whether money is equally important to one's well-being or you're better off entering into a less stressful field although you may earn less money? 


Interesting avatar as well! The question that has baffled scientists, academics and pub bores through the ages: What came first, the chicken or the egg?
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: ismile on April 05, 2008, 02:36:22 PM

(http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6181/vertchickeggao2kj3.jpg)

Interesting avatar as well! The question that has baffled scientists, academics and pub bores through the ages: What came first, the chicken or the egg?


It points out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence. The predestination paradox (also called either a causal loop or a causality loop) is a paradox of time travel that is often used as a convention in science fiction. It exists when a time traveller is caught in a loop of events that "predestines" him/her to travel back in time. Because of the possibility of influencing the past while time travelling, one way of explaining why history does not change is by saying that whatever has happened was meant to happen. A time traveller attempting to alter the past in this model, intentionally or not, would only be fulfilling his role in creating history as we know it, not changing it. The predestination paradox is in some ways the opposite of the grandfather paradox, the famous example of the traveller killing his own grandfather before his parent is conceived, thereby precluding his own travel to the past by canceling his own existence.

A dual example of a predestination paradox is depicted in the classic Ancient Greek play 'Oedipus'. Laius hears a prophecy that his son will kill him. Fearing the prophecy, Laius pierces Oedipus' feet and leaves him out to die, but a herdsman finds him and takes him away from Thebes. Oedipus, not knowing he was adopted, leaves home in fear of the same prophecy that he would kill his father and marry his mother. Laius, meanwhile, ventures out to find a solution to the Sphinx's riddle. As prophesied, Oedipus crossed paths with Laius and this leads to a fight where Oedipus slays Laius. Oedipus then defeats the Sphinx by solving a mysterious riddle to become king. He marries the widow queen Jocasta not knowing she is his mother.

A typical example of a predestination paradox (used in The Twilight Zone episode "No Time Like the Past") is as follows: A man travels back in time to discover the cause of a famous fire. While in the building where the fire started, he accidentally knocks over a kerosene lantern and causes a fire, the same fire that would inspire him, years later, to travel back in time.

A variation on the predestination paradoxes which involves information, rather than objects, traveling through time is similar to the self-fulfilling prophecy: A man receives information about his own future, telling him that he will die from a heart attack. He resolves to get fit so as to avoid that fate, but in doing so overexerts himself, causing him to suffer the heart attack that kills him. In both examples, causality is turned on its head, as the flanking events are both causes and effects of each other, and this is where the paradox lies. In the second example, the person would not have traveled back in time but for the fire that he or she caused by traveling back in time. Similarly, in the third example, the man would not have overexerted himself but for the future information he receives. In most examples of the predestination paradox, the person travels back in time and ends up fulfilling their role in an event that has already occurred. In a self-fulfilling prophecy, the person is fulfilling their role in an event that has yet to occur, and it is usually information that travels in time (for example, in the form of a prophecy) rather than a person. In either situation, the attempts to avert the course of past or future history both fail.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: nyt on April 05, 2008, 03:32:09 PM
No regrets whatsoever -- the most exciting thing I've ever done.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: BlueGreen on April 22, 2008, 03:10:34 AM
tagsies...highly entertaining.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: alman on April 28, 2008, 11:37:36 AM

The A/C office granted, one'd have to find out as to whether he'd really be able to make $100K working 9-5 doing the bad kind of work attorneys do. 


You mean the * & ^ % t y kind of work attorneys do?
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: brace on April 29, 2008, 11:08:30 AM

[...] she has not yet learned to take responsibility for her stupid actions, in fact mommy and daddy are paying for law school. This JD student operates under the principle, "My parents' loss is not my loss."


That's especially true with private school deadwoods who are merely bludging off daddy's money.


Amen, cen!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: econtutorNV on April 29, 2008, 11:53:15 AM

I believe DAT's PAT specific questions types are these ones

  • angle discrimination
  • block counting
  • paper folding
  • form development
  • two forms of object visualization

E


The Keyholes present a challenge I would say:

(http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/5194/untibo4.jpg)

e.g., you are asked which hole the 'key' on the left will fit through. The object on the left can be rotated in any direction prior to entering the hole, but can not be rotated while going through. Also, the hole must be an exact fit for the key.

C?
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: winbow on May 06, 2008, 03:25:54 PM

Oral is always stressful. Oral exams in the format of a general chat are one-sided with the pacing and topic all up to the examiner. The latter's prompts provided are crucial to the performance of the student, whilst the attitude and mood of examiner becomes a large factor in the student's performance. For instance, a poor student performance could well be due to the examiner not being able to establish a rapport with the student. It is difficult for the student to play a natural, active role during an oral exam. Not to mention that some students get so tense that they "freeze up," and blank out due to extreme pressure. Thus, they may not demonstrate their knowledge and preparation, given the fact that they muddle through the exam as if they were incapable of functioning under the stress of the oral.


Quite the opposite! Oral exams are the best and fairest way to assess a student's understanding. The goal is to find out the limits of the student's understanding, and the strength of oral exams is the flexibility of the questions. So when the student easily answers one question, the examiner responds with a harder question on the same general topic. If this is answered well, the next question will be even harder. Any question the candidate can't answer defines one boundary of their knowledge. The examiner responds by changing topics, again starting with an easy question and moving to harder questions if the student's answers are good, until another boundary is reached.

So taking an oral exam may be a scary experience. No matter how well or how badly you are doing, you'll still spend a substantial fraction of the time dealing with questions you find very challenging, and you probably will be unable to answer some questions. But knowing that this is supposed to happen to even the best students can save you from panicking when it happens to you.

It is true that the oral exams give absolute power to your professors; yet, by the same token, a bit strangely, it gives much flexibility to the student (if you are good enough). If you miss anything in your written work, you have no way to change it -- well, not until the appeal. On the contrary, oral exams allows you to fix it immediately, you just notice that the examiner is unsatisfied, rethink you answer and give a correct one. At least it works if you can think fast. I prefer oral exams.


I remember a professor who'd not allow students to respond after he asked the question. Upon noticing that the student was on the right track to find the correct answer he'd press them to respond immediately to him not allowing them to explain the reasoning behind their answer. He would interpret the time taken to do the reasoning as not being fast enough or prepared enough -- at times, he would even consider the question to not have been answered to if the student did not shot back a 'Yes' or 'No' within 5 seconds.
Title: Bootstrapping
Post by: schrödinger on May 13, 2008, 12:20:04 PM

(http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6181/vertchickeggao2kj3.jpg)

Interesting avatar as well! The question that has baffled scientists, academics and pub bores through the ages: What came first, the chicken or the egg?


It points out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence. The predestination paradox (also called either a causal loop or a causality loop) is a paradox of time travel that is often used as a convention in science fiction. It exists when a time traveller is caught in a loop of events that "predestines" him/her to travel back in time. Because of the possibility of influencing the past while time travelling, one way of explaining why history does not change is by saying that whatever has happened was meant to happen. A time traveller attempting to alter the past in this model, intentionally or not, would only be fulfilling his role in creating history as we know it, not changing it. The predestination paradox is in some ways the opposite of the grandfather paradox, the famous example of the traveller killing his own grandfather before his parent is conceived, thereby precluding his own travel to the past by canceling his own existence.

A dual example of a predestination paradox is depicted in the classic Ancient Greek play 'Oedipus'. Laius hears a prophecy that his son will kill him. Fearing the prophecy, Laius pierces Oedipus' feet and leaves him out to die, but a herdsman finds him and takes him away from Thebes. Oedipus, not knowing he was adopted, leaves home in fear of the same prophecy that he would kill his father and marry his mother. Laius, meanwhile, ventures out to find a solution to the Sphinx's riddle. As prophesied, Oedipus crossed paths with Laius and this leads to a fight where Oedipus slays Laius. Oedipus then defeats the Sphinx by solving a mysterious riddle to become king. He marries the widow queen Jocasta not knowing she is his mother.

A typical example of a predestination paradox (used in The Twilight Zone episode "No Time Like the Past") is as follows: A man travels back in time to discover the cause of a famous fire. While in the building where the fire started, he accidentally knocks over a kerosene lantern and causes a fire, the same fire that would inspire him, years later, to travel back in time.

A variation on the predestination paradoxes which involves information, rather than objects, traveling through time is similar to the self-fulfilling prophecy: A man receives information about his own future, telling him that he will die from a heart attack. He resolves to get fit so as to avoid that fate, but in doing so overexerts himself, causing him to suffer the heart attack that kills him. In both examples, causality is turned on its head, as the flanking events are both causes and effects of each other, and this is where the paradox lies. In the second example, the person would not have traveled back in time but for the fire that he or she caused by traveling back in time. Similarly, in the third example, the man would not have overexerted himself but for the future information he receives. In most examples of the predestination paradox, the person travels back in time and ends up fulfilling their role in an event that has already occurred. In a self-fulfilling prophecy, the person is fulfilling their role in an event that has yet to occur, and it is usually information that travels in time (for example, in the form of a prophecy) rather than a person. In either situation, the attempts to avert the course of past or future history both fail.


In computing, bootstrapping refers to a process where a simple system activates another more complicated system that serves the same purpose. It is a solution to the Chicken-and-egg problem of starting a certain system without the system already functioning. The term is most often applied to the process of starting up a computer, in which a mechanism is needed to execute the software program that is responsible for executing software programs (the Operating System). The term "bootstrapping" alludes to a German legend about Baron Münchhausen, who claimed to have been able to lift himself out of a swamp by pulling himself up by his own hair. In later versions of the legend, he used his own boot straps to pull himself out of the sea which gave rise to the term bootstrapping. The term is believed to have entered computer jargon during the early 1950s by way of Heinlein's short story "By His Bootstraps" first published in 1941. Bootstrapping was shortened to booting, or the process of starting up any computer, which is the most common meaning for non-technical computer users. The verb "boot" is similarly derived.
Title: Re: Bootstrapping
Post by: libra on May 22, 2008, 12:08:38 PM

In computing, bootstrapping refers to a process where a simple system activates another more complicated system that serves the same purpose. It is a solution to the Chicken-and-egg problem of starting a certain system without the system already functioning. The term is most often applied to the process of starting up a computer, in which a mechanism is needed to execute the software program that is responsible for executing software programs (the Operating System). The term "bootstrapping" alludes to a German legend about Baron Münchhausen, who claimed to have been able to lift himself out of a swamp by pulling himself up by his own hair. In later versions of the legend, he used his own boot straps to pull himself out of the sea which gave rise to the term bootstrapping. The term is believed to have entered computer jargon during the early 1950s by way of Heinlein's short story "By His Bootstraps" first published in 1941. Bootstrapping was shortened to booting, or the process of starting up any computer, which is the most common meaning for non-technical computer users. The verb "boot" is similarly derived.


Interesting ... tagging it
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Saucony Jazz on May 23, 2008, 01:43:12 PM
Yes! It's been a great experience so far. Wouldn't change it for anything! I wish you all good luck.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: kocoras on May 24, 2008, 01:24:47 PM

[...] Just look at the statistics on job-related depression. Law is #1 by far. A majority of lawyers say they wish they had gone into something else. [...]

[...] I don't care much about money, status, etc. I enjoy interacting with people in a more personal way. [...]


One'd have to figure out for oneself whether this is just as important as that, or that is just as important of this ..


hotel, most lawyers become depressed because they fail to earn as much money as they thought they would when they start their career and upon entering law school.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: PG on May 24, 2008, 01:59:27 PM

[...] I'd have to agree, though, that dealing with black patients is not that different from dealing with the predominantly black defendants in court.


Excuse me? Attorneys in court send black people to jail, doctors in those hospitals cure them.


Not only do they cure them, they do so even when black people can not pay for their services.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: nmla on May 27, 2008, 10:41:55 AM

  • Internal medicine doctors know everything, but can't do anything.


Well, libo, internists are sometimes referred to as the "doctor's doctor," because they are often called upon to act as consultants to other physicians to help solve puzzling diagnostic problems. While the name "internal medicine" may lead one to believe that internists only treat "internal" problems, this is not the case. Doctors of internal medicine treat the whole person, not just internal organs.

Although Internists may act as primary care physicians, they are not "family physicians," "family practitioners," or "general practitioners" (whose training in certain countries includes the medical care of children, and may include surgery, obstetrics and pediatrics). General Internists practice medicine from a primary care perspective but they can treat and manage many ailments and are usually the most adept at treating a broad range of diseases affecting adults.

Internists can choose to focus their practice on general internal medicine, or may take additional training to "subspecialize" in one of 13 areas of internal medicine, generally organized by organ system. Cardiologists, for example, are doctors of internal medicine who subspecialize in diseases of the heart. The training an internist receives to subspecialize in a particular medical area is both broad and deep. Subspecialty training (often called a "fellowship") usually requires an additional 1-3 years beyond the standard 3-year general internal medicine residency (residencies come after a student has graduated from medical school). The following are the subspecialties recognized by the American Board of Internal Medicine:

Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: mentalpatient on May 31, 2008, 01:42:55 PM
Hope it is still the case I can answer the original question of the thread.  I hated the fact that every single day in law school was a grind.  I never really saw much sunshine or enjoyed myself during 1L.  I'm, however, an optimist.  I learned so much about myself (learning style and what I want to do) and that really excites me.  I'm a type of person who has more quantitative thinking styles (math was my strong subject).  I really hated gray stuff like con law and did not do well in it but I excelled in classes like business law, contracts.  Now I'm becoming a 2L and the fact that I can now take classes that I want to take (mostly business, tax) really keeps me going.  I think of it as an opportunity of gathering the tools that I REALLY want and need not only for my career but also for my personal growth.  I may have a non-traditional view towards learning the law since my career focus is slightly different as well. One day I want to get into business instead of being a lawyer for the rest of my life.  For that reason, I am less concerned about winning/losing or getting my point across, but more about figuring out something complicated, and learning some methodological skills. However, I wonder if I was more into arguing, winning and turning something gray into black or white, whether my view towards law school learning would change.  Probably.  But regardless, I still do think that whether I would still like law school or dislike would depend on whether I am an optimist or pessimist or whether I am more risk adverse about my current investment or whether I see it as an opportunity.  No matter what my interest was as a law student, for me, I will still find an opportunity in law school learning to make my investment worth it and will try my best to make it worth it. 
Title: Re: Bootstrapping
Post by: p i l on May 31, 2008, 02:26:40 PM

(http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6181/vertchickeggao2kj3.jpg)

Interesting avatar as well! The question that has baffled scientists, academics and pub bores through the ages: What came first, the chicken or the egg?


It points out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence. The predestination paradox (also called either a causal loop or a causality loop) is a paradox of time travel that is often used as a convention in science fiction. It exists when a time traveller is caught in a loop of events that "predestines" him/her to travel back in time. Because of the possibility of influencing the past while time travelling, one way of explaining why history does not change is by saying that whatever has happened was meant to happen. A time traveller attempting to alter the past in this model, intentionally or not, would only be fulfilling his role in creating history as we know it, not changing it. The predestination paradox is in some ways the opposite of the grandfather paradox, the famous example of the traveller killing his own grandfather before his parent is conceived, thereby precluding his own travel to the past by canceling his own existence.

A dual example of a predestination paradox is depicted in the classic Ancient Greek play 'Oedipus'. Laius hears a prophecy that his son will kill him. Fearing the prophecy, Laius pierces Oedipus' feet and leaves him out to die, but a herdsman finds him and takes him away from Thebes. Oedipus, not knowing he was adopted, leaves home in fear of the same prophecy that he would kill his father and marry his mother. Laius, meanwhile, ventures out to find a solution to the Sphinx's riddle. As prophesied, Oedipus crossed paths with Laius and this leads to a fight where Oedipus slays Laius. Oedipus then defeats the Sphinx by solving a mysterious riddle to become king. He marries the widow queen Jocasta not knowing she is his mother.

A typical example of a predestination paradox (used in The Twilight Zone episode "No Time Like the Past") is as follows: A man travels back in time to discover the cause of a famous fire. While in the building where the fire started, he accidentally knocks over a kerosene lantern and causes a fire, the same fire that would inspire him, years later, to travel back in time.

A variation on the predestination paradoxes which involves information, rather than objects, traveling through time is similar to the self-fulfilling prophecy: A man receives information about his own future, telling him that he will die from a heart attack. He resolves to get fit so as to avoid that fate, but in doing so overexerts himself, causing him to suffer the heart attack that kills him. In both examples, causality is turned on its head, as the flanking events are both causes and effects of each other, and this is where the paradox lies. In the second example, the person would not have traveled back in time but for the fire that he or she caused by traveling back in time. Similarly, in the third example, the man would not have overexerted himself but for the future information he receives. In most examples of the predestination paradox, the person travels back in time and ends up fulfilling their role in an event that has already occurred. In a self-fulfilling prophecy, the person is fulfilling their role in an event that has yet to occur, and it is usually information that travels in time (for example, in the form of a prophecy) rather than a person. In either situation, the attempts to avert the course of past or future history both fail.


In computing, bootstrapping refers to a process where a simple system activates another more complicated system that serves the same purpose. It is a solution to the Chicken-and-egg problem of starting a certain system without the system already functioning. The term is most often applied to the process of starting up a computer, in which a mechanism is needed to execute the software program that is responsible for executing software programs (the Operating System). The term "bootstrapping" alludes to a German legend about Baron Münchhausen, who claimed to have been able to lift himself out of a swamp by pulling himself up by his own hair. In later versions of the legend, he used his own boot straps to pull himself out of the sea which gave rise to the term bootstrapping. The term is believed to have entered computer jargon during the early 1950s by way of Heinlein's short story "By His Bootstraps" first published in 1941. Bootstrapping was shortened to booting, or the process of starting up any computer, which is the most common meaning for non-technical computer users. The verb "boot" is similarly derived.


Hahaha! ;)
Title: Re: Bootstrapping
Post by: y s a on June 13, 2008, 11:22:54 AM

It points out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence. The predestination paradox (also called either a causal loop or a causality loop) is a paradox of time travel that is often used as a convention in science fiction. It exists when a time traveller is caught in a loop of events that "predestines" him/her to travel back in time. Because of the possibility of influencing the past while time travelling, one way of explaining why history does not change is by saying that whatever has happened was meant to happen. A time traveller attempting to alter the past in this model, intentionally or not, would only be fulfilling his role in creating history as we know it, not changing it. The predestination paradox is in some ways the opposite of the grandfather paradox, the famous example of the traveller killing his own grandfather before his parent is conceived, thereby precluding his own travel to the past by canceling his own existence.

A dual example of a predestination paradox is depicted in the classic Ancient Greek play 'Oedipus'. Laius hears a prophecy that his son will kill him. Fearing the prophecy, Laius pierces Oedipus' feet and leaves him out to die, but a herdsman finds him and takes him away from Thebes. Oedipus, not knowing he was adopted, leaves home in fear of the same prophecy that he would kill his father and marry his mother. Laius, meanwhile, ventures out to find a solution to the Sphinx's riddle. As prophesied, Oedipus crossed paths with Laius and this leads to a fight where Oedipus slays Laius. Oedipus then defeats the Sphinx by solving a mysterious riddle to become king. He marries the widow queen Jocasta not knowing she is his mother.

A typical example of a predestination paradox (used in The Twilight Zone episode "No Time Like the Past") is as follows: A man travels back in time to discover the cause of a famous fire. While in the building where the fire started, he accidentally knocks over a kerosene lantern and causes a fire, the same fire that would inspire him, years later, to travel back in time.

A variation on the predestination paradoxes which involves information, rather than objects, traveling through time is similar to the self-fulfilling prophecy: A man receives information about his own future, telling him that he will die from a heart attack. He resolves to get fit so as to avoid that fate, but in doing so overexerts himself, causing him to suffer the heart attack that kills him. In both examples, causality is turned on its head, as the flanking events are both causes and effects of each other, and this is where the paradox lies. In the second example, the person would not have traveled back in time but for the fire that he or she caused by traveling back in time. Similarly, in the third example, the man would not have overexerted himself but for the future information he receives. In most examples of the predestination paradox, the person travels back in time and ends up fulfilling their role in an event that has already occurred. In a self-fulfilling prophecy, the person is fulfilling their role in an event that has yet to occur, and it is usually information that travels in time (for example, in the form of a prophecy) rather than a person. In either situation, the attempts to avert the course of past or future history both fail.


In computing, bootstrapping refers to a process where a simple system activates another more complicated system that serves the same purpose. It is a solution to the Chicken-and-egg problem of starting a certain system without the system already functioning. The term is most often applied to the process of starting up a computer, in which a mechanism is needed to execute the software program that is responsible for executing software programs (the Operating System). The term "bootstrapping" alludes to a German legend about Baron Münchhausen, who claimed to have been able to lift himself out of a swamp by pulling himself up by his own hair. In later versions of the legend, he used his own boot straps to pull himself out of the sea which gave rise to the term bootstrapping. The term is believed to have entered computer jargon during the early 1950s by way of Heinlein's short story "By His Bootstraps" first published in 1941. Bootstrapping was shortened to booting, or the process of starting up any computer, which is the most common meaning for non-technical computer users. The verb "boot" is similarly derived.


Hahaha! ;)


Do you think scrodinger is joking, pil?

Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: this time is personal on June 14, 2008, 11:47:59 AM

[...] Internists can choose to focus their practice on general internal medicine, or may take additional training to "subspecialize" in one of 13 areas of internal medicine, generally organized by organ system. Cardiologists, for example, are doctors of internal medicine who subspecialize in diseases of the heart. [...] Subspecialty training (often called a "fellowship") usually requires an additional 1-3 years beyond the standard 3-year general internal medicine residency (residencies come after a student has graduated from medical school). [...]

  • Cardiology
  • Endocrinology
  • Gastroenterology
  • Hematology
  • Infectious diseases
  • Medical oncology
  • Nephrology
  • Pulmonology
  • Rheumatology


Jesus @ # ! * i n g Christ! This means you can become a cardiologist only when your 33 years old:

4 years college - you're 22 y.o.
4 years med school -- 26 y.o.
1 year social service -- 27 y.o.
3 years Internal Medicine residency -- 30 y.o.
3 years Cardiology subspecialy -- 33 y.o.

I get it now why only rich kids become doctors specializing in the most sought-after specialties! No middle class (let alone working-class) family can afford to support financially their children studying for 15 straight years!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: combina on June 14, 2008, 01:12:38 PM

[...] Internists can choose to focus their practice on general internal medicine, or may take additional training to "subspecialize" in one of 13 areas of internal medicine, generally organized by organ system. Cardiologists, for example, are doctors of internal medicine who subspecialize in diseases of the heart. [...] Subspecialty training (often called a "fellowship") usually requires an additional 1-3 years beyond the standard 3-year general internal medicine residency (residencies come after a student has graduated from medical school). [...]

  • Cardiology
  • Endocrinology
  • Gastroenterology
  • Hematology
  • Infectious diseases
  • Medical oncology
  • Nephrology
  • Pulmonology
  • Rheumatology


Jesus @ # ! * i n g Christ! This means you can become a cardiologist only when your 33 years old:

4 years college - you're 22 y.o.
4 years med school -- 26 y.o.
1 year social service -- 27 y.o.
3 years Internal Medicine residency -- 30 y.o.
3 years Cardiology subspecialy -- 33 y.o.

I get it now why only rich kids become doctors specializing in the most sought-after specialties! No middle class (let alone working-class) family can afford to support financially their children studying for 15 straight years!


this time, you obviously don't know what you are talking about! Are you even aware how much money do specialties like Cardio earn after they finish up their residencies? FYI I'm listing here some of the specialties (the first column the number of years it takes to become a specialist in that field and the second the median gross earnings per year reported)

Pulmonology (3+2) $206,000
Nehrology (3+2) $205,000
Hematology (3+2) $225,000
Gastroenterology (3+2) $271,000
Endocrinology (3+2) $173,000
Cardiology (3+3) $307,000
Rheumatology (3+3) $172,000
Allergy-Immunology (3+2) $194,000

To them paying up their student loans (even though they may be massive -- in the range of $300,000) is a joke -- in 5 years they'll be solvent. And we're not discussing Surgery-related specialties (and even some not related to surgery at all) -- their earning potential is simply unreal!

Surgery, General (5 years) $270,000
Neurosurgery (1 year General Surgery + 6-7 years) $401,000
Plastic surgery (5 years General Surgery + 2-3 years) $285,000
ORL (1-2 years + 3-4 years) $283,000
Cardiothoracic surgery $400,000
Retinal surgery $350,000
Ophthalmology $240,000
Dermatology (1+3) $220,000
Anesthesiology (1+3) $290,000
Radiology $300,000
Radiation Oncology $400,000
Orthopedic surgery $350,000
Obstetrics $257,000
Gynecology $202,000
Gynecology oncology $285,000

More modest earnings are in effect for

Neurology (1+3) $186,000
Psychiatry (1+3) $162,000 Children Psychiatry $187,000

Internal Medicine (3 years) earn around $150,000, Family Medicine (2 years) $150,000 and Emergency Medicine $200,000. Combined specialties are Internal Medicine-Pediatrics (4 years), Internal Medicine-Neurology/Psychiatry (5 years), Internal Medicine-Emergency Medicine (5 years). 

EXTREMELY COMPETITIVE
- Plastic surgery
- Dermatology
- Urology
- ORL
- Radiation Oncology

VERY COMPETITIVE
- General surgery
- Orthopedic surgery
- Neurosurgery
- Ophthalmology
- Anesthesiology

COMPETITIVE
- Physical Medicine
- Neurology
- OBGYN
- Pathology
- Emergency Medicine

LESS COMPETITIVE
- Radiology
- Psychiatry
- Pediatrics
- Internal Medicine
- Family Medicine
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: harrisons on June 18, 2008, 11:33:47 AM

[...] It is practically impossible to get residency spots in the highly competitive specialties like Radiology, Orthopedics and Dermatology being an IMG, US or non-US one. You end up as a general family practice physician or internal medicine resident, specialties which pay much less than the highly sought-after specialties such as Surgery, Anesthesiology, Obstetrics/gynecology, etc.

Equally important, almost all training slots filled by IMGs are in teaching hospitals in large urban areas that have traditionally served large numbers of minorities, uninsured, and low-income patients. It is a bit easier for US-IMGs compared to non-US IMGs. The latter, for example, who usually are on J-1 Visas (with 80% of these physicians actually staying in the US) are compelled to practice in designated rural or inner city physician shortage areas in order to have the "2-year return" requirement for J-1 visa waived. Both the initial training location and the subsequent service locations of IMGs frequently put them in minority communities where other doctors are scarce. In essence IMGs provide primary care to poor and underserved populations, with many inner-city hospitals in the U.S. relying almost exclusively on IMGs to provide services to America's poor.


Honey, I've been a dirty stinky Indian all my life and I can tell ya it's not like that ... several friends of mine (poor, stinky Indian b i t c h e s, if you like!) have been able to get some pretty damn good residencies in the US.

A very dear friend of mine just recently began Rheumatology fellowship at a quite good hospital after having finished the 3-year Internal Medicine residency. It'll take 3 years for the fellowship to be completed and my friend is looking at some $200,000 per annum - not bad at all for someone who lived all the time in a city like Calcutta or Bombay! :)
Title: Genetic Engineering - Can You Patent Life???
Post by: caca on June 19, 2008, 01:35:39 PM

Honey, I've been a dirty stinky Indian all my life and I can tell ya it's not like that ... several friends of mine (poor, stinky Indian b i t c h e s, if you like!) have been able to get some pretty damn good residencies in the US.

A very dear friend of mine just recently began Rheumatology fellowship at a quite good hospital after having finished the 3-year Internal Medicine residency. It'll take 3 years for the fellowship to be completed and my friend is looking at some $200,000 per annum - not bad at all for someone who lived all the time in a city like Calcutta or Bombay! :)


You Indians are undoubtedly "geniuses"! I was astonished some years ago, for example, when I read one Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty developing a genetically engineered organism using plasmid transfer while working at GE. (Chakrabarty is currently a Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology in the University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine. Apart from being an eminent scientist, Ananda Chakrabarty has been an advisor to judges, governments, and the UN.) Chakrabarty genetically engineered a new species of Pseudomonas bacteria ("the oil-eating bacteria") in 1971 while working for the Research & Development Center at General Electric Company in Schenectady, New York. At the time, 4 known species of oil-metabolizing bacteria were known to exist, but when introduced into an oil spill, competed with each other, limiting the amount of crude oil that they degraded. The genes necessary to degrade oil were carried on plasmids, which could be transferred among species. By irradiating the transformed organism with UV light after plasmid transfer, Chakrabarty discovered a method for genetic cross-linking that fixed all four plasmid genes in place and produced a new, stable, bacteria species (now called Burkholderia) capable of consuming oil 1-2 orders of magnitude faster than the previous four strains of oil-eating microbes. The new microbe, which Chakrabarty called "multi-plasmid hydrocarbon-degrading Pseudomonas," could digest about two-thirds of the hydrocarbons that would be found in a typical oil spill.

The bacteria drew international attention when he applied for a patent -- the first-ever patent for living organism. He was initially denied the patent by the Patent Office because it was thought that the patent code precluded patents on living organisms. The United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals overturned the decision in Chakrabarty's favor, writing, that the fact that microorganisms are alive is without legal significance for purposes of patent law. Sidney A. Diamond, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court case was argued on March 17, 1980 and decided on June 16, 1980. This patent was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court (Diamond v. Chakrabarty), in a 5-4 decision, when it determined that a live, human-made microorganism is patentable subject matter under [Title 35 U.S.C.] 101. Respondent's micro-organism constitutes a "manufacture" or "composition of matter" within that statute (!!!)
Title: Re: Genetic Engineering - Can You Patent Life???
Post by: [/] on June 20, 2008, 10:50:20 AM

You Indians are undoubtedly "geniuses"! I was astonished some years ago, for example, when I read one Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty developing a genetically engineered organism using plasmid transfer while working at GE. (Chakrabarty is currently a Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology in the University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine. Apart from being an eminent scientist, Ananda Chakrabarty has been an advisor to judges, governments, and the UN.) Chakrabarty genetically engineered a new species of Pseudomonas bacteria ("the oil-eating bacteria") in 1971 while working for the Research & Development Center at General Electric Company in Schenectady, New York. At the time, 4 known species of oil-metabolizing bacteria were known to exist, but when introduced into an oil spill, competed with each other, limiting the amount of crude oil that they degraded. The genes necessary to degrade oil were carried on plasmids, which could be transferred among species. By irradiating the transformed organism with UV light after plasmid transfer, Chakrabarty discovered a method for genetic cross-linking that fixed all four plasmid genes in place and produced a new, stable, bacteria species (now called Burkholderia) capable of consuming oil 1-2 orders of magnitude faster than the previous four strains of oil-eating microbes. The new microbe, which Chakrabarty called "multi-plasmid hydrocarbon-degrading Pseudomonas," could digest about two-thirds of the hydrocarbons that would be found in a typical oil spill.

The bacteria drew international attention when he applied for a patent -- the first-ever patent for living organism. He was initially denied the patent by the Patent Office because it was thought that the patent code precluded patents on living organisms. The United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals overturned the decision in Chakrabarty's favor, writing, that the fact that microorganisms are alive is without legal significance for purposes of patent law. Sidney A. Diamond, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court case was argued on March 17, 1980 and decided on June 16, 1980. This patent was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court (Diamond v. Chakrabarty), in a 5-4 decision, when it determined that a live, human-made microorganism is patentable subject matter under [Title 35 U.S.C.] 101. Respondent's micro-organism constitutes a "manufacture" or "composition of matter" within that statute (!!!)


(http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,416800,00.jpg)

The Horrible Mistakes of the Nazi Regime Become Present Again

One of the Nazi regime's most cruel programs devised by Nazi SS commander Heinrich Himmler was the so called Lebensborn or "Fountain of Life" genetic engineering plan that was supposed to create the pure Aryan race that would reign the Reich which Hitler envisioned to last for 1,000 years. One particular town, for instance, contributed no less than 1,100 babies to the entire scheme of secretly developing a race of tall, fair-haired, blue-eyed people, who did not display any kind of mercy towards the "inferior" races and were intended to be driven by the desire to rule the world. The "Fountain of Life" plan children, the creation that sprang from one of Himmler's abominable ideas about eugenics and race, were the end result of SS men mating with German pure maidens and bred in special clinics. Then, they were either brought up in foster care of Nazi fanatics or in special orphanages, where they were taught how to be merciless, therefore being deprived of love and affection.

(http://www.mengele.dk/images/mengelenr2.jpg)

One individual named Josef Mengele had a special role in all the genetic engineering program. He was a German SS officer and a physician in the German Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz-Birkenau. He gained notoriety for being one of the SS physicians who supervised the selection of arriving transports of prisoners, determining who was to be killed and who was to become a forced laborer, and for performing human experiments on camp inmates, amongst whom Mengele was known as the "Angel of Death." The Angel of Death fed his legend by dramatizing murderous policies, such as his drawing a line on the wall of the children's block between 150 and 156 cm from the floor, and then sending those whose heads could not reach the line to the gas chamber... Mengele was the chief provider for the gas chambers and their crematoria. "He had a look that said 'I am the power,'" said one survivor. When it was reported that one block was infected with lice, Mengele solved the problem by gassing all the 750 women assigned to it. Mengele was, at the time, only 32 years old.

Mengele used Auschwitz as an opportunity to continue his research on heredity, using inmates for human experimentation. He was particularly interested in twins; they would be selected and placed in special barracks. He also recruited Berthold Epstein, a Czech pediatrician. As a doctor, Epstein proposed to Mengele a study into treatments of the disease called Noma, this was noted for particularly affecting children from the camp. While the cause of Noma remains relatively unknown, it is now known that it has a higher occurrence in children suffering from malnutrition and a lower immune system response. Many develop the disease shortly after contracting another illness such as measles or tuberculosis. Mengele tried to prove that Noma was caused by racial inferiority.

Mengele occupied his time with other numerous acts of the most base cruelty, including the dissection of live infants; the castration of boys and men without the use of an anesthetic; and the administering of high-voltage electric shocks to women inmates under the auspices of testing their endurance. On one occasion Mengele even sterilized a group of Polish nuns with an X-ray machine, leaving the celibate women horribly burned. Not all of Mengele's experiments were of scientific value, including attempts to change eye color by injecting chemicals into children's eyes, various amputations of limbs and other brutal surgeries. Rena Gelissen's account of her time in Auschwitz details certain experiments performed on female prisoners around October 1943. Mengele would experiment on the chosen girls, performing sterilization and shock treatments. Most of the victims died, either due to the experiments or later infections. Once Mengele's assistant rounded up 14 pairs of Gypsy twins during the night. Mengele placed them on his polished marble dissection table and put them to sleep. He then proceeded to inject chloroform into their hearts, killing them instantly. Mengele then began dissecting and meticulously noting each and every piece of the twins' bodies.
Title: Deadly Charm
Post by: [/] on June 20, 2008, 11:34:31 AM
Despite his demonstrated ability to be both frigid and detached as well as cruel and brutal, Mengele also demonstrated a carefree, charming side, which he used to disarm both colleagues and victims alike. He acted in a caring, concerned manner when confronted with exhausted women and their children on the ramp, only to send them to the gas chambers a moment later. His movie star looks and his confident, authoritative manner made him sexually desirable to the very women that he degraded, tortured and murdered. The totally unpredictable nature of Mengele's personality became his most powerful tool for exerting control over both prisoners and prison personnel, for it instilled a deep-seated primal fear into all those with whom he came into contact.

Mengele even introduced sexual degradation to the already dehumanizing process of selection. Inmates from the various women's barracks were paraded before him, stripped totally nude. He often would make each woman stop and answer the basest questions regarding the intimate details of their sexual lives. While he constantly referred to Jewish woman as "dirty whores," it is impossible to escape the conclusion that Mengele's cruelty was at least in part rooted to a secret sexual longing for these women whom the Reich had deemed as verboten, forbidden. Mengele provided endless examples of his devotion to the Nazi order, and the cruel and murderous lengths he was prepared to reach in order to preserve it. On one occasion a camp Kapo, a Jewish inmate who assisted the Nazis in driving inmates to the gas chambers, attempted to retrieve some inmates from the gas chamber line and place them in the labor line. Mengele was so furious that he murdered the Kapo with his own pistol. On another occasion, when the crematoria became too full to accommodate the thousands of Jews streaming into the camp, he had trenches dug, which were then filled with gasoline and set ablaze. Both the dead and the living, adults as well as children and infants, were thrown bodily into these pits to be destroyed under Mengele's supervision.

While it is nearly impossible to distinguish among Mengele's murderous acts as to which ones were worse than others, perhaps one incident exemplifies the demonic nature of the man perhaps better than most. A Russian inmate named Annani Silovich Pet'ko witnessed a scene that defies description and comprehension: After a while a large group of SS officers arrived on motorcycles, Mengele among them. They drove into the yard and got off their motorcycles. Upon arriving they circled the flames; it (sic) burned horizontally. We watched to see what would follow. After a while trucks arrived, dump trucks, with children inside. There were about 10 of these trucks. After they had entered the yard an officer gave an order and the trucks backed up to the fire and they started throwing those children right into the fire, into the pit. The children started to scream; some of them managed to crawl out of the burning pit. An officer walked around it with sticks and pushed back those who managed to get out. Hoess (the Auschwitz commandant) and Mengele were present and were giving orders.

The body of evidence against Mengele is staggering in both its enormity and variety in the acts of physical and emotional cruelty that he visited upon thousands of helpless victims. His behavior practically escapes description, while his motives are virtually beyond analysis. This is especially true in light of the fact that, for a man who so relished his role as SS doctor and researcher, who adhered so harshly to the Nazi concept of order and discipline, he consistently displayed not pleasure but detachment from the torment and suffering he both caused and witnessed. One psychoanalyst, Dr. Tobias Brocher, has postulated that "He (Mengele) didn't take pleasure in inflicting pain, but in the power (emphasis added) he exerted by being the man who had to decide between life and death within the ideology of a concentration camp doctor." While Mengele practiced this ideology within the context of selector, he also practiced it with equal fervor in the guise of researcher, the role for which he ostensibly had been sent to Auschwitz by his mentor, Professor von Verschuer.
Title: The Research
Post by: [/] on June 20, 2008, 11:39:13 AM
(http://www.ep-graphics.com/images/mengele1.JPG)

Prior to his association with Mengele, Professor von Verschuer had concentrated his research on the subject of twins. His work had been limited to observing the behavior of twin subjects; he was prohibited from experimenting on living subjects by the ethical norms which had prevailed prior to the Nazi era. The Nazis swept away such norms and in Auschwitz, von Verschuer saw unlimited possibilities for his protégé, Josef Mengele, to conduct the types of in vivo experiments he had longed to conduct for so long. Mengele, ever anxious to please his mentor, arrived at Auschwitz with a mission to plumb the depths of the human mystery, and to extract the secrets of human genetics from the living twin specimens at his disposal. Mengele ordered the SS guards who assisted him in the selection process to scour the lines of prisoners for twins. "Zwillinge, zwillinge," "Twins, twins," the guards would bark harshly as they marched up and down the ramp as trains transporting new prisoners arrived. Surviving twins, such as Eva Mozes of Hungary, remember the moment when they were removed from the line of the condemned and delivered to Dr. Mengele: When the doors to our cattle car opened, I heard SS soldiers yelling, "Schnell! Schnell!" ("Faster! Faster!"), and ordering everybody out. My mother grabbed Miriam and me by the hand. She was always trying to protect us because we were the youngest. Everything was moving very fast, and as I looked around, I noticed my father and my two older sisters were gone. As I clutched my mother's hand, an SS man hurried by shouting, "Twins! Twins!" He stopped to look at us. Miriam and I looked very much alike. "Are they twins?" he asked my mother. "Is that good?" she replied. He nodded yes. "They are twins," she said.

(http://www.ep-graphics.com/images/mengele2.JPG)

While the twins were spared from outright execution, they were delivered to a decidedly crueler fate. Mengele reserved a special barracks for his twin subjects, as well as for dwarfs, cripples and other "exotic specimens." The barracks was nicknamed the Zoo, Mengele's holding pen. The twins were his favorite subjects, and they were afforded special treatment, such as being able to keep their own hair and clothing, and receiving extra food rations. The guards were under strict orders not to abuse the children, and were to look after their well being lest one should fall ill and die. Mengele became explosively irate if one of his beloved specimens should happen to die. These twins were referred to as "Mengele's Children." It was here in the Zoo that the twins were to learn of their parents' true fate in the gas chambers, where Mengele simultaneously became to them a figure of death and of life, the man who had condemned their parents and family members to annihilation, while at the same time sparing their own lives.

Ruins of the Infirmary at Auschwitz

Mengele's children were also spared from beatings, forced labor and random selections in order to maintain their good health. However, Mengele was not motivated by humanitarian urges, but by his desire to keep his specimens healthy for experimentation. Ironically, it was his very experiments that extracted the heaviest physical toll on the children upon whom he lavished such care and affection, and hundreds ended up dying as a result of his gruesome deeds. As with other inmates at Auschwitz, Mengele's imagination knew no bounds when it came to devising physical torments for his victims. Preliminary examinations of the twins were routine enough. The children filled out a questionnaire, were weighed and measured. However, a more gruesome fate awaited them at Mengele's hands. He took daily blood samples from his children, and sent these to Professor von Verschuer in Berlin. He injected blood samples from one twin into another twin of a different blood type and recorded the reaction. This was invariably a searingly painful headache and high fever that lasted for several days. In order to determine if eye color could be genetically altered, Mengele had dye injected into the eyes of several twin subjects. This always resulted in painful infections, and sometimes even blindness. If such twins died, Mengele would harvest their eyes and pin them to the wall of his office, much like a biologist pins insect samples to styrofoam. Young children were placed in isolation cages, and subjected to a variety of stimuli to see how they would react. Several twins were castrated or sterilized. Many twins had limbs and organs removed in macabre surgical procedures that Mengele performed without using an anesthetic. Other twins were injected with infectious agents to see how long it would take for them to succumb to various diseases.

It is clear that, despite the stated purpose for which he was sent to Auschwitz, Mengele's experimentation had absolutely nothing to do with true scientific research, and was instead the result of one man's ambitious and zealous adherence to the Nazi vision of Aryan supremacy. As surviving Mengele subject Alex Dekel states: I have never accepted the fact that Mengele himself believed he was doing serious work — not from the slipshod way he went about it. He was only exercising his power. Mengele ran a butcher shop — major surgeries were performed without anesthesia. Once, I witnessed a stomach operation — Mengele was removing pieces from the stomach, but without any anesthetic. Another time, it was a heart that was removed, again, without anesthesia. It was horrifying. Mengele was a doctor who became mad because of the power he was given. Nobody ever questioned him — why did this one die? Why did that one perish? The patients did not count. He professed to do what he did in the name of science, but it was a madness on his part.

Madness, indeed, on the part of a man who showered love and attention on the very children he would sooner or later subject to his cruel experiments, whom he would more likely than not murder in pursuit of genetic information that did not exist except in the imagination of an indoctrinated Nazi ideologue. Madness on the part of a man whom more than one surviving twin would remember as a gentle man who loved children! Whence does such madness spring, how is it possible for two separate and diametrically opposed personages manifest themselves within the same individual?
Title: The Boys from Brazil
Post by: [/] on June 20, 2008, 11:44:40 AM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bf/Boys_from_brazil.jpg)

The screenplay, by Heywood Gould, is loosely based on the novel The Boys from Brazil by Ira Levin. It bears no relation to another film Boys from Brazil from 1993. The music score was by Jerry Goldsmith and the cinematography by Henri Decae. As of August 2006, an updated remake of this film is in the works with New Line Cinema, featuring director Brett Ratner and screenwriters Richard Potter and Matthew Stravitz. Production is expected to start late in early 2008. The film was shot on location in Vienna, Austria; England; Portugal and Lancaster, Pennsylvania, USA. The film follows the attempts of aging Nazi hunter Ezra Lieberman (Sir Laurence Olivier) to discover and thwart a diablolical plan by surviving Nazi death-camp doctor Josef Mengele (Gregory Peck) to clone Adolf Hitler.

When well-intenioned young Barry Kohler stumbles upon a secret sect of Third Reich war criminals holding clandestine meetings in South America, he alerts Ezra Lieberman by phone. Lieberman is well aware that Dr. Mengele is alive and in hiding, but is highly skeptical otherwise. Kohler is discovered and killed. Lieberman begins following the trail of the Nazis, traveling throughout Europe and North America to investigate the suspicious deaths of a number of civil servants. He meets several widows and is amazed to find an uncanny resemblance in their adopted, black-haired, blue-eyed sons. Lieberman's investigations unnerve Mengele's superiors, who demand that he abort his scheme. But the mad doctor has spent nearly 30 years pursuing this, having acquired skin and blood samples from Hitler to use as DNA in a sinister, far-ahead-of-its-time plan to recreate the Fuhrer body and soul.

For him it is now or never. Mengele risks traveling to rural Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, where one of the young Hitler clones lives on a farm. There he murders the boy's father and lies in wait for his hated nemesis Lieberman, who is on his way. They fight savagely until Mengele gains the upper hand. At that point, young Bobby arrives home from school. It is Mengele's first look in person at one of his "boys." Bobby can tell from the carnage that something is amiss. Lieberman tells him that Mengele has killed his father and to notify the police. The cruel young boy has other ideas. He sets a pack of vicious Doberman dogs on Mengele, relishing his bloody death and avenging his father's death. Lieberman is encouraged by fellow Nazi hunters to expose the scheme and turn over a list identifying the names and whereabouts of the other "boys from Brazil" from around the world, so that they can be systematically killed before growing up. But they are mere children, in Lieberman's opinion, so he destroys the list.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: c o l o v a r on June 21, 2008, 02:43:52 PM

[...]

No middle class (let alone working-class) family can afford to support financially their children studying for 15 straight years!


During the time you complete the residency you are working, not just studying -- which means you'll be earning money without having to rely on your family or student lonas any more. So it's not "15 straight years" in school, it's more like 8 straight years :)
Title: Medical Students Sue Over Residency System
Post by: kaman on June 21, 2008, 04:18:48 PM

During the time you complete the residency you are working, not just studying -- which means you'll be earning money without having to rely on your family or student lonas any more. So it's not "15 straight years" in school, it's more like 8 straight years :)


You have to bear in mind that residents' pay is ridiculous... in fact, they have even tried to challenge it in court.

Every March, graduating medical school students wait anxiously for Match Day, when a computer tells them where they will spend the next several years as medical residents in teaching hospitals. A class-action lawsuit to be filed in Washington today challenges the matching program on antitrust grounds. The suit says the defendants, including seven medical organizations and more than 1,000 private hospitals, have used the program to keep residents' wages low and hours long. Almost all first-year residents make less than $40,000 a year and often work 100-hour weeks. If the suit is successful, the nation's health care system faces an enormous financial liability and the prospect of being forced to change the way that generations of doctors have been trained. More than 80% of first-year residency positions are offered exclusively through the program, known formally as the National Resident Matching Program. The matches are based on ranked lists submitted by hospitals and the 15,000 or so students, and both sides agree in advance to accept the match. There is no room for negotiations about wages, hours or other terms of employment. As a consequence, the plaintiffs say, the hospitals, which share detailed salary information with each other, can force residents to accept below-market wages for the 3-8 years, depending on specialty, of their residencies.

"The match basically controls where you are going to spend the first part of your professional life," said Dr. Paul Jung, one of the plaintiffs, who is now a fellow at Johns Hopkins University. Yet, he said, "you're expressly forbidden from having any kind of agreement about any kind of salary or anything." Lloyd Constantine, who was New York's top antitrust official for a decade and is not involved in the suit, said the case raised important issues. "If this were coal or steel or autos, it would flat out be a felony and would probably be prosecuted criminally," he said of the matching system. Alvin Roth, an economics professor at Harvard, redesigned the system in 1997. He said it merely ensured that medical students obtain the best residencies they could. This fosters competition, he said, which the antitrust laws are meant to protect. But James F. Blumstein, an expert in health care regulation at Vanderbilt Law School in Nashville, said that the matching program "does prevent competition in the sense that you can't entertain competing offers. It's not only salaries but also access to opportunities," he said. "It's hard to see what the pro-competitive justification is here." Defenders of the matching program say that it is a mistake to think about it in purely commercial terms. They say residencies serve an important social purpose in training doctors and providing care for patients. Whether the antitrust laws should take account of these kinds of arguments is the subject of debate.

"It's not exactly a job, it's a continuation of a medical education," said Kevin Jon Williams, a professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, who has written extensively on the matching program. Sherman Marek, a Chicago lawyer whose law firm, along with 14 others, represents the plaintiffs, said there was nothing special about jobs that educate. "In any employment, the employee is acquiring skills that can then be taken elsewhere, so there is always an education element," he said. "Nevertheless, market forces are allowed to operate." Lawyers for the plaintiffs declined to speculate on how much residents' salaries might change if the matching program were eliminated. Representatives of the medical organizations declined to comment on the lawsuit or did not return calls. Residents' wages are certainly both low for the profession and uniform. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, which operates the program and is a defendant in the suit, the average first-year resident, having completed 4 years of medical school, is paid $37,383. In the Northeast, the average is $39,060; in the South, the average is $35,552. Hundred-hour workweeks for residents are common, meaning that they often make less than $10 an hour. "They get less money than nurses and physician's assistants," said Michael J. Freed, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' legal papers say the uniformity of the wages proves that something is wrong. "Employers pay residents standardized salaries, regardless of such factors as program prestige, medical specialty, geographic location, resident merit and year of employment," the papers argue. "With few exceptions, employers pay salaries very close to the national average and very close to each other. By contrast, post-residency physicians earn widely varying compensations based on these factors, especially geographic location and medical specialty." George L. Priest, a professor at Yale Law School who was a consultant to the plaintiffs, disagreed. "The salary data is highly suspicious," he said. "There is no good reason why doctors after four years of graduate school should make a quarter of what lawyers make." The low wages and long hours have serious consequences, Dr. Jung said. "I had to constantly battle fatigue as a factor affecting the quality of my life and the lives of my patients," he said. Dr. Jung, 32, said his residency at the MetroHealth Medical Center in Cleveland was dispiriting. Hospitals "use residents as cheap labor," he said. "I had the expectation, maybe naïvely, that a lot of time would be spent with patients." Instead, Dr. Jung said, he performed many menial and administrative tasks. "It was a lot more hours and a lot less patient care than I expected," he said. The Justice Department looked into the residency matching program in the mid-1990's. It reached a settlement with an association that administered a separate program for family practice residencies, but did not challenge the main program. Professor Roth said this meant the government had given the hospital matching program "a clean bill of health."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B03EEDF1430F934A35756C0A9649C8B63
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: cartel on June 22, 2008, 12:39:12 PM

[...] It is practically impossible to get residency spots in the highly competitive specialties like Radiology, Orthopedics and Dermatology being an IMG, US or non-US one. You end up as a general family practice physician or internal medicine resident, specialties which pay much less than the highly sought-after specialties such as Surgery, Anesthesiology, Obstetrics/gynecology, etc.

Equally important, almost all training slots filled by IMGs are in teaching hospitals in large urban areas that have traditionally served large numbers of minorities, uninsured, and low-income patients. It is a bit easier for US-IMGs compared to non-US IMGs. The latter, for example, who usually are on J-1 Visas (with 80% of these physicians actually staying in the US) are compelled to practice in designated rural or inner city physician shortage areas in order to have the "2-year return" requirement for J-1 visa waived. Both the initial training location and the subsequent service locations of IMGs frequently put them in minority communities where other doctors are scarce. In essence IMGs provide primary care to poor and underserved populations, with many inner-city hospitals in the U.S. relying almost exclusively on IMGs to provide services to America's poor.


Honey, I've been a dirty stinky Indian all my life and I can tell ya it's not like that ... several friends of mine (poor, stinky Indian b i t c h e s, if you like!) have been able to get some pretty damn good residencies in the US.

A very dear friend of mine just recently began Rheumatology fellowship at a quite good hospital after having finished the 3-year Internal Medicine residency. It'll take 3 years for the fellowship to be completed and my friend is looking at some $200,000 per annum - not bad at all for someone who lived all the time in a city like Calcutta or Bombay! :)


I entered graduate medical education the US as an IMG and was able to get Anesthesiology residency. While a more difficult than, say, I/M and Pediatrics specialties to get it was by no means impossible or even tremendously difficult.
Title: Re: Genetic Engineering - Can You Patent Life???
Post by: troponin on June 25, 2008, 09:58:17 AM

You Indians are undoubtedly "geniuses"! I was astonished some years ago, for example, when I read one Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty developing a genetically engineered organism using plasmid transfer while working at GE. (Chakrabarty is currently a Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology in the University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine. Apart from being an eminent scientist, Ananda Chakrabarty has been an advisor to judges, governments, and the UN.) Chakrabarty genetically engineered a new species of Pseudomonas bacteria ("the oil-eating bacteria") in 1971 while working for the Research & Development Center at General Electric Company in Schenectady, New York. At the time, 4 known species of oil-metabolizing bacteria were known to exist, but when introduced into an oil spill, competed with each other, limiting the amount of crude oil that they degraded. The genes necessary to degrade oil were carried on plasmids, which could be transferred among species. By irradiating the transformed organism with UV light after plasmid transfer, Chakrabarty discovered a method for genetic cross-linking that fixed all four plasmid genes in place and produced a new, stable, bacteria species (now called Burkholderia) capable of consuming oil 1-2 orders of magnitude faster than the previous four strains of oil-eating microbes. The new microbe, which Chakrabarty called "multi-plasmid hydrocarbon-degrading Pseudomonas," could digest about two-thirds of the hydrocarbons that would be found in a typical oil spill.

The bacteria drew international attention when he applied for a patent -- the first-ever patent for living organism. He was initially denied the patent by the Patent Office because it was thought that the patent code precluded patents on living organisms. The United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals overturned the decision in Chakrabarty's favor, writing, that the fact that microorganisms are alive is without legal significance for purposes of patent law. Sidney A. Diamond, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court case was argued on March 17, 1980 and decided on June 16, 1980. This patent was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court (Diamond v. Chakrabarty), in a 5-4 decision, when it determined that a live, human-made microorganism is patentable subject matter under [Title 35 U.S.C.] 101. Respondent's micro-organism constitutes a "manufacture" or "composition of matter" within that statute (!!!)


There are many suggestions for fixing the patent system, from abolishing it to radical surgery. Many of these are praiseworthy in design, but most suffer from a severe problem -- You can't get there from here. Wonderful end results are nearly impossible to attain because the forces defending the status quo are powerful and have little stake in the resulting system. So here's an idea that actually gives some major players a strong stake in the outcome and could have a big impact: Declare that ludicrously obviously invalid patents are a form of fraud. And enforce that by giving anyone who proves patent fraud by ludicrosity gets paid triple their costs as a reward, plus any damages they can show were caused by the issuance of the patent.

As a starting point, I would define a "ludicrous" patent as one that any practitioner normally skilled in the art would recognize as having prior art. MicroSoft's is our most recent poster child, who seems to be seeking a patent on an IsNot operator that checks if two pointers point to the same place in memory.

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959

In other words, it's like C's "p1!= p2" where p1 and p2 are pointers. Uh, hello? Can we say prior art, like almost any machine instruction set? And can we say "obvious" as in "done in almost any language you can name that has pointers or references"? I model this on "whistle-blower" laws that encourage private citizens to ferret out fraud against the government by giving successful ferreters a chunk of the recovered money. This means that the gov't itself doesn't have to do anything to ensure that a bunch of investigators are always looking for fraud against it. If someone has a good case, the perps pay the investigator. And it also keeps the number of frivolous fraud suits down, because a frivolous fraud suit gets you nothing.

Here we create a herd of patent lawyers who will invest their own money knocking down patents that are ludicrous and collecting bucks. Sometimes they'll get a nice payment from a simple letter that shows the holder that they will lose the case. Sometimes they will win big bucks when someone defends one of them. It also creates a liability for filing ludicrous patents, which (beyond filing costs) there is none now. It helps protect every major player who isn't using patents as offensive weapons. And another set of major players -- the patent lawyers -- have new ways to make money. To be fair to those holding patents the predate this rule, I would give holders one year to voluntarily void any patents they hold, but after that, all unexpired patents would be fair game. So what so you? How about we pay the lawyers to sue the lawyers to keep the pool cleaner?
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: b e s a m e on June 25, 2008, 02:43:51 PM
To all people posting here: medicine is a very hard field to work in. You even risk your own health sometimes (surgeons are constantly in danger of contracting deadly diseases via blood) not to mention the extremely long hours many doctors put. I had the opportunity to go about it some years back and I let go .. it's just not worth it when you think about the kind of people you'd be dealing with ... Doctors witness death and suffering on a daily basis and their work takes a toll on their private lives. Shift work is often necessary. Junior doctors frequently work weekends, holidays, and nights.
Title: Doctors exploited; patients suffer, too
Post by: coin up in the air on June 28, 2008, 10:31:50 AM
No doubt about it, besame. Even moreso if we'd be talking about foreign doctors looking to practice in the US. A government program to address a national health care crisis by placing foreign doctors in America's rural towns and inner cities is being undermined by employers - mostly U.S. doctors who profit by exploiting the physicians and diverting them from the patients who need them. Stories of abuses within the program, which receives little government oversight, are whispered among foreign doctors in hospital corridors, reported online and heard by colleagues in foreign medical schools. And the abuse appears to be a primary reason that fewer of them are participating in the program. Some of the foreign doctors are cheated financially and worked to dangerous levels of exhaustion, and they can't easily escape the jobs because the employers sponsor their visas. The doctors are sharing their experiences with colleagues back home - in places such as Ghana, Haiti, India and Pakistan - who are now finding other paths to U.S. residency to avoid being bullied and treated as indentured servants.

The dire consequences of the program's problems may be no clearer than in the Nevada town of Beatty, population 1,154, "the gateway to Death Valley." The community is about to lose its only doctor, who is from the Philippines. She has fulfilled her commitment under the government program, and the non-profit organization that runs the clinic, Nevada Health Centers, has had no luck finding a replacement. Nevada Health Centers by all accounts treats the doctors fairly and as intended under the law. Several years ago, it was receiving about 100 applications a month from foreign physicians for openings at its 27 clinics. But now it gets no applications and recruiting efforts have been fruitless. The government program, adopted by Congress, is known both as the J-1 visa waiver program and the Conrad 30 program, for its author, Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D. It makes immigration concessions for foreign medical school graduates who are nearing the end of their medical residency training in the United States. The foreign doctors hold J-1 visas, which require them to return home when they finish their residency. If they return home, they must stay there for at least 2 years, and if they want to return to the United States, they must start the immigration process all over again.

Rather than go home after their medical training, foreign physicians can qualify for J-1 waivers to stay in the United States as long as they commit to at least 3 years of service in a federally designated physician shortage area - usually a rural or blighted urban area. And at the end of the term, these J-1 doctors can begin the U.S. residency process. About 3,100 foreign doctors participate in the program, a number that is declining year by year. Nationally, doctors who come from foreign medical schools say they are forgoing the J-1 visa for what they consider a more attractive option, called the H-1 visa. The H-1 visa takes more steps to acquire and limits where a doctor can do residency training, but it leads more quickly to a "green card." The downside for rural and inner city America is that the H-1 visa, unlike the J-1 visa, does not require foreign doctors to return home for 2 years after they finish their training. That eliminates any motive for foreign doctors to commit to 3 years of service in a medically underserved area. Nationwide, the numbers of J-1 visas and requests for waivers to work in underserved areas are plummeting, according to the statistics available.

J-1 doctors say that because of the buzz around the program in the international physician community, some medical residents are waiting longer for H-1 visas or, if they can get only a J-1 visa, are returning home for 2 years instead of taking a waiver to work in an underserved area. Dr. Wahab Brobbey, a J-1 doctor in Iowa who told the Sun he was exploited by his previous employer in Tennessee, said he advised his cousin and other medical school classmates to avoid the J-1 visa. The cousin is now doing his residency on an H-1 visa. "And they tell their brothers, and they tell their friends - there are lots of us," said Brobbey, who is from Ghana. Brobbey said the exploitation has gone on for so long, with no accountability for employers, that the J-1 visa waiver program is "basically dead." "The boat has sailed already," Brobbey said. "I don't know anyone who will do J-1 now." Given the Internet chatter, the problems with the J-1 waiver are widely known in the medical community, and the jobs carry a stigma. Some of the participating doctors refer to themselves as "J-1 positive" as if they're afflicted with a disease. It is unknown whether J-1 doctors have been sexually abused, though one doctor reported she had been sexually harassed. Many factors could explain why more foreign residents are pushing for H-1 visas over J-1 visas said Greg Siskind, a superstar immigration lawyer, but it's possible some foreign doctors who know about the "real and perceived problems" are deciding to "vote with their visa" by choosing the H-1.

In 2005, the American Medical Association adopted a resolution saying the foreign doctors often find themselves "in abusive and intolerable" employment situations and should be able to transfer to other employers without being forced to restart their three-year commitment in an underserved community. An AMA official said anecdotal accounts are heard frequently of J-1 doctors working unfair call schedules, suffering pay and salary disparities and having the terms of their contracts switched against their will. The J-1 doctors are in a "vulnerable position," said the AMA official, who because of association policy was not allowed to be quoted by name. "They know it's a privilege to be in our country. They don't want to make any waves, but they're totally being abused and taken advantage of." Employers who adhere to the J-1 waiver guidelines say they've heard the reports of other bosses flouting the J-1 laws. Saul Blair, executive director of the Phoenix region of IPC, a company that provides doctors to hospitals, employs 17 J-1 doctors, including several who came to him after being exploited by employers in other states. No one monitors where the doctors work or whether "I'm paying them 10 cents or $100,000," Blair said. It would be easy to audit a company's medical records to confirm that J-1 doctors are treating federally designated underserved patients, Blair said, but the government has not. J-1 doctors feel conflicted about staying in the United States. "If I had known about this I would have never done it here," one foreign doctor said. "I advise everyone I know not to come here on J-1. Go to Australia."
Title: Re: Genetic Engineering - Can You Patent Life???
Post by: Muhammad Mali on June 30, 2008, 12:08:16 PM

You Indians are undoubtedly "geniuses"! I was astonished some years ago, for example, when I read one Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty developing a genetically engineered organism using plasmid transfer while working at GE. Chakrabarty genetically engineered a new species of Pseudomonas bacteria ("the oil-eating bacteria") in 1971 while working for the Research & Development Center at General Electric Company in Schenectady, New York. At the time, 4 known species of oil-metabolizing bacteria were known to exist, but when introduced into an oil spill, competed with each other, limiting the amount of crude oil that they degraded. The genes necessary to degrade oil were carried on plasmids, which could be transferred among species. By irradiating the transformed organism with UV light after plasmid transfer, Chakrabarty discovered a method for genetic cross-linking that fixed all four plasmid genes in place and produced a new, stable, bacteria species (now called Burkholderia) capable of consuming oil 1-2 orders of magnitude faster than the previous four strains of oil-eating microbes. The new microbe, which Chakrabarty called "multi-plasmid hydrocarbon-degrading Pseudomonas," could digest about two-thirds of the hydrocarbons that would be found in a typical oil spill.


There are many suggestions for fixing the patent system, from abolishing it to radical surgery. Many of these are praiseworthy in design, but most suffer from a severe problem -- You can't get there from here. Wonderful end results are nearly impossible to attain because the forces defending the status quo are powerful and have little stake in the resulting system. So here's an idea that actually gives some major players a strong stake in the outcome and could have a big impact: Declare that ludicrously obviously invalid patents are a form of fraud. And enforce that by giving anyone who proves patent fraud by ludicrosity gets paid triple their costs as a reward, plus any damages they can show were caused by the issuance of the patent.

As a starting point, I would define a "ludicrous" patent as one that any practitioner normally skilled in the art would recognize as having prior art. MicroSoft's is our most recent poster child, who seems to be seeking a patent on an IsNot operator that checks if two pointers point to the same place in memory.

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959


Well, human stem cells have been injected into mice and now sheep. Such research blurs biological divisions between species that couldn't until now be breached. Drawing ethical boundaries that no research appears to have crossed yet, the National Academies recommend a prohibition on mixing human stem cells with embryos from monkeys and other primates. But even that policy recommendation isn't tough enough for some researchers. "The boundary is going to push further into larger animals," New York Medical College professor Stuart Newman said. "That's just asking for trouble." Newman and anti-biotechnology activist Jeremy Rifkin have been tracking this issue for the last decade and were behind a rather creative assault on both interspecies mixing and the government's policy of patenting individual human genes and other living matter.

Years ago, the two applied for a patent for what they called a "humanzee," a hypothetical -- but very possible -- creation that was half human and chimp. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office finally denied their application this year, ruling that the proposed invention was too human: Constitutional prohibitions against slavery prevent the patenting of people. Newman and Rifkin were delighted, since they never intended to create the creature and instead wanted to use their application to protest what they see as science and commerce turning people into commodities. And that's a point, Newman warns, that stem scientists are edging closer to every day: "Once you are on the slope, you tend to move down it."

Scientists are going too far in creating mixed human-animal organisms, a Scottish organization is warning. he Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, a professional group based in Edinburgh, has published a report on the ethical implications of the practice in the journal Human Reproduction and Genetic Ethics. The report is online at www.schb.org.uk.
 
(http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/5617/64088703wd7.png)
Human-dog hybrids.

"crossing the human species barrier is a procedure that has always fascinated humanity," oted the report, made public Tuesday and written in light of draft legislation on human embryology being prepared by the U.K. Department of Health, to be published this summer. Ancient Greek mythology speaks of monsters such as the Minotaur — a man with a bull's head — and centaurs, mixtures of humans and horses. But creatures of this nature may not remain confined to mythology for long, as scientists have begun tentatively creating mixed organisms. An array of experiments have produced animals with some human cells, for instance. Such procedures "mix human and animal biological elements to such an extent that it questions the very concept of being entirely human," the report said. This raises "grave and complex ethical difficulties."

Some ethicists worry that the experiments might force society to make confounding decisions on whether, say, a human-chimp mix would have human rights. Other concerns are that such a creature could suffer from being outcast as a "monster," from having a chimp as its biological father or mother, or from unusual health problems. Some inter-species mixtures are powerful research tools, the report said. This "became clear about a decade ago in a series of dramatic experiments in which small sections of brains from developing quails were taken and transplanted into the developing brains of chickens. The resulting chickens exhibited vocal trills and head bobs unique to quails, proving that the transplanted parts of the brain contained the neural circuitry for quail calls. It also offered astonishing proof that complex behaviours could be transferred across species." Later research has spawned human-animal creations, the report said. These usually die at the embryonic stage, but often survive if the mixtures involve only a few cells or genes transferred from one species to another.

The council cited the following examples:

In 2003, scientists at Cambridge University, U.K. conducted experiments involving fusing the nucleus of a human cell into frog eggs. The stated aim was to produce rejuvenated "master cells" that could be grown into replacement tissues for treating disease. It was not clear whether fertilization took place, but "some kind of development was initiated,” the report said. In 2005, U.K. scientists transplanted a human chromosome into mouse embryos. The newly born mice carried copies of the chromosome and were able to pass it on to their own young. The company Advanced Cell Technologies was reported, in 1999, to have created the first human embryo clone by inserting a human cell nucleus into a cow’s egg stripped of chromosomes. The result was an embryo that developed and divided for 12 days before being destroyed. Panayiotis Zavos, the operator of a U.S. fertility laboratory, reported in 2003 that he had created around 200 cow-human hybrid embryos that lived for about two weeks and grew to several hundred cells in size, beyond the stage at which cells showed the first signs of developing into tissues and organs.

In 2003, Hui Zhen Sheng of Shanghai Second Medical University, China, announced that rabbit-human embryos had been created by fusing human cells with rabbit eggs stripped of their chromosomes. The embryos developed to the approximately 100-cell stage that forms after about four days of development. The council made 16 recommendations, including that it should be illegal to mix animal and human sperm and eggs, or to create an embryo containing cells consisting of both human and animal chromosomes. "The fertilisation of animal eggs with human sperm should not continue to be legal in the U.K. for research purposes," said Calum MacKellar, the council's director of research. "Most people are not aware that these kinds of experiments have been taking place in the U.K. and find it deeply offensive. Parliament should follow France and Germany and prohibit the creation of animal-human hybrid embryos." In a report published in 2004, the President's Council on Bioethics in the United States also advocated prohibiting the creation of animal-human embryos by uniting human and animal eggs and sperm. A draft law introduced in U.S. Congress by Senator Samuel Brownback (R-Kan.) would outlaw the creation of human-animal mixtures. A 2005 report from the U.K. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee takes a more liberal stance, saying such embryos could be legal for research purposes if they are destroyed within 14 days. "While there is revulsion in some quarters that such creations appear to blur the distinction between animals and humans, it could be argued that they are less human than, and therefore pose fewer ethical problems for research than fully human embryos," the committee wrote.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2000/nov/26/genetics.theobserver
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: we are watching you on July 02, 2008, 11:52:06 AM

[...] It is practically impossible to get residency spots in the highly competitive specialties like Radiology, Orthopedics and Dermatology being an IMG, US or non-US one. You end up as a general family practice physician or internal medicine resident, specialties which pay much less than the highly sought-after specialties such as Surgery, Anesthesiology, Obstetrics/gynecology, etc.

Equally important, almost all training slots filled by IMGs are in teaching hospitals in large urban areas that have traditionally served large numbers of minorities, uninsured, and low-income patients. It is a bit easier for US-IMGs compared to non-US IMGs. The latter, for example, who usually are on J-1 Visas (with 80% of these physicians actually staying in the US) are compelled to practice in designated rural or inner city physician shortage areas in order to have the "2-year return" requirement for J-1 visa waived. Both the initial training location and the subsequent service locations of IMGs frequently put them in minority communities where other doctors are scarce. In essence IMGs provide primary care to poor and underserved populations, with many inner-city hospitals in the U.S. relying almost exclusively on IMGs to provide services to America's poor.


Honey, I've been a dirty stinky Indian all my life and I can tell ya it's not like that ... several friends of mine (poor, stinky Indian b i t c h e s, if you like!) have been able to get some pretty damn good residencies in the US.

A very dear friend of mine just recently began Rheumatology fellowship at a quite good hospital after having finished the 3-year Internal Medicine residency. It'll take 3 years for the fellowship to be completed and my friend is looking at some $200,000 per annum - not bad at all for someone who lived all the time in a city like Calcutta or Bombay! :)


I entered graduate medical education the US as an IMG and was able to get Anesthesiology residency. While a more difficult than, say, I/M and Pediatrics specialties to get it was by no means impossible or even tremendously difficult.


Great signature, cartel!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: StephanyDS on July 03, 2008, 04:15:23 PM
I don't hate law school, I actually enjoy the study of the law...

I hate the people, the self-satisfaction, and the arrogance of it all.

I don't fit in with the crowd of geeks-gone-gradschool when they start talking about all of their accomplishments and think a Saturday night at the bar should consist of conversation about how much better they are than each other. P.S. my school is T3/4, so I can only imagine how much worse this gets up the ladder. No thanks, have a nice life. I have wanted to be a lawyer since I was 12, but now, one year into it, I would gladly cut my losses and run.

But...in line with everyone else, I have assigned my soul to the Devil to the tune of nearly $100K so, yes, I will stay...and hate every minute
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: robelguapo on July 04, 2008, 09:41:56 AM
I don't hate law school, I actually enjoy the study of the law...

I hate the people, the self-satisfaction, and the arrogance of it all.

I don't fit in with the crowd of geeks-gone-gradschool when they start talking about all of their accomplishments and think a Saturday night at the bar should consist of conversation about how much better they are than each other. P.S. my school is T3/4, so I can only imagine how much worse this gets up the ladder. No thanks, have a nice life. I have wanted to be a lawyer since I was 12, but now, one year into it, I would gladly cut my losses and run.

But...in line with everyone else, I have assigned my soul to the Devil to the tune of nearly $100K so, yes, I will stay...and hate every minute

Any kindered spirits in your classes? All those things would/will annoy me too...I just accept that they will be there. However, I hope there will be others with my (and your) mindset.

The only thing that scares me about all this (besides finding out that I really have no interest/apptitude in studying law) is coming to the realization of 'throwing away' my military career, a lot of blood/sweat/tears expended. But then again, I really don't need much...one or two 'normal' people is plenty. I figure out of 175 1Ls there's bound to be a few in my section.


I hope.  :-\
Title: Re: Genetic Engineering - Can You Patent Life???
Post by: Joycee on July 05, 2008, 08:06:06 PM

Well, human stem cells have been injected into mice and now sheep. Such research blurs biological divisions between species that couldn't until now be breached. Drawing ethical boundaries that no research appears to have crossed yet, the National Academies recommend a prohibition on mixing human stem cells with embryos from monkeys and other primates. But even that policy recommendation isn't tough enough for some researchers. "The boundary is going to push further into larger animals," New York Medical College professor Stuart Newman said. "That's just asking for trouble." Newman and anti-biotechnology activist Jeremy Rifkin have been tracking this issue for the last decade and were behind a rather creative assault on both interspecies mixing and the government's policy of patenting individual human genes and other living matter.

Years ago, the two applied for a patent for what they called a "humanzee," a hypothetical -- but very possible -- creation that was half human and chimp. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office finally denied their application this year, ruling that the proposed invention was too human: Constitutional prohibitions against slavery prevent the patenting of people. Newman and Rifkin were delighted, since they never intended to create the creature and instead wanted to use their application to protest what they see as science and commerce turning people into commodities. And that's a point, Newman warns, that stem scientists are edging closer to every day: "Once you are on the slope, you tend to move down it."

Scientists are going too far in creating mixed human-animal organisms, a Scottish organization is warning. he Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, a professional group based in Edinburgh, has published a report on the ethical implications of the practice in the journal Human Reproduction and Genetic Ethics. The report is online at www.schb.org.uk.
 
(http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/5617/64088703wd7.png)
Human-dog hybrids.

"crossing the human species barrier is a procedure that has always fascinated humanity," oted the report, made public Tuesday and written in light of draft legislation on human embryology being prepared by the U.K. Department of Health, to be published this summer. Ancient Greek mythology speaks of monsters such as the Minotaur — a man with a bull's head — and centaurs, mixtures of humans and horses. But creatures of this nature may not remain confined to mythology for long, as scientists have begun tentatively creating mixed organisms. An array of experiments have produced animals with some human cells, for instance. Such procedures "mix human and animal biological elements to such an extent that it questions the very concept of being entirely human," the report said. This raises "grave and complex ethical difficulties."

Some ethicists worry that the experiments might force society to make confounding decisions on whether, say, a human-chimp mix would have human rights. Other concerns are that such a creature could suffer from being outcast as a "monster," from having a chimp as its biological father or mother, or from unusual health problems. Some inter-species mixtures are powerful research tools, the report said. This "became clear about a decade ago in a series of dramatic experiments in which small sections of brains from developing quails were taken and transplanted into the developing brains of chickens. The resulting chickens exhibited vocal trills and head bobs unique to quails, proving that the transplanted parts of the brain contained the neural circuitry for quail calls. It also offered astonishing proof that complex behaviours could be transferred across species." Later research has spawned human-animal creations, the report said. These usually die at the embryonic stage, but often survive if the mixtures involve only a few cells or genes transferred from one species to another.

The council cited the following examples:

In 2003, scientists at Cambridge University, U.K. conducted experiments involving fusing the nucleus of a human cell into frog eggs. The stated aim was to produce rejuvenated "master cells" that could be grown into replacement tissues for treating disease. It was not clear whether fertilization took place, but "some kind of development was initiated,” the report said. In 2005, U.K. scientists transplanted a human chromosome into mouse embryos. The newly born mice carried copies of the chromosome and were able to pass it on to their own young. The company Advanced Cell Technologies was reported, in 1999, to have created the first human embryo clone by inserting a human cell nucleus into a cow’s egg stripped of chromosomes. The result was an embryo that developed and divided for 12 days before being destroyed. Panayiotis Zavos, the operator of a U.S. fertility laboratory, reported in 2003 that he had created around 200 cow-human hybrid embryos that lived for about two weeks and grew to several hundred cells in size, beyond the stage at which cells showed the first signs of developing into tissues and organs.

In 2003, Hui Zhen Sheng of Shanghai Second Medical University, China, announced that rabbit-human embryos had been created by fusing human cells with rabbit eggs stripped of their chromosomes. The embryos developed to the approximately 100-cell stage that forms after about four days of development. The council made 16 recommendations, including that it should be illegal to mix animal and human sperm and eggs, or to create an embryo containing cells consisting of both human and animal chromosomes. "The fertilisation of animal eggs with human sperm should not continue to be legal in the U.K. for research purposes," said Calum MacKellar, the council's director of research. "Most people are not aware that these kinds of experiments have been taking place in the U.K. and find it deeply offensive. Parliament should follow France and Germany and prohibit the creation of animal-human hybrid embryos." In a report published in 2004, the President's Council on Bioethics in the United States also advocated prohibiting the creation of animal-human embryos by uniting human and animal eggs and sperm. A draft law introduced in U.S. Congress by Senator Samuel Brownback (R-Kan.) would outlaw the creation of human-animal mixtures. A 2005 report from the U.K. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee takes a more liberal stance, saying such embryos could be legal for research purposes if they are destroyed within 14 days. "While there is revulsion in some quarters that such creations appear to blur the distinction between animals and humans, it could be argued that they are less human than, and therefore pose fewer ethical problems for research than fully human embryos," the committee wrote.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2000/nov/26/genetics.theobserver


Haha -- your so funny, Muhammad!

I know what you mean! ;)
Title: Now brain drain from Britain to India
Post by: totallypartial on July 14, 2008, 07:40:55 PM

[...] It is practically impossible to get residency spots in the highly competitive specialties like Radiology, Orthopedics and Dermatology being an IMG, US or non-US one. You end up as a general family practice physician or internal medicine resident, specialties which pay much less than the highly sought-after specialties such as Surgery, Anesthesiology, Obstetrics/gynecology, etc.

Equally important, almost all training slots filled by IMGs are in teaching hospitals in large urban areas that have traditionally served large numbers of minorities, uninsured, and low-income patients. It is a bit easier for US-IMGs compared to non-US IMGs. The latter, for example, who usually are on J-1 Visas (with 80% of these physicians actually staying in the US) are compelled to practice in designated rural or inner city physician shortage areas in order to have the "2-year return" requirement for J-1 visa waived. Both the initial training location and the subsequent service locations of IMGs frequently put them in minority communities where other doctors are scarce. In essence IMGs provide primary care to poor and underserved populations, with many inner-city hospitals in the U.S. relying almost exclusively on IMGs to provide services to America's poor.


Honey, I've been a dirty stinky Indian all my life and I can tell ya it's not like that ... several friends of mine (poor, stinky Indian b i t c h e s, if you like!) have been able to get some pretty damn good residencies in the US.

A very dear friend of mine just recently began Rheumatology fellowship at a quite good hospital after having finished the 3-year Internal Medicine residency. It'll take 3 years for the fellowship to be completed and my friend is looking at some $200,000 per annum - not bad at all for someone who lived all the time in a city like Calcutta or Bombay! :)


July 03, 2008 18:35 IST

Professionals and graduates from elite British universities are making a beeline for India, thanks to its booming economy, closer trade relations between the two countries and numerous job opportunities there. Thousands of people face the prospect of losing their jobs due to the current credit crunch and a downturn in the British economy. A steep rise in the cost of living in recent months has further prompted professionals to look beyond borders. Fresh MBA graduates from the University of Oxford's Said Business School have taken the initiative to organise a recruitment fair in Mumbai on July 30 and 31. They have already received an enthusiastic response from potential recruiters. Apart from Britons and British-Asians seeking employment abroad, professionals leaving the country inlcude many among the recently arrived highly skilled migrants from Poland, Nigeria and Australia. The Institute of Public Policy Research says that they may have better job prospects back home, where they can also avoid Britains spiralling cost of living. Private hospitals in India often recruit doctors working in the National Health Service. These include Indian doctors who came to the UK some years ago and are now choosing to return home for better working conditions.

A recent survey revealed that British graduates were prepared to fill nearly 200,000 jobs in Indian call centres by 2009. Several Indian and British call centres recruit British graduates from regions that have large Asian population. Their accent helps them interact with British customers while working in call centres in India. For British Asians, working in Indian call centres has a double attraction  they get a job that helps them connect with their roots. A Scottish history graduate recently made news by quitting his job in Sky Television with an annual salary of 21,000 pounds to work in an Indian call centre. Officials at Oxfords Sad Business School told PTI that the recruitment event in Mumbai will offer Indian recruiters a unique opportunity to meet outstanding postgraduate student talent under one roof. One of the organisers, MBA student Tarun Dhillon, who has a background in Aerospace and Defence, said, "With the advent of India as a global business leader, many of the bright minds from Oxford look forward to taking on the business challenges in the booming Indian economy and to be part of India's success story."

"I am delighted with the level of interest from the class and we hope to engage with a range of companies in a variety of sectors. We hope this inaugural event will become an annual fixture in the School's recruitment calendar," Dhillon said. Simon Tankard, Head of Careers at the business school, said, "It is a fantastic opportunity for recruiters in India to get to know our students and for the students to learn about the organisations that interest them." "Many of our students are looking to high-flying international careers and we are delighted to support this student-led initiative that brings together the collective insight and connections of the organising group with the services and connections of the Business School." Another MBA student Deepti Gali said, "The buoyancy in the Indian economy is evident in the number of outbound cross border deals and the amount of private equity money flowing in." "I am sure working in India would provide a perfect platform from which to launch my post-MBA career."
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: copula on July 16, 2008, 08:54:16 AM
Hahaha ;)
Title: Re: Bootstrapping
Post by: QIR on July 19, 2008, 04:14:44 PM

In computing, bootstrapping refers to a process where a simple system activates another more complicated system that serves the same purpose. It is a solution to the Chicken-and-egg problem of starting a certain system without the system already functioning. The term is most often applied to the process of starting up a computer, in which a mechanism is needed to execute the software program that is responsible for executing software programs (the Operating System). The term "bootstrapping" alludes to a German legend about Baron Münchhausen, who claimed to have been able to lift himself out of a swamp by pulling himself up by his own hair. In later versions of the legend, he used his own boot straps to pull himself out of the sea which gave rise to the term bootstrapping. The term is believed to have entered computer jargon during the early 1950s by way of Heinlein's short story "By His Bootstraps" first published in 1941. Bootstrapping was shortened to booting, or the process of starting up any computer, which is the most common meaning for non-technical computer users. The verb "boot" is similarly derived.


Theoretically speaking, akin to the Gordian Knot solution.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Tacoma on July 23, 2008, 04:25:07 PM

To all people posting here: medicine is a very hard field to work in. You even risk your own health sometimes (surgeons are constantly in danger of contracting deadly diseases via blood) not to mention the extremely long hours many doctors put. I had the opportunity to go about it some years back and I let go .. it's just not worth it when you think about the kind of people you'd be dealing with ... Doctors witness death and suffering on a daily basis and their work takes a toll on their private lives. Shift work is often necessary. Junior doctors frequently work weekends, holidays, and nights.


I guess the majority of people (me included :) would not mind doing it .. I mean, EVERY job has its downsides and it appears that the "advantages" you get are worth it, even when you take into account the sacrifices you make...plus, we all know that one does not become a doctor only for the money... it has more to do with power, power over life and death of another human being...


Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: prohacvice on July 23, 2008, 06:56:17 PM

[...] it has more to do with power, power over life and death of another human being...


I am not quite sure what do you mean by that... while it has been argued that doctors murder more than any other professional group, their partners, relatives, patients or victims in service of the state or an ideology (with the power over life or death likely attracting them to the profession in the first place), it should not be forgotten that all doctors have less power over life and death than we believe and they like us to think.

The trouble with medicine in the modern Western world is that there is so little doctors can do. Miracle cures are as rare today as in biblical times. Most conditions presented to GPs in their surgeries are long-term, chronic complaints for which modern medicine offers no cure and not much in the way of treatment. Talk to any GP and you will hear a tale of frustration at the prospect of another packed surgery with patients who cannot be helped except with liberal doses of TLC (tender loving care), backed perhaps by a harmless prescription to make them feel their complaint is a genuine problem. It is difficult for doctors. They enter the profession with high expectations of healing the sick and curing disease, and they discover that reality is crueller. The major causes of ill health - diseases such as diphtheria, typhoid and polio - have long since been defeated by improved living conditions, vaccination and antibiotics. For modern ailments - failing hearts, stiffened joints, old age - there is little to offer.

Did Harold Shipman, a man who liked to control those around him, become progressively angered by his failure to alter the course of his patients' lives - to the point where he felt it simpler to dispatch them? We cannot know. But we do know that the syringe of morphine he carried in his bag gave him the power over life and death that he otherwise lacked. Dr. Mathew Lukwiya was at the opposite end of the spectrum. He was one of the top graduates of his generation at the University of Makerere in Kampala, but instead of emigrating to South Africa, like many of his colleagues, where a life of relative ease and wealth would have awaited him, he chose to put his talents to work where they mattered, in the war-torn province of northern Uganda where he was born. Why does a doctor make such a choice? There are many reasons, of course -- but one may be the prospect of making a real difference. To serve a population facing extreme privation and poverty after years of war is to know real power. The simplest remedies -- cheap antibiotics, basic surgery -- can have the most dramatic effects. A doctor there can save lives on a major scale.

Making a difference is what most doctors want to do but, in the West, find difficult to achieve. Frank Huyler, the doctor-turned-author, is frank about this. He chose to work in emergency medicine, an unpopular specialty, because "it reminds you of the elemental forces we often don't see in the developed world". Even so, he told a reporter: "Most of what we do in the ER are really small moments, not life and death. Only some of the time does that happen and only some of the time can we do anything about it. A lot of the time, people who are going to die are going to die no matter what we do." So there we are. Killing people is simple. Curing them is more difficult. Caring, not curing, is what medicine is mostly about. But for some doctors, discovering their powerlessness can be a source of unhappiness.

Enter Radovan Karadzic: was Karadzic merely a doctor who ran a genocide, or did his profession as a doctor play a significant part in his genocidal role?

 
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: quincyyyyy on July 23, 2008, 07:41:19 PM

[...] it has more to do with power, power over life and death of another human being...


I am not quite sure what do you mean by that... while it has been argued that doctors murder more than any other professional group, their partners, relatives, patients or victims in service of the state or an ideology (with the power over life or death likely attracting them to the profession in the first place), it should not be forgotten that all doctors have less power over life and death than we believe and they like us to think.

The trouble with medicine in the modern Western world is that there is so little doctors can do. Miracle cures are as rare today as in biblical times. Most conditions presented to GPs in their surgeries are long-term, chronic complaints for which modern medicine offers no cure and not much in the way of treatment. Talk to any GP and you will hear a tale of frustration at the prospect of another packed surgery with patients who cannot be helped except with liberal doses of TLC (tender loving care), backed perhaps by a harmless prescription to make them feel their complaint is a genuine problem. It is difficult for doctors. They enter the profession with high expectations of healing the sick and curing disease, and they discover that reality is crueller. The major causes of ill health - diseases such as diphtheria, typhoid and polio - have long since been defeated by improved living conditions, vaccination and antibiotics. For modern ailments - failing hearts, stiffened joints, old age - there is little to offer.

Did Harold Shipman, a man who liked to control those around him, become progressively angered by his failure to alter the course of his patients' lives - to the point where he felt it simpler to dispatch them? We cannot know. But we do know that the syringe of morphine he carried in his bag gave him the power over life and death that he otherwise lacked. Dr. Mathew Lukwiya was at the opposite end of the spectrum. He was one of the top graduates of his generation at the University of Makerere in Kampala, but instead of emigrating to South Africa, like many of his colleagues, where a life of relative ease and wealth would have awaited him, he chose to put his talents to work where they mattered, in the war-torn province of northern Uganda where he was born. Why does a doctor make such a choice? There are many reasons, of course -- but one may be the prospect of making a real difference. To serve a population facing extreme privation and poverty after years of war is to know real power. The simplest remedies -- cheap antibiotics, basic surgery -- can have the most dramatic effects. A doctor there can save lives on a major scale.

Making a difference is what most doctors want to do but, in the West, find difficult to achieve. Frank Huyler, the doctor-turned-author, is frank about this. He chose to work in emergency medicine, an unpopular specialty, because "it reminds you of the elemental forces we often don't see in the developed world". Even so, he told a reporter: "Most of what we do in the ER are really small moments, not life and death. Only some of the time does that happen and only some of the time can we do anything about it. A lot of the time, people who are going to die are going to die no matter what we do." So there we are. Killing people is simple. Curing them is more difficult. Caring, not curing, is what medicine is mostly about. But for some doctors, discovering their powerlessness can be a source of unhappiness.

Enter Radovan Karadzic: was Karadzic merely a doctor who ran a genocide, or did his profession as a doctor play a significant part in his genocidal role?

 

Are you trying to demean another profession, so you can make yourself feel better about your own?  Heart surgeons, for example, make dramatic differences in people's lives on a daily basis.  Only someone as deluded as you can think otherwise.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Freak on July 25, 2008, 04:20:12 PM
9 months as an attorney. Yes I'm glad I went.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: sigh mere on July 25, 2008, 05:19:46 PM

[...] it should not be forgotten that all doctors have less power over life and death than we believe and they like us to think.

The trouble with medicine in the modern Western world is that there is so little doctors can do. Miracle cures are as rare today as in biblical times. Most conditions presented to GPs in their surgeries are long-term, chronic complaints for which modern medicine offers no cure and not much in the way of treatment. Talk to any GP and you will hear a tale of frustration at the prospect of another packed surgery with patients who cannot be helped except with liberal doses of TLC (tender loving care), backed perhaps by a harmless prescription to make them feel their complaint is a genuine problem. It is difficult for doctors. They enter the profession with high expectations of healing the sick and curing disease, and they discover that reality is crueller. The major causes of ill health - diseases such as diphtheria, typhoid and polio - have long since been defeated by improved living conditions, vaccination and antibiotics. For modern ailments - failing hearts, stiffened joints, old age - there is little to offer.

[...]
 

Doctors are taught that while death is the enemy, it is also natural and inevitable, and not necessarily evil per se. Death quite literally can't be stopped, so the goal instead is to minimize suffering and the amount of "needless" or "premature" death. For the overwhelming majority of nurses and physicians, death remains a nasty adversary. But for the handful of practitioners who are inclined to turn homicidal, this familiarity with the Reaper, plus their training and practice, may make it easier, not harder, to kill. On the first day of class at almost every medical school in the world, new students are presented a reeking cadaver to dissect. Part of it is their first lesson in anatomy; most of it is their first lesson in getting used to death. Vomiting and fainting are not unusual first day reactions. But 3 months later they will be quite used to the sights and smells of death. Like the first day at medical school, a doctor's daily dealing with disease and death compels to learn how to disregard death for their mental survival, and in part, at least, inures them to the suffering that comes with any illness, injury or surgery. They literally get used to it. If they don't, they quit or go mad.

Similarly, because experimentation is an essential element of medical science and progress, the regular killing of animals and the testing of potentially lethal drugs and procedures on humans is common practice. You get accustomed to seeing some very bad stuff. Consider their ethics. They're quite real, but they are also very situational. They quite properly don't employ the same extreme measures to prolong the life of a terminal 95-year-old as they do when faced with a gravely ill child. When resources are limited, they try to get the most bang for the buck by focusing first on those who can be saved. This is the philosophical basis for triage, the standard emergency room and battlefield crisis practice of separating patients who can be saved from those who, to save the salvageable, must be "sacrificed" by neglect. Triage has saved countless lives over the centuries, but it's a relatively small leap from sacrifice by neglect to just sacrifice. For the homicidally inclined, "triage ethics" provide a handy rationalization for mere murder. Pretty soon, people who are suffering or merely inconvenient become unsalvageable. Finally, consider their personalities. Most of them are grounded, normal people. But messianic and visionary delusions come naturally with the medical territory. The everyday business of medicine creates a god complex in some practitioners that first blinds them, and then seduces them to view their deviltry as noble work toward higher purposes.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: n.ear on July 26, 2008, 06:00:48 PM

... it has more to do with power, power over life and death of another human being...


Not only is this a construction (playing with the word "power"), but it also does not quite relate to the medicine as a profession that much...
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: thegayismine on July 28, 2008, 10:49:27 AM

To all people posting here: medicine is a very hard field to work in. You even risk your own health sometimes (surgeons are constantly in danger of contracting deadly diseases via blood) not to mention the extremely long hours many doctors put. I had the opportunity to go about it some years back and I let go .. it's just not worth it when you think about the kind of people you'd be dealing with ... Doctors witness death and suffering on a daily basis and their work takes a toll on their private lives. Shift work is often necessary. Junior doctors frequently work weekends, holidays, and nights.


I'm pretty sure Tacoma is not talking about doctors here..
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: schel on July 30, 2008, 11:35:29 AM
You appear to be pretty sure about quite a few things, thegayismine ..
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: zile on July 31, 2008, 01:06:42 PM

[...] it should not be forgotten that all doctors have less power over life and death than we believe and they like us to think.

The trouble with medicine in the modern Western world is that there is so little doctors can do. Miracle cures are as rare today as in biblical times. Most conditions presented to GPs in their surgeries are long-term, chronic complaints for which modern medicine offers no cure and not much in the way of treatment. Talk to any GP and you will hear a tale of frustration at the prospect of another packed surgery with patients who cannot be helped except with liberal doses of TLC (tender loving care), backed perhaps by a harmless prescription to make them feel their complaint is a genuine problem. It is difficult for doctors. They enter the profession with high expectations of healing the sick and curing disease, and they discover that reality is crueller. The major causes of ill health - diseases such as diphtheria, typhoid and polio - have long since been defeated by improved living conditions, vaccination and antibiotics. For modern ailments - failing hearts, stiffened joints, old age - there is little to offer.

[...]
 

Doctors are taught that while death is the enemy, it is also natural and inevitable, and not necessarily evil per se. Death quite literally can't be stopped, so the goal instead is to minimize suffering and the amount of "needless" or "premature" death. [...]


Interesting, sighmere! I'd be interested to read more on!
Title: Foreign Doctors in the U.S: Is This Fair?
Post by: per hair on August 02, 2008, 12:58:45 PM

Honey, I've been a dirty stinky Indian all my life and I can tell ya it's not like that ... several friends of mine (poor, stinky Indian b i t c h e s, if you like!) have been able to get some pretty damn good residencies in the US.

A very dear friend of mine just recently began Rheumatology fellowship at a quite good hospital after having finished the 3-year Internal Medicine residency. It'll take 3 years for the fellowship to be completed and my friend is looking at some $200,000 per annum - not bad at all for someone who lived all the time in a city like Calcutta or Bombay! :)


July 03, 2008 18:35 IST

Professionals and graduates from elite British universities are making a beeline for India, thanks to its booming economy, closer trade relations between the two countries and numerous job opportunities there. Thousands of people face the prospect of losing their jobs due to the current credit crunch and a downturn in the British economy. A steep rise in the cost of living in recent months has further prompted professionals to look beyond borders. Fresh MBA graduates from the University of Oxford's Said Business School have taken the initiative to organise a recruitment fair in Mumbai on July 30 and 31. They have already received an enthusiastic response from potential recruiters. Apart from Britons and British-Asians seeking employment abroad, professionals leaving the country inlcude many among the recently arrived highly skilled migrants from Poland, Nigeria and Australia. The Institute of Public Policy Research says that they may have better job prospects back home, where they can also avoid Britains spiralling cost of living. Private hospitals in India often recruit doctors working in the National Health Service. These include Indian doctors who came to the UK some years ago and are now choosing to return home for better working conditions.

A recent survey revealed that British graduates were prepared to fill nearly 200,000 jobs in Indian call centres by 2009. Several Indian and British call centres recruit British graduates from regions that have large Asian population. Their accent helps them interact with British customers while working in call centres in India. For British Asians, working in Indian call centres has a double attraction  they get a job that helps them connect with their roots. A Scottish history graduate recently made news by quitting his job in Sky Television with an annual salary of 21,000 pounds to work in an Indian call centre. Officials at Oxfords Sad Business School told PTI that the recruitment event in Mumbai will offer Indian recruiters a unique opportunity to meet outstanding postgraduate student talent under one roof. One of the organisers, MBA student Tarun Dhillon, who has a background in Aerospace and Defence, said, "With the advent of India as a global business leader, many of the bright minds from Oxford look forward to taking on the business challenges in the booming Indian economy and to be part of India's success story."

"I am delighted with the level of interest from the class and we hope to engage with a range of companies in a variety of sectors. We hope this inaugural event will become an annual fixture in the School's recruitment calendar," Dhillon said. Simon Tankard, Head of Careers at the business school, said, "It is a fantastic opportunity for recruiters in India to get to know our students and for the students to learn about the organisations that interest them." "Many of our students are looking to high-flying international careers and we are delighted to support this student-led initiative that brings together the collective insight and connections of the organising group with the services and connections of the Business School." Another MBA student Deepti Gali said, "The buoyancy in the Indian economy is evident in the number of outbound cross border deals and the amount of private equity money flowing in." "I am sure working in India would provide a perfect platform from which to launch my post-MBA career."


Each year, developing nations spend $500 million to educate health care workers who leave to work in North America, Western Europe and South Asia. In other words, as the most recent issue of the JAMA puts it: "developing nations are subsidizing healthcare in wealthier nations." And we are not talking about a small clutch of physicians: close to 25% of U.S. doctors are foreign-born. According to JAMA, "These unchecked flows of health workers leave regions with the greatest health care needs the fewest workers...37% of the world's health care workers live in the Americas, predominantly in the United States and Canada, yet these countries carry only 10% of the global disease burden. In contrast, Africa is home to only 3% of the world’s healthcare workers, yet it has 24% of the global burden of disease."

Yet as the AMA points out, we don't have enough home-grown physicians to serve our needs here. Some 35 million Americans live in areas where there are not enough doctors. Nationwide, primary care doctors are in short supply, in large part because they are paid so much less than specialists. Medical students who know that they are going to be graduating with $100,000 in loans report that that they just can't afford to become internists or family doctors. Moreover, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation "the nationwide physician shortage is affecting rural and inner-city residents the most," and following 9/11, "restrictions put in place on foreign doctors who want to practice in the U.S." have made the situation worse. 13 years ago, the federal government began issuing J-1 visa waivers which allow foreign physicians to work in rural areas like Appalachia and the Mississippi Delta for 3-5 years and then seek permanent residency. But since, 2001, the government has hiked fees for the waivers, made tests that foreign doctors must take harder, and tightened rules determining what counts as an "underserved area." According to the GAO, the number of physicians in training with J-1 visa waivers declined by nearly half over the last 10 years, from 11,600 in the 1996-1997 academic year to fewer than 6,200 in the 2004-2005 academic year. In addition, in 2003 HHS took control of a Department of Agriculture foreign doctor program and has approved only 61 J-1 waivers since that time, according to the AP/Inquirer. The visa program is set to expire in 2008.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: per hair on August 02, 2008, 12:59:38 PM
We sorely need those doctors, advocates of the program say. Moreover, those who support opening our doors to more foreign physicians contend that by welcoming these doctors to our shores we might begin to curb runaway health care inflation. TPM Cafe contributor Dean Baker has argued, on more than occasion, that "increased competition from foreign professionals could lead to dramatic reductions in the salaries of workers in the highly paid professions." In a 2003 study Baker, who is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, estimates that by adding roughly 100,000 physicians to our current pool of about 760,000, we could pull doctors' salaries down from an average of $203,000 to somewhere between $74,000 and $126,000. For the average middle-class American family of four he reckons that would lead to savings of $2,200 to $3,700 per year. What he ignores is that, by and large, foreign doctors who work in the U.S. practice in a separate market. Indeed, an analysis of where these doctors work shows they are likely to be found in geographic areas where the physician-patient ratio is low and the rate of infant mortalities is high. Typically, they are found in rural areas where their visas have sent them and in inner cities where they treat the Medicaid patients that many American doctors refuse to see because Medicaid reimbursements are so very low. The fees Medicaid pays vary state by state, but Princeton health economist Uwe Reinhardt gives an example of just how parsimonious the government can be: "federal and state legislators may be willing to pay pediatricians $10 to see a poor child covered by Medicaid, but to pay the same pediatrician $50 or more to see these legislators’ own children in the commercial corner of the market."

As we noted recently on The Century Foundation's healthcare blog, Health Beat, even when foreign and American doctors practice in the same area, "medical apartheid" is the rule. In New York City, for example, well-insured white patients see one set of doctors, while minority and poor patients see another group, many of them foreign-born. Typically those doctors charge less (or are paid less by their employers.) In the late 1990s, when it seemed we had a surplus of physicians in this country, the AMA fretted that doctors emigrating from other countries might pull down physicians' salaries. Not to worry. While Medicare has put a brake on some doctors' incomes in recent years, foreign doctors have had little effect. What they charge low-income patients ultimately has no influence on what the market will bear at the high end—and that's the end that feeds health care inflation. Moreover, even if a flotilla of foreign docs could bring down medical fees -- is it fair to poach physicians from countries where tens of thousands of children are dying of treatable conditions? To put it as bluntly as possible, how many children are we willing to let die each year so that the average middle-class American family can save $2,000 to $3,700? Baker recognizes and addresses the ethical problem. His solution is to pay for the doctors we are taking: "it would be reasonable to expect that developing countries would want to recoup the costs of educating professionals who have left the country," he writes, "and it would be reasonable to expect that a rich nation like the United States would be willing to share some of the economic gains that it receives as a result of an increased supply of highly educated workers from poor nations."

But money won't replace able-bodied phsyicians. And in developing countries there are a very limited number of individuals who have had the necessary educational opportunities as children to prepare them to study medicine as young adults. Keep in mind that, in Africa, AIDS has wiped out tens of thousands of children and young adults who might have become health care workers. Moreover, as Laurie Garrett pointed out in Foreign Affairs earlier this year, thanks in part to Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett, "there are now are now billions of dollars being made available for health spending" in the developing world. "But much more than money is required," Garrett observes. "Decades of neglect have rendered local hospitals, clinics, laboratories, medical schools, and health talent dangerously deficient, much of the cash now flooding the field is leaking away without result. "The fact that the world is now short well over 4 million health-care workers s all too often ignored" she continues. "As the populations of the developed countries are aging and coming to require ever more medical attention, they are sucking away local health talent from developing countries." Garrett offers stark evidence of the "brain drain." For example, 604 out of 871 medical officers trained in Ghana between 1993 and 2002 now practice overseas. Zimbabwe trained 1,200 doctors during the 1990s, but only 360 remain in the country today. She also discusses how other developed countries are arranging short-term exchanges of physicians that could help train doctors from developing countries. And she describes a World Health Organization program designed to "eliminate recruitment of physicians in poor countries without the full approval of host governments... No such code exists in the United States," she adds, "but it should."

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/31/foreign_doctors_in_the_us_is_t
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: follow me on August 05, 2008, 09:34:57 PM

You appear to be pretty sure about quite a few things, thegayismine ..


Too many bold posts, I'd say.. Your avatar, schel, illustrates best the concept of "moderation" that some "members" of this board are better off applying...
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Q10 on August 06, 2008, 03:56:39 AM
HAHAHA follow me, I know what ya mean ;)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: trired on August 06, 2008, 01:15:11 PM
Completing a residency is a hard process that requires time and committment. You just can not allow such a great investment in your life slide away by not being 100% committed to studying for the exams and completing the residency. You've to pass the clearance process with the State board as well (not having been a drug addict in the past, not having been conducted for any drug-related crime, for the DEA licence). It requires much more committment than the law school process.
Title: FBI: Hospital Used Homeless As 'Human Pawns'
Post by: just sex on August 07, 2008, 08:57:48 PM
Don't get me started with doctors and their morals. Take a look here:

FBI: Hospital Used Homeless As 'Human Pawns'
Lawsuit alleges homeless were recruited to fake illnesses; CEO subject of 21-count indictment

By CARA MIA DIMASSA
and RICHARD WINTON

LOS ANGELES -- On a Sunday afternoon 2 years ago, 5 homeless people being dropped off on Los Angeles' Skid Row by an ambulance caught the attention of police officers. The officers videotaped what they thought was a case of hospitals dumping patients in a section of the city where few would notice or care. But as investigators began to unravel the incident, they say they found something far different: A massive scheme to defraud taxpayer-funded health-care programs of millions of dollars by recruiting homeless patients for unnecessary medical services. The elaborate enterprise churned thousands of indigents through hospitals over the past four years and billed Medicare and Medi-Cal for costly and unjustified medical procedures, federal, state and local investigators alleged Wednesday. The alleged conspiracy "ranged from street-level operatives to the chief executive of a hospital," said U.S. Attorney Thomas O'Brien.

Following raids on three hospitals in Los Angeles and Orange counties, one hospital chief executive was charged criminally, and executives at two other facilities were accused of fraudulent business practices in a related civil lawsuit filed by Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo. Some homeless patients were given tests or treatments that were potentially harmful, authorities said. The "depravity" of the alleged scheme startled authorities, said Salvador Hernandez, assistant director in charge of the FBI's Los Angeles office. "The defendants are accused of preying on the homeless and exploiting their desperate conditions for personal gain," he said. Arrested on federal charges were Dr. Rudra Sabaratnam, an owner and the chief executive of City of Angels hospital, and Estill Mitts, an alleged patient recruiter who operated a storefront facility called the Assessment Center in the heart of Skid Row. A 21-count grand jury indictment accuses the pair of health care fraud and receiving illegal kickbacks.

Mitts, who was released Wednesday afternoon on $25,000 bail and confined to his home, is also charged with money laundering and income tax evasion. Sabaratnam was held in custody until another hearing today. In addition to City of Angels hospital, agents earlier Wednesday swarmed Los Angeles Metropolitan Medical Center and Tustin Hospital and Medical Center. Pacific Health Corp., which operates both hospitals, said in a statement that it has cooperated with authorities and believes it will be cleared of any illegal conduct. Officials said the investigation is continuing and additional defendants are expected to be charged. The total amount of the fraud was still being tallied, but prosecutors said that Mitts' operation could have cost the government $11 million in improper payments and that City of Angels collected $5 million in federal health care reimbursements. Delgadillo sued the three hospitals, their operators and several others. The hospitals used unfair business practices to fill empty beds in a bid to boost their finances, the suit says. The privately owned medical centers allegedly worked with patient recruiting operations on Skid Row that plucked homeless people from the streets and delivered them with fake medical diagnoses to the hospitals.

According to court filings, "runners" or "stringers" on Skid Row looked for homeless recruits. Prospects were offered small sums of money, typically $20 or $30, to be paid upon completion of a hospital stay of one to three days. The street recruiter typically received $40 for each homeless recruit with Medicare eligibility and $20 for each recruit with Medi-Cal benefits, according to the city attorney. A person familiar with the workings of the alleged scheme told the Los Angeles Times last year that employees at the Assessment Center would recruit people on Skid Row to reach out to potential patients, who may or may not have needed medical treatment. The recruiters were paid between $25 and $200 a day; some patients were reimbursed for their time with money, food or a pack of cigarettes -- what was called an "incentive," according to the source, who spoke on the condition that he not be named. The source said that it didn't matter whether the patient was using drugs, or whether they had underlying psychiatric issues. Delgadillo said that patients received treatment for conditions such as dehydration, yeast infection and a cardiopulmonary disorder that "didn't exist."

One patient, referred to in the city attorney's lawsuit as "Recruit X," suffered from a mental disorder and was sent by the Assessment Center to all three of the medical centers. At one of the hospitals, the lawsuit says, the patient was given a nitroglycerin patch for a nonexistent cardiopulmonary condition, which caused a precipitous drop in her blood pressure. The treatment, said Delgadillo "put her in peril." Wednesday's crackdown sends a message that "those who would seek to defraud our health care system, and those who would callously exploit mentally impaired and drug addicted homeless men and women to turn a profit will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law," Delgadillo said. In addition to Mitts and Sabaratnam, the city attorney's civil lawsuit names Pacific Health Corp.; the corporation that operates Los Angeles Metropolitan Medical Center; its chief executive, John Fenton, and admitting physician Frederick Rundall; Tustin Hospital and Medical Center; its chief executive, Daniel Davis, Chief Financial Officer Vincent Rubio and admitting physicians Kenneth Thaler and Al-Reza Tajik. Also named are City of Angels Medical Center and Robert Borseau, an owner/officer with the company that operates the hospital. Most of the defendants could not be reached for comment. The Tustin hospital was allegedly guaranteed 40 to 50 patients a month while City of Angels got 25 to 30 patients month. Metropolitan Medical Center received patients whenever beds were available, according to the suit. City attorneys allege the admitting doctors -- Rundall, Thaler and Tajik -- did not see their patients until shortly before their discharge. City attorneys allege that for patient referrals, Mitts' group was paid $20,000 per month each from Metropolitan Medical Center and Tustin, while City of Angels paid between $400 to $1,000 a week to the recruiting group. The suit also alleges that the Tustin hospital's chief financial officer personally received a $3,500-a-month kickback from Mitts' group to ensure that Tustin continued to take homeless patients from the Skid Row center.
Title: Re: FBI: Hospital Used Homeless As 'Human Pawns'
Post by: s t u f f on August 08, 2008, 01:47:24 AM
Don't get me started with doctors and their morals. Take a look here:

FBI: Hospital Used Homeless As 'Human Pawns'
Lawsuit alleges homeless were recruited to fake illnesses; CEO subject of 21-count indictment


You've got to be kidding me, just sex - you are dissapointed with doctors because they may have used as pawns homeless people! Doctors and medical professionals are absolutely not champions in this field - how about intelligence agencies having conducted non-consensual human experiments (e.g., trauma-based mind control, etc).
Title: Psychiatrists Not Immune To Mental Illness—or Stigma
Post by: driven on August 08, 2008, 04:18:11 PM

Enter Radovan Karadzic: was Karadzic merely a doctor who ran a genocide, or did his profession as a doctor play a significant part in his genocidal role?


Psychiatrists may be more cognizant than most people of the devastating effects of stigmatizing the mentally ill, but that does not prevent them from suffering its consequences when they develop a mental illness. The stigma attached to mental illness is certainly not an abstract concept to psychiatrists. Their patients deal with it almost every day. But psychiatrists can be startled by how devastating stigma can really be when they are the ones on the receiving end. When those psychiatrists are also members of a minority group, coping with and overcoming the effects of stigma add difficult, and often unexpected, challenges to the recovery process. Three psychiatrists who have endured stigma from the public as well as their medical colleagues participated in an APA annual meeting workshop cosponsored by the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill. The psychiatrists described the anguish they experienced as they tried to recover from mental illness and overcome stigmatizing behavior.

Michelle Clark, M.D., began to experience some classic symptoms of major depression several years ago after a serious physical illness, but despite being an experienced psychiatrist who has treated many people with depression, she convinced herself that her symptoms were not signs that she needed treatment, but the result of the stress she was under. A psychiatrist colleague at the University of California, San Francisco, where Clark is an associate clinical professor and has developed culture-based treatment programs, noticed her symptoms and eventually prescribed an SSRI for her, Clark said. She began to improve. Even after she acknowledged that she was suffering from depression, her family "remained clueless," about what the illness entailed and how some of her behaviors were manifestations of it. It took a long time, Clark emphasized, but she finally realized that the stigma attached to having a mental illness, added to the stigma that comes with being African American in this country, left her in the position of "colluding with" the stigmatizers. She came away from the experience with a vivid picture of how stigma and the resulting failure to recognize symptoms that would have been evident in patients she treats had slowed her recovery process.

Suzanne Vogel-Scibilia, M.D., is also familiar with the devastating effects of stigma, having had bipolar illness so severe since she was a child that she has had several psychotic episodes. After the birth of her third child, she told the workshop audience, she experienced a period of catatonia. Now medical director of a consumer-run mental health center in Beaver, Pa., Vogel-Scibilia stressed that psychiatrists who are minority-group members can in fact confront a triple stigma—that of being a minority, a person with mental illness, and, in some communities, a psychiatrist. She believes that as a psychiatry resident with a serious mental illness, she also was stigmatized by supervisors and other residents. One residency supervisor, she said, told her that other residents believed she needed ECT. While that supervisor agreed that such a response was "probably overkill," he advised Vogel-Scibilia to "stay away" until her symptoms abated and she was no longer "scaring the other residents," she said. Too many physicians, and particularly psychiatrists, are convinced they’re immune from mental illness, she said. When it strikes, an additional source of stigma often keeps psychiatrists and mental health professionals from acknowledging it and getting treatment. That, she stated, is the belief that many people inside and outside of medicine harbor that a mentally ill psychiatrist "must have done something to cause it or isn’t qualified to be a psychiatrist." When a clinician is part of a minority group, it gives people an additional reason to distance that person from other psychiatrists, Vogel-Scibilia suggested, since it supplies some people with a reason to explain why a psychiatrist can end up with a mental illness.

She also warned that mentally ill psychiatrists should not expect to find empathy in the "ex-patient community." Many of those former patients refuse to view psychiatrists with mental illness as part of them, harboring resentment from what they consider to have been coercive medical treatment. Vogel-Scibilia calls these psychiatrists who have or have had mental illness "prosumers"—a blend of providers and consumers—and urged them to look for support in several arenas. These include through APA, which puts on educational workshops such as this one, and through the AMA, which is "welcoming of consumer-providers, especially those with minority status," she said. One of the worst things psychiatrists can do in response to having suffered a mental illness, she stressed, is to change the way they practice. Doing so "becomes a knife you've sharpened for others to use." A few years ago, when he worked at a Pennsylvania hospital, Raymond Reyes, M.D., refused to order restraints for a nonpsychotic patient who was exhibiting disruptive behavior. His refusal got him in hot water with his supervisor. Reyes, a son of Phillipine immigrants, wondered whether he would have taken such a stand if he had not suffered from a mental illness himself. Reyes explained that he has suffered from dysthymia and major depression, first realizing that he needed psychiatric treatment after he graduated from residency and joined the Air Force, where he supervised an inpatient unit.

After believing that as a physician he was expected to be "stoic" about his depression symptoms, he told a superior at the air base that he needed treatment. He asked the superior, who was also his friend, to treat him. "That ended both the friendship and our working relationship," Reyes said. At that point he had second thoughts about whether he should have put himself on the line by admitting he had a serious psychiatric disorder, but he explained that he didn’t want to self-medicate or "do anything under the table." He said that he has identified one "silver lining" in his continuing battle with mental illness, namely, that he has even more empathy with other people suffering from similar disorders than he might otherwise. He wonders, he noted, whether he would have refused to restrain that patient in Pennsylvania if he had not seen mental illness from the inside. He currently works at a community mental health center in Solano County, Calif. Workshop cochair Michael Myers, M.D., pointed out, "We have a long way to go in the house of medicine" when psychiatrists and other physicians with mental illness are still forced to overcome stigma directed at them by their colleagues. 
Title: Trauma-based Mind Control
Post by: isaura on August 10, 2008, 07:31:57 PM

You've got to be kidding me, just sex - you are dissapointed with doctors because they may have used as pawns homeless people! Doctors and medical professionals are absolutely not champions in this field - how about intelligence agencies having conducted non-consensual human experiments (e.g., trauma-based mind control, etc).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZME1aZ7E7w



Conditioning

As far as I understand it (which admittedly is nothing close to first-hand experience), trauma-based mind control is kind of similar to the whole favorite-album phenomenon. The idea is basically that you condition the mind according to certain stimuli. When you experience a sensory trigger, a correlated interior state is achieved. The most common example of this is called Classical or Pavlovian Conditioning:

Quote
Classical Conditioning is the type of learning made famous by Pavlov's experiments with dogs. The gist of the experiment is this: Pavlov presented dogs with food, and measured their salivary response (how much they drooled). Then he began ringing a bell just before presenting the food. At first, the dogs did not begin salivating until the food was presented. After a while, however, the dogs began to salivate when the sound of the bell was presented. They learned to associate the sound of the bell with the presentation of the food. As far as their immediate physiological responses were concerned, the sound of the bell became equivalent to the presentation of the food.

Other types of behavioral conditioning exist as well, with "operant conditioning" relating to the reinforcement or punishing of behavior. For our current purposes though, the easiest way to understand all this is through Pavlov's dogs salivating when they hear a bell, or us being flooded by emotions when we hear a song we've not heard for many years.

Trauma & Dissociation

Now, listening to a record over and over may be a lot of fun, but it's not the most significant physical stimulus available to us. Extremes of pleasure and pain may go well beyond that, triggering far greater physiological responses and long-term effects. Imagine instead of listening to a record over and over again, you are severely beaten repeatedly, or subjected to electric shocks. And at varying intervals to this, you are in turn sexually abused. Maybe this goes on for months or years. It's not very difficult to imagine that such events would seriously contort your psyche in unimaginable ways. Especially if these things were combined and overlaid with other types of classical and operant conditioning. For a creepy elaboration of this, check out Beth Goobie's article, "The Network of Stolen Consciousness." Goobie claims to be the survivor of a systematic process of mind control. Before we delve too deeply into that stuff though, let's look at one very real and verifiable facet of traumatic experience which Goobie discusses:

Quote
Dissociation is commonly experienced during trauma. Rape and traffic accident survivors describe out-of-body experiences during which they float above their bodies and watch terrifying activities transpire below. This experience occurs naturally, whether the actual trauma is a fluke occurrence or a calculated torture session.

This same phenomenon can be seen in many near-death experiences. It sounds crazy when you talk about it in terms of mind-control stuff, but what about if we turn to a "legitimate" psychological source, discussing trauma and dissociation:

Quote
Technically, dissociation is a mental process which produces a lack of connection in a person's thoughts, memories, feelings, actions, or sense of identity. When a person is dissociating, certain information is not associated with other information as it normally would be. For example, during a traumatic experience, a person may dissociate the memory of the place and circumstances of the trauma from his ongoing memory, resulting in a temporary mental escape from the fear and pain of the trauma and, in some cases, a memory gap surrounding the experience. Because this process can produce changes in memory, people who frequently dissociate often find their senses of personal history and identity are affected.

[...] Dissociative disorders develop under fairly consistent circumstances. When faced with overwhelmingly traumatic situations from which there is no physical escape, a child may resort to "going away" in his or her head. This ability is typically used by children as an extremely effective defense against acute physical and emotional pain, or anxious anticipation of that pain. By this dissociative process, thoughts, feelings, memories, and perceptions of the traumatic experiences can be separated off psychologically, allowing the child to function as if the trauma had not occurred.

Dissociation is often referred to as a highly creative survival technique because it allows individuals enduring "hopeless" circumstances to preserve some areas of healthy functioning. Over time, however, for a child who has been repeatedly physically and sexually assaulted, defensive dissociation becomes reinforced and conditioned. Because the dissociative escape is so effective, children who are very practiced at it may automatically use it whenever they feel threatened or anxious — even if the anxiety-producing situation is not abusive. Often, even after the traumatic circumstances are long past, the left-over pattern of defensive dissociation remains

Goobie describes virtually this same thing in her article. But rather than it being an accidental coping mechanism, she discusses quasi-occult techniques which systematically take advantage of this otherwise natural tendency of dissociation during trauma. She describes doctors, programmers and handlers who brutally abused her, and combined it with elaborate systems of guided imagery and other types of conditioning. As a result, her personality was fragmented into "alters" which were largely unaware of one another, and each of which had it’s own personality, training and purpose.

Autonomous Complexes & Possession

The basic idea is that triggers are set up during the traumatic programming which can later be used to initiate dissociation of the main personality, allowing one of the alters to take control. The concept, at its core, is really no different from what Jung termed "complexes":

Quote
"Complexes are autonomous groups of associations that have a tendency to move by themselves, to live their own life apart from our intentions. I hold that our personal unconscious as well as the collective unconscious, consists of an indefinite, because unknown, number of complexes or fragment personalities."

What we call the ego is thought to be just one of many complexes which make up the mind. Jung's student Marie Louise Von Franz also writes:

Quote
"Even an unconscious complex can make an act of volition or decide or arrange something, as an ego can. In a way, there are as many little egos as there are autonomous complexes in a human being; like the sun among the stars, the ego complex rules [...]

Not coincidentally, these other complexes may spontaneously take over during moments of extreme stress or trauma. Von Franz writes:

Quote
"That happens when you get into a state in which you are not yourself, or into an emotional upset where you lose control of yourself, but afterwards wake up completely sober and look at the stupid things you did during your possessed state and wonder what got into you: something got hold of you, you weren’t yourself, though while you were behaving like that, you thought you were - it was just as if an evil spirit or the devil had got into you.

These things one must not just take in a kind of colloquial amusing way, but quite literally, for a devil - or we would say, more neutrally, an autonomous complex - temporarily replaces the ego complex; it feels like the ego at the time, but it isn’t, for afterwards, when dissociated from it, one cannot understand how one came to do or think such things.”

[These and other related quotes and theories can be explored at these two articles I wrote - Also check out "Multiple Personality and the Holographic Mind"]

Mind Control, Then & Now

The point I'm trying to make with all this is that for countless millenia, humans have known about the dissociative tendency of the human mind. It's understood by different models in different cultures of course. Nowadays we might say dissociative identity order is related to trauma. But in medieval times, they might have said that self-flagellation brings you closer to god. In another culture, a shaman might drum and dance to the point of exhaustion so that he could enter the world of the spirits. In Voodoo, practitioners too become "mounted" by gods. Even modern day "magickians" use similar techniques. In his article Pop Magic! Grant Morrison talks about "charging" a sigil, which is a magical symbol created for fulfillment of a specific purpose.

Quote
To charge your sigil you must concentrate on its shape, and hold that form in your mind as you evacuate all other thoughts. Almost impossible, you might say, but the human body has various mechanisms for inducing brief no-mind' states. Fasting, spinning, intense exhaustion, fear, sex, the fight-or-flight response will all do the trick. I have charged sigils while bungee-jumping, lying dying in a hospital bed, experiencing a total solar eclipse and dancing to Techno.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: isaura on August 10, 2008, 07:41:00 PM
Morrison also suggests that another critically useful moment for magical working is the 'no-mind' state experienced during the moment of orgasm: At the moment of orgasm, the mind blinks. Into this blink, this abyssal crack in perception, a sigil can be launched. What I'm trying to say with all this is that all of this has been known and actively used throughout all of human history. It's not always been phrased the same way, but it's pretty much never gone out of style. As a result, there's no reason to assume that suddenly these techniques have disappeared off the face of the earth. I think it was Jacques Ellul who said that technology always expands to fill all its potential uses. And make no mistake about it, these techniques are a technology, and they have undoubtedly been put to negative uses at some conceivable point.

Brain-Change

Does that necessarily mean there is a vast Illuminati network of ritual abuse and mind control? I won't pretend to have the answer there. But I do think we can quite readily find evidence that such techniques have been used with great effectiveness for the purposes of "mind-control" throughout human history. Although, maybe "brain-change" is a slightly more neutral term. For evidence of how this works, we need look no farther than our recent discussion of primitive rites of passage. A commenter on Rigorous Intuition also left a useful description of these events, which we can use to summarize here:

Quote
Melanesian, or Aboriginal, rites of passage begin with a separation of the boys from their mothers. They are brought to a place they have never been. They recognize nothing. They are treated strangely, perhaps dressed in women's clothes. They are often drugged. Everything that happens to them in this liminal state is meant to completely erase whatever they knew and learned before - mother knowledge, if you will, which is considered inappropriate for an adult male.

When the initiation ceremonies reach their peak, the boys are marked in some way - some tribes burn the skin, or use tatooing. When the adult males consider the initiation to be complete, the boys are brought back to the village and use their adult names, and are accepted as adult men. The attachment to the mother (and feminine ways) is forever broken. While the author of that comment goes on to suggest these rites have nothing to do with "mind-control" I tend to disagree. Formalized rites of passage are intentional cultural conditioning rituals. They take people whose minds are at moments of imprint vulnerability, and subject them to an ordeal which fundamentally and purposely changes their identity and relationship to society. What we call mind control - once you strip away the sci-fi Illuminati trappings - is fundamentally no different from this. Especially noteworthy in this discussion is the importance of ritualized trauma (especially involving the sex organs). Being subjected to extreme sensory stimulus causes a point of dissociation. The mind blinks off. And in traditional cultures, this momentary gap is filled then with a new cultural mythos. The initiate undergoing the rite of passage is inculcated at this moment with the new story and correlated teachings which will allow them to take on a new functional role in society.

Trauma-based mind control would function according to this same general principle, except it would continually repeat and reinforce the conditioning for a long period of time. Whether or not the CIA/shadow government uses such techniques, you can bet your sweet bippy they are used on us routinely and ruthlessly by various other parties (intentionally or not). Spend 12 years being forced to sit still in school - a supremely unnatural and traumatic series of highly repetitive events for mammals. Then go home and watch the same commercials and television shows endlessly. Make no mistake about it, ritualized trauma-based mind control and conditioning are very real things which we all have a great deal of firsthand experience in. Most people nowadays just call it "education," "entertainment" or "work" though - in true Orwellian fashion.

Generational Trauma

I believe there are also events which act as generational trauma-events, opening up the possibility of radical conditioning on a mass scale. Whether or not these events are committed with such purposes in mind, they seem to be invariably used by those in power for this purpose. Jeff Wells recently posted an excellent quote by a JFK assassination researcher, which raises the possibility that these events are indeed crafted with specific purposes in mind:

Quote
Don't you think the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: "We are in control and no one not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official - no one can do anything about it." It was a message to the people that their government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message

The barbarously public JFK assassination sent this message to the generation previous to us, our parents, who now have grown old. The possibility exists that this message needed to be updated for our generation - the young people moving upwards in the world today, coming into positions of power. None of us lived through the JFK, RFK or MLK assassinations, but for those who did, it left an indelible mark on their psyche. You could protest all you want, and achieve great progress, but ultimately it was fruitless. You go too far and you will be killed. Since most of us don't even learn history in school anymore, the speculative powers-that-be might have decided to revive these tactics. I wonder if 9/11 was actually a sort of culture-wide initiation - trauma-based mind control on a mass scale. Though for most of us it was a vicarious experience (in other words, it reached a huge audience), it was a particularly brutal one which forever transformed us as a result. Whether or not you believe that 9/11 was a "staged" event, it's inescapable that the government well understood this was a point of "imprint vulnerability." Do you remember watching it all unfold on television and feeling somehow like it "wasn't real"? That's a crucial symptom of traumatic dissociation. Your mind splits, blinks off for a moment, creating a critical space which can be filled with a new story, a new mythos. Before that, almost none of us gave a *&^% about terrorism or national security. But as a result of this trauma-based rite of passage, we were suddenly conditioned to a completely new value system - one in which everything we held dear before was turned upside-down: personal freedom, the Bill of Rights, etc. It's virtually identical to what happens to a child in a traditional culture who is re-aligned to adulthood through ritual circumcision and the supporting transformative mythos. Maybe the WTC tumbling down was the ritual circumcision of the American psyche. We are now adults. We are now warriors.

Survival & Recovery

All is not lost of course. It never is. Just because somebody else either designed or exploited a moment of trauma to push their agenda on you, you're still the one in charge of what happens as a result. Ran Prieur makes an excellent point about how 9/11 effected different people in various ways:

Quote
For me, it was liberating, like a near-death experience. That was the day I started going barefoot in the city, and started standing up to my temp agency, which got me fired two weeks later. I was surprised that it had the opposite effect on the culture at large, making people more fearful, narrow-minded, and generally emotionally contractive.

Also, in relation to the conspiracy theory wet-dream that is mind control, it's important to look at where most of our information comes from. It comes from people like Beth Goobie, like Kathleen Sullivan, like Cathy O'Brien, people who are mind control survivors. Whether or not you "believe" their experiences, these are people who have committed themselves to a process of public healing and recovery. They are, if nothing else, a testament to the notion that no matter what trauma has happened to you in the past, you can move beyond it. It may be an intense struggle, but hell, so is life. As Derek Gilbert pointed out, the point of life is not getting your ass kicked, but in getting your ass kicked and picking yourself up and moving on. Becoming aware of weird *&^% like this can either freak you out, or it can be a wake-up call about how things work. Once you understand the techniques that are being applied, there's nothing to stop you from using them yourself. You can go back into your life and use this knowledge. Heck, you probably already do when you listen to a new album over and over again. You're subtly conditioning yourself to forever associate it with your life at this moment. The most effective mind control agent in the world is not only on your side: it's you. Sometimes the hardest thing in life is accepting responsibility for yourself.
Title: Dr. Karadzic in Custody
Post by: cameo on August 11, 2008, 09:52:11 AM

Enter Radovan Karadzic: was Karadzic merely a doctor who ran a genocide, or did his profession as a doctor play a significant part in his genocidal role?


Psychiatrists may be more cognizant than most people of the devastating effects of stigmatizing the mentally ill, but that does not prevent them from suffering its consequences when they develop a mental illness. The stigma attached to mental illness is certainly not an abstract concept to psychiatrists. Their patients deal with it almost every day. But psychiatrists can be startled by how devastating stigma can really be when they are the ones on the receiving end. When those psychiatrists are also members of a minority group, coping with and overcoming the effects of stigma add difficult, and often unexpected, challenges to the recovery process. Three psychiatrists who have endured stigma from the public as well as their medical colleagues participated in an APA annual meeting workshop cosponsored by the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill. The psychiatrists described the anguish they experienced as they tried to recover from mental illness and overcome stigmatizing behavior.

Michelle Clark, M.D., began to experience some classic symptoms of major depression several years ago after a serious physical illness, but despite being an experienced psychiatrist who has treated many people with depression, she convinced herself that her symptoms were not signs that she needed treatment, but the result of the stress she was under. A psychiatrist colleague at the University of California, San Francisco, where Clark is an associate clinical professor and has developed culture-based treatment programs, noticed her symptoms and eventually prescribed an SSRI for her, Clark said. She began to improve. Even after she acknowledged that she was suffering from depression, her family "remained clueless," about what the illness entailed and how some of her behaviors were manifestations of it. It took a long time, Clark emphasized, but she finally realized that the stigma attached to having a mental illness, added to the stigma that comes with being African American in this country, left her in the position of "colluding with" the stigmatizers. She came away from the experience with a vivid picture of how stigma and the resulting failure to recognize symptoms that would have been evident in patients she treats had slowed her recovery process.

Suzanne Vogel-Scibilia, M.D., is also familiar with the devastating effects of stigma, having had bipolar illness so severe since she was a child that she has had several psychotic episodes. After the birth of her third child, she told the workshop audience, she experienced a period of catatonia. Now medical director of a consumer-run mental health center in Beaver, Pa., Vogel-Scibilia stressed that psychiatrists who are minority-group members can in fact confront a triple stigma—that of being a minority, a person with mental illness, and, in some communities, a psychiatrist. She believes that as a psychiatry resident with a serious mental illness, she also was stigmatized by supervisors and other residents. One residency supervisor, she said, told her that other residents believed she needed ECT. While that supervisor agreed that such a response was "probably overkill," he advised Vogel-Scibilia to "stay away" until her symptoms abated and she was no longer "scaring the other residents," she said. Too many physicians, and particularly psychiatrists, are convinced they’re immune from mental illness, she said. When it strikes, an additional source of stigma often keeps psychiatrists and mental health professionals from acknowledging it and getting treatment. That, she stated, is the belief that many people inside and outside of medicine harbor that a mentally ill psychiatrist "must have done something to cause it or isn’t qualified to be a psychiatrist." When a clinician is part of a minority group, it gives people an additional reason to distance that person from other psychiatrists, Vogel-Scibilia suggested, since it supplies some people with a reason to explain why a psychiatrist can end up with a mental illness.

She also warned that mentally ill psychiatrists should not expect to find empathy in the "ex-patient community." Many of those former patients refuse to view psychiatrists with mental illness as part of them, harboring resentment from what they consider to have been coercive medical treatment. Vogel-Scibilia calls these psychiatrists who have or have had mental illness "prosumers"—a blend of providers and consumers—and urged them to look for support in several arenas. These include through APA, which puts on educational workshops such as this one, and through the AMA, which is "welcoming of consumer-providers, especially those with minority status," she said. One of the worst things psychiatrists can do in response to having suffered a mental illness, she stressed, is to change the way they practice. Doing so "becomes a knife you've sharpened for others to use." A few years ago, when he worked at a Pennsylvania hospital, Raymond Reyes, M.D., refused to order restraints for a nonpsychotic patient who was exhibiting disruptive behavior. His refusal got him in hot water with his supervisor. Reyes, a son of Phillipine immigrants, wondered whether he would have taken such a stand if he had not suffered from a mental illness himself. Reyes explained that he has suffered from dysthymia and major depression, first realizing that he needed psychiatric treatment after he graduated from residency and joined the Air Force, where he supervised an inpatient unit.

After believing that as a physician he was expected to be "stoic" about his depression symptoms, he told a superior at the air base that he needed treatment. He asked the superior, who was also his friend, to treat him. "That ended both the friendship and our working relationship," Reyes said. At that point he had second thoughts about whether he should have put himself on the line by admitting he had a serious psychiatric disorder, but he explained that he didn’t want to self-medicate or "do anything under the table." He said that he has identified one "silver lining" in his continuing battle with mental illness, namely, that he has even more empathy with other people suffering from similar disorders than he might otherwise. He wonders, he noted, whether he would have refused to restrain that patient in Pennsylvania if he had not seen mental illness from the inside. He currently works at a community mental health center in Solano County, Calif. Workshop cochair Michael Myers, M.D., pointed out, "We have a long way to go in the house of medicine" when psychiatrists and other physicians with mental illness are still forced to overcome stigma directed at them by their colleagues. 


(http://www.srpska.ru/articles/2511/karadzic11%20(1).JPG)

Glas Javnosti reports that the investigative judge Milan Dilparic, the first official who talked to Dr. Karadzic late Monday night, when he was brought to him for hearing at 1 a.m, thought former president of Bosnian Serb republic was calm and respectful. That night, during the hearing that lasted hour and a half, Dr. Karadzic informed the judge he was not arrested on July 21 around 10 p.m, as the official story goes, but at 9:30 p.m. on July 18, on a city bus No. 73. "Karadzic was cooperative during the hearing. He was not afraid. He was calm and composed, and fully cooperated with the investigative officials. He wasn't presenting his defense regarding the charges by the Hague at the time, because that is not the part of procedure", Glas source from Belgrade Special Court revealed.

The employees of the Special Court, where Radovan Karadzic is held in custody, say that Bosnian Serb leader is a true gentleman. "He is a decent man, a highly educated scholar with a soaring intelligence, and not some quasi-intellectual", Special Court official said. He decisively denied malicious claims by the Bosnian Muslim daily Dnevni avaz, which reported that Karadzic "had asked for antidepressant pills in prison". "That is an absolute lie. We are checking his health every morning in the custodial unit and the investigative judge comes to receive report by the head of the custodial unit about Radovan Karadzic's condition. Such allegations are complete fabrications: Karadzic is perfectly healthy, both physically and mentally, and he sleeps well", Glas source from the Special Court is categorical. He added that Karadzic expressed a wish to have visits only by the family members and those who will take part in the preparation of his defense. "He told us he wishes to have visits only by the family members and by those who will help him prepare his defense. We are receiving over a million requests each day from those who want to see him, but the investigative judge who is making decisions about that has only approved visits by the family members and the lawyers," Special Court representative said.
Title: Re: Trauma-based Mind Control
Post by: pregap on August 11, 2008, 12:31:22 PM


[...]

[These and other related quotes and theories can be explored at these two articles I wrote - Also check out "Multiple Personality and the Holographic Mind"]

[...]


Can you direct us to some site where we can order this book?
Title: Re: “You Have to be a Surgeon with Testicles”
Post by: caribou on August 12, 2008, 11:40:32 AM

[...]

As to surgeons:

Nasstasjia, actually 1½ years out of medical school and awaiting a surgical residency says how while performing a hernia operation, the supervising surgeon told her "You have the skills but if you want to remain a woman in a man's world, you have to be a surgeon with testicles!!!! Or don't be a surgeon at all!!!"

Deeply offensive chauvinistic and sexist tones when surgery as a residency is concerned. Surgeons may indeed be more egotistical than other doctors -- their rapport with patients tends to be worse than other doctors. While this egotism may motivate some surgeons to work for their patients, I cannot believe that it is, or should be, the primary motivator for surgeons in general. Egotism my help in some instances, but it will also be counter-productive in other instances. Competence is certainly very important for surgeons, and confidence can be one of many aspects that has a bearing on this. Generally the best surgeons in most specialties are the ones who have performed the greatest number of procedures, therefore confidence and familiarity must be relevant. Egotism is something very different, and I believe that competence with humility is much more desirable since egotism and arrogance can lead to mistakes and coverups. Women can be excellent surgeons and "manliness" is not a requisite trait. It's just that medical students and residents are still being innundated with sexist attitudes.

A close friend of mine was the top student in anatomy and had a strong aptitude for spatial reasoning. Some thought that he should naturally be a surgeon including some in the surgery department. He did not like the competetive and often mean social atmosphere and made a different choice. For many years he wondered if he had missed his calling. He sees now clearly, however, that he would have never made a good surgeon despite the intellectual aptitude for the anatomical/technical aspects. He is much more at home with clinical work that benefits from reflection and patience. The chauvinistic traditions in surgery serve a useful function in forcing a self-selection of just the personality type most suited to the work. Specialty selection in medicine is largely a matter of matching personality to work, residents all pretty much have the aptitude to learn any of it. It would be interesting to see more research on personality and specialty selection in this regard. The flip side of the egotism allowing surgeons to make bold and irreversible decisions is that they make sometimes unavoidingly wrong decisions. That, of course, comes with a price.


I do not know what the hours and pay is in other countries, but in the United States many resident physicians routinely work more than 100 hours a week. It appears long hours are a necessary rite of passage, while at the same time an obsolete practice that endangers patients. Before Risa Moriarty resigned her plastic surgery residency 2½ years into a seven-year program at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, she was routinely working 110-130 hours per week, and sometimes worked a 60-hour shift. That's 3 days and 2 nights on call in the hospital with no sleep other than brief, catch-as-catch-can naps. "It takes an altered state of mind to get through it." she says. "Residency turns you into a very efficient machine. "I stayed longer than I should have," says Moriarty, now an executive at HealthCite Inc. in Baltimore. "It was a difficult decision to make and one that I spent a lot of time thinking about. I considered changing to another specialty, but I was just completely burned out." She is not alone in her reaction to the relentlessly long work hours in some hospitals. She believes many physicians are bitter, even the older ones. "After I resigned, two attending physicians called me and said they were envious of my decision.

"Medicine is a militaristic culture," says Moriarty. "It's a hierarchical, macho fraternity, and hospitals hide behind the argument that doctors know best." Older doctors who went through the same rite of passage may believe that it weeds out those who don't have "the right stuff." However, Moriarty points out that modern-day residents probably are seeing 50 to 60 patients in a 100-hour workweek -- versus 20 in 1950 -- and the patients present a significantly more complex workload than in the past. Staying awake 24 hours impairs cognitive psychomotor performance, to the same degree as having a. 0.1 percent blood alcohol level, according to a study published in the journal Nature. That is above many states legal driving limits, which range from 0.04 percent to 0.1%. Sleep-deprived resident physicians can be a danger to themselves as well as to their patients. The American Medical Students Association says that residents who work excessive hours have high rates of motor vehicle accidents, depression and complications during pregenancy. The Boston, Va.-based group put together. "A Primer to Resident work Hours: A Patients-Safety Concern," arguing that. "This archaic practice of overworking residents has become useless in the current medical setting. Latching on to this tradition at the expense of patient safety is morally questionable." The paper cites studies linking sleep deprivation medical misdiagnosis.

Risa Morjarty, who resigned her plastic surgery residency 2½ years into a 7-year program, says teaching hospitals systems of checks and balances are not always adequate to catch treatment errors attributable to overly tired medical personnel. For example, residents frequently in central intravenous lines, which develop complications in one out of 200 patients. "If a sleep-deprived resident makes an mistake, it's hard to prove in court," because usually it can be explained as a know complication of the procedure. As many as 100,000-people die annually from preventable medical accidents, according to the institute of Medicine (IOM), a Washington, D.C.-based society chartered by Congress to advise the government. At 1999, IOM report, To Err Is Human Building a Safer Health System found that most medical errors are caused by basic flaws in the hospitals, clinics and pharmactes operate, no by individual carelessness. But "common sense tells us that medical errors as a result of sleep deprivation must have happened," says Elien Wertherimer a professor who teach medical malpractice law at villanova University School of Law in Philadelpha. "However the documentation simply isn't there." Wertheimer says one of her students last year wanted to do a research project on he topic. "He eventually had to give up because he couldn't find the documentation. It's a great human resource issue."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3495/is_2_47/ai_83058908
Title: Re: Now brain drain from Britain to India
Post by: célibataire endurci on August 13, 2008, 11:15:50 AM

[...] These include Indian doctors who came to the UK some years ago and are now choosing to return home for better working conditions. [...]


I'm wondering what was it that sounded so strange about it??
Title: Re: Doctors exploited; patients suffer, too
Post by: hitch on August 14, 2008, 01:10:30 PM

No doubt about it, besame. Even moreso if we'd be talking about foreign doctors looking to practice in the US. A government program to address a national health care crisis by placing foreign doctors in America's rural towns and inner cities is being undermined by employers - mostly U.S. doctors who profit by exploiting the physicians and diverting them from the patients who need them. Stories of abuses within the program, which receives little government oversight, are whispered among foreign doctors in hospital corridors, reported online and heard by colleagues in foreign medical schools. And the abuse appears to be a primary reason that fewer of them are participating in the program. Some of the foreign doctors are cheated financially and worked to dangerous levels of exhaustion, and they can't easily escape the jobs because the employers sponsor their visas. The doctors are sharing their experiences with colleagues back home - in places such as Ghana, Haiti, India and Pakistan - who are now finding other paths to U.S. residency to avoid being bullied and treated as indentured servants.

The dire consequences of the program's problems may be no clearer than in the Nevada town of Beatty, population 1,154, "the gateway to Death Valley." The community is about to lose its only doctor, who is from the Philippines. She has fulfilled her commitment under the government program, and the non-profit organization that runs the clinic, Nevada Health Centers, has had no luck finding a replacement. Nevada Health Centers by all accounts treats the doctors fairly and as intended under the law. Several years ago, it was receiving about 100 applications a month from foreign physicians for openings at its 27 clinics. But now it gets no applications and recruiting efforts have been fruitless. The government program, adopted by Congress, is known both as the J-1 visa waiver program and the Conrad 30 program, for its author, Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D. It makes immigration concessions for foreign medical school graduates who are nearing the end of their medical residency training in the United States. The foreign doctors hold J-1 visas, which require them to return home when they finish their residency. If they return home, they must stay there for at least 2 years, and if they want to return to the United States, they must start the immigration process all over again.

Rather than go home after their medical training, foreign physicians can qualify for J-1 waivers to stay in the United States as long as they commit to at least 3 years of service in a federally designated physician shortage area - usually a rural or blighted urban area. And at the end of the term, these J-1 doctors can begin the U.S. residency process. About 3,100 foreign doctors participate in the program, a number that is declining year by year. Nationally, doctors who come from foreign medical schools say they are forgoing the J-1 visa for what they consider a more attractive option, called the H-1 visa. The H-1 visa takes more steps to acquire and limits where a doctor can do residency training, but it leads more quickly to a "green card." The downside for rural and inner city America is that the H-1 visa, unlike the J-1 visa, does not require foreign doctors to return home for 2 years after they finish their training. That eliminates any motive for foreign doctors to commit to 3 years of service in a medically underserved area. Nationwide, the numbers of J-1 visas and requests for waivers to work in underserved areas are plummeting, according to the statistics available.

J-1 doctors say that because of the buzz around the program in the international physician community, some medical residents are waiting longer for H-1 visas or, if they can get only a J-1 visa, are returning home for 2 years instead of taking a waiver to work in an underserved area. Dr. Wahab Brobbey, a J-1 doctor in Iowa who told the Sun he was exploited by his previous employer in Tennessee, said he advised his cousin and other medical school classmates to avoid the J-1 visa. The cousin is now doing his residency on an H-1 visa. "And they tell their brothers, and they tell their friends - there are lots of us," said Brobbey, who is from Ghana. Brobbey said the exploitation has gone on for so long, with no accountability for employers, that the J-1 visa waiver program is "basically dead." "The boat has sailed already," Brobbey said. "I don't know anyone who will do J-1 now." Given the Internet chatter, the problems with the J-1 waiver are widely known in the medical community, and the jobs carry a stigma. Some of the participating doctors refer to themselves as "J-1 positive" as if they're afflicted with a disease. It is unknown whether J-1 doctors have been sexually abused, though one doctor reported she had been sexually harassed. Many factors could explain why more foreign residents are pushing for H-1 visas over J-1 visas said Greg Siskind, a superstar immigration lawyer, but it's possible some foreign doctors who know about the "real and perceived problems" are deciding to "vote with their visa" by choosing the H-1.

In 2005, the American Medical Association adopted a resolution saying the foreign doctors often find themselves "in abusive and intolerable" employment situations and should be able to transfer to other employers without being forced to restart their three-year commitment in an underserved community. An AMA official said anecdotal accounts are heard frequently of J-1 doctors working unfair call schedules, suffering pay and salary disparities and having the terms of their contracts switched against their will. The J-1 doctors are in a "vulnerable position," said the AMA official, who because of association policy was not allowed to be quoted by name. "They know it's a privilege to be in our country. They don't want to make any waves, but they're totally being abused and taken advantage of." Employers who adhere to the J-1 waiver guidelines say they've heard the reports of other bosses flouting the J-1 laws. Saul Blair, executive director of the Phoenix region of IPC, a company that provides doctors to hospitals, employs 17 J-1 doctors, including several who came to him after being exploited by employers in other states. No one monitors where the doctors work or whether "I'm paying them 10 cents or $100,000," Blair said. It would be easy to audit a company's medical records to confirm that J-1 doctors are treating federally designated underserved patients, Blair said, but the government has not. J-1 doctors feel conflicted about staying in the United States. "If I had known about this I would have never done it here," one foreign doctor said. "I advise everyone I know not to come here on J-1. Go to Australia."


I am a foreign doctor (originally from Iraq) who was laid off several years back by my employer who sponsored my J-1 visa (I won the lottery fortunately that is how I got the residency) I remember it very well how hard it was to find employment - any type of employment - I guess it was because of my language skills that I got a job to survive during those hard years (I was employed by a contractor in need of translation services from Dari to English - Dari is the name given to classical Persian poetry and court language, as well as to Persian dialects spoken in Afghanistan. Various dialects of Dari are also spoken by a few people in Iran and by many in Pakistan.
Title: Man's Search for Meaning
Post by: mapit on August 16, 2008, 10:52:44 AM

You've got to be kidding me, just sex - you are dissapointed with doctors because they may have used as pawns homeless people! Doctors and medical professionals are absolutely not champions in this field - how about intelligence agencies having conducted non-consensual human experiments (e.g., trauma-based mind control, etc).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZME1aZ7E7w



Conditioning

As far as I understand it (which admittedly is nothing close to first-hand experience), trauma-based mind control is kind of similar to the whole favorite-album phenomenon. The idea is basically that you condition the mind according to certain stimuli. When you experience a sensory trigger, a correlated interior state is achieved. The most common example of this is called Classical or Pavlovian Conditioning:

Quote
Classical Conditioning is the type of learning made famous by Pavlov's experiments with dogs. The gist of the experiment is this: Pavlov presented dogs with food, and measured their salivary response (how much they drooled). Then he began ringing a bell just before presenting the food. At first, the dogs did not begin salivating until the food was presented. After a while, however, the dogs began to salivate when the sound of the bell was presented. They learned to associate the sound of the bell with the presentation of the food. As far as their immediate physiological responses were concerned, the sound of the bell became equivalent to the presentation of the food.

Other types of behavioral conditioning exist as well, with "operant conditioning" relating to the reinforcement or punishing of behavior. For our current purposes though, the easiest way to understand all this is through Pavlov's dogs salivating when they hear a bell, or us being flooded by emotions when we hear a song we've not heard for many years.

Trauma & Dissociation

Now, listening to a record over and over may be a lot of fun, but it's not the most significant physical stimulus available to us. Extremes of pleasure and pain may go well beyond that, triggering far greater physiological responses and long-term effects. Imagine instead of listening to a record over and over again, you are severely beaten repeatedly, or subjected to electric shocks. And at varying intervals to this, you are in turn sexually abused. Maybe this goes on for months or years. It's not very difficult to imagine that such events would seriously contort your psyche in unimaginable ways. Especially if these things were combined and overlaid with other types of classical and operant conditioning. For a creepy elaboration of this, check out Beth Goobie's article, "The Network of Stolen Consciousness." Goobie claims to be the survivor of a systematic process of mind control. Before we delve too deeply into that stuff though, let's look at one very real and verifiable facet of traumatic experience which Goobie discusses:


Viktor Frankl's 1946 book "Man's Search for Meaning" chronicles his experiences as a concentration camp inmate and describes his psychotherapeutic method of finding a reason to live. According to Frankl, the book intends to answer the question "How was everyday life in a concentration camp reflected in the mind of the average prisoner?" Part One constitutes Frankl's analysis of his experiences in the concentration camps, while Part Two introduces his ideas of meaning and his theory of logotherapy.

Experiences in a concentration camp

Frankl identifies three psychological reactions experienced by all inmates to one degree or another: (1) shock during the initial admission phase to the camp, (2) apathy after becoming accustomed to camp existence, in which the inmate values only that which helps himself or others survive, and (3) reactions of depersonalization, moral deformity, bitterness, and disillusionment after being liberated. Frankl concludes that the meaning of life is found in every moment of living; life never ceases to have meaning, even in suffering and death. In a group therapy session during a mass fast inflicted on the camp's inmates trying to protect an anonymous fellow inmate from fatal retribution by authorities, Frankl offered the thought that for everyone in a dire condition there is someone looking down, a friend, family member, or even God, who would expect not to be disappointed. Frankl concludes from his experience that a prisoner's psychological reactions are not solely the result of the conditions of his life, but also from the freedom of choice he always has even in severe suffering. The inner hold a prisoner has on his spiritual self relies on having a faith in the future, and that once a prisoner loses that faith, he is doomed. He also concludes that there are only two races of men, decent men and indecent. No society is free of either of them, and thus there were "decent" Nazi guards and "indecent" prisoners, most notably the kapo who would torture and abuse their fellow prisoners for personal gain.

His concluding passage in Part One describes the psychological reaction of the inmates to their liberation, which he separates into three stages. The first is depersonalization—a period of readjustment, in which a prisoner gradually returns to the world. Initially, the liberated prisoners are so numb that they are unable to understand what freedom means, or to emotionally respond to it. Part of them believes that is an illusion or a dream that will be taken away from them. In their first foray outside their former prison, the prisoners realized that they could not comprehend pleasure. Flowers and the reality of the freedom they had dreamed about for years were all surreal, unable to be grasped in their depersonalization. The body is the first element to break out of this stage, responding by voracious eating and sleeping. Only after the partial replenishing of the body is the mind finally able to respond, as "feeling suddenly broke through the strange fetters which had restrained it." This begins the second stage, in which there is a danger of deformation. As the intense pressure on the mind is released, mental health can be endangered. Frankl uses the analogy of a diver suddenly released from his pressure chamber.

He recounts the story of a decent friend who became immediately obsessed with dispensing the same violence in judgment of his abusers that they had inflicted on him. Upon returning home, the prisoners had to struggle with two fundamental experiences which could also damage their mental health. The first is bitterness at the lack of responsiveness of the world outside — a "superficiality and lack of feeling...so disgusting that one finally felt like creeping into a hole and neither hearing nor seeing human being any more" (113). Worse was disillusionment, which was the discovery that suffering does not end, that the longed-for happiness will not come. This was the experience of those who — like Frankl — returned home to discover that no one awaited them. The hope which has sustained them throughout the camp was now gone. Frankl cites this experience as the most difficult to overcome. As time passed, however, the prisoner's experience in a concentration camp finally became nothing but a nightmare. What is more, he knows that he has nothing left to fear any more, "except his God."
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: mapit on August 16, 2008, 10:56:14 AM
Quotations

Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: head phone on August 19, 2008, 06:56:55 PM

t --> -t


Your signature caught my attention, driven! The T-symmetry, the symmetry of physical laws under a time-reversal transformation (replacing t by −t in all the equations). All of the accepted laws of physics exhibit T-symmetry. To say simply, phenomena are reversible in time. By common sense, you might think that T-symmetry is obviously violated: we cannot remember the future, eggs are much easier to break than to reconstruct; in general, entropy increases. This is called the second law of thermodynamics, but in fact is not related in any obvious way to T-symmetry. The second law can be entirely attributed to the "initial conditions" of the universe, rather than the laws governing evolution. Decoherence in quantum mechanics is a similar phenomenon. Many physicists believe T-symmetry is violated. This is because experiments have shown that CPT-symmetry holds, but that CP-symmetry is broken. It can be shown that if CP-symmetry is broken, there must be a balancing T-symmetry violation in order to preserve CPT-symmetry.

However, there is no consensus as to the exact nature of the T-symmetry violation. Gravity is a prime contender: the fact that gravity is only attractive, not repulsive, may point to a violation of T-symmetry. Black holes appear to violate T-symmetry: there are significant differences between black hole formation and evaporation (via Hawking radiation). Particle physicists are conducting experiments looking for T-symmetry violation in high-energy nuclear reactions.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: mousie on August 20, 2008, 11:48:45 AM

[...] It is practically impossible to get residency spots in the highly competitive specialties like Radiology, Orthopedics and Dermatology being an IMG, US or non-US one. You end up as a general family practice physician or internal medicine resident, specialties which pay much less than the highly sought-after specialties such as Surgery, Anesthesiology, Obstetrics/gynecology, etc.

Equally important, almost all training slots filled by IMGs are in teaching hospitals in large urban areas that have traditionally served large numbers of minorities, uninsured, and low-income patients. It is a bit easier for US-IMGs compared to non-US IMGs. The latter, for example, who usually are on J-1 Visas (with 80% of these physicians actually staying in the US) are compelled to practice in designated rural or inner city physician shortage areas in order to have the "2-year return" requirement for J-1 visa waived. Both the initial training location and the subsequent service locations of IMGs frequently put them in minority communities where other doctors are scarce. In essence IMGs provide primary care to poor and underserved populations, with many inner-city hospitals in the U.S. relying almost exclusively on IMGs to provide services to America's poor.


Honey, I've been a dirty stinky Indian all my life and I can tell ya it's not like that ... several friends of mine (poor, stinky Indian b i t c h e s, if you like!) have been able to get some pretty damn good residencies in the US.

A very dear friend of mine just recently began Rheumatology fellowship at a quite good hospital after having finished the 3-year Internal Medicine residency. It'll take 3 years for the fellowship to be completed and my friend is looking at some $200,000 per annum - not bad at all for someone who lived all the time in a city like Calcutta or Bombay! :)


Pretty succinct and effective, harrisons!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: b o r e a l i s on August 20, 2008, 08:24:04 PM

That's a very good idea. People should really consider completing degrees like MA and MS in an appropriate area of study. My buddy, for instance, did an MIS -- which is part of the business school, differing from CS programs and emphasizing management coursework and business computing courses. He found a position as database analyst and is responsible for maintaining key databases and worksheets for reporting and analytical purposes grossing some $60K a year.


ad astra, if we'd begin to showcase our buddies' achievements here this thread would be like 100 pages long (it's 40 as of now, I believe?) Case in point, a friend of mine just got a job as business intelligence analyst earning some $70K a year. He has a B.A. in Business Administration and some pretty strong computer software skills (Combined Theater, ArcGIS 8.3, Pathfinder, etc). Granted, he had also some experience in the health care strategic planning that helped him get the job. The point I am making, however, is that it does not take some highly refined individual to get these type of positions..
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: publiek on August 21, 2008, 03:11:38 PM

Are you trying to demean another profession, so you can make yourself feel better about your own? Heart surgeons, for example, make dramatic differences in people's lives on a daily basis. Only someone as deluded as you can think otherwise.


I don't think the poster was trying to demean any profession... it is a fact, however, that there's only so much you can do in many, many, many medical cases!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Mina on August 21, 2008, 06:41:29 PM
I think this entire thread is misguided.  How one feels about something is a shadow of several interacting inner forces.

For example, Person A loves law school because he/she enjoy the people there, get good grades, or developed some "meaning" out of there lives in the law.

Person B loves law school because they have no loans and will open there own office.

Person C/D loves/hates law school because blah blah.

The thing is, the word "because" can be used to justify any state of mind or existence. So in one sense, person B can hate law school by changing there reaction to its stimulus from a positive one to a negative one.  Instead of looking at no loans, they can focus on lost oppertunies, annoying professors, lack of time, stress,  etc.

Likewise, a state of mind is in no way shaped by reasons or feelings or personalities or statistics, but by attitudes and wills.

One can will there attitude to become X, Y, or Z, as we are free to choose the frame of mind in which we interpret our existence and surroundings. X can be love of law, Y can hatred of it, and Z can be "open."

When this threads asks was is "one still glad?," it assumes that the question can be answered from emotion or experience or reason, but in reality none suffice, since the question can only be answered from one's will.

When a person's will is strong, there surroundings bend to it, even feelings of being glad or sad hold no sway ovr their choice.

For example, Person A hates everything about being a lawyer and law school very much. This person decides he will use his hatred to his advantage, so instead of dwelling on negativity, he will seek to over-come law school. e.g., "Even though I hate this stuff, I'm still going to go through it, suffering is part of life, and my suffering will be a springboard to greatness regardless fo where or why I suffer"

In essence, this question is asking what type of will do you have-- a strong one, a herd-like one, a special one, a bright one, a dark one? I have observed each answer is nonsensical,  but a small few address the root of the question.


Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Brenda on August 23, 2008, 02:56:11 PM
I just joined this forum because I wanted to hear what law students thought of law school. I've been putting it off for years and it finally may be my time, but is this really what I want? Why do I want it? Can I commit the time and mental energy? For that matter, do I still have enough mental energy?

I guess I could read the last 44 pages, but I'd rather hear what anyone had to say specifically to my musings.

I'm 48. Is this a commitment I'm going to be glad I made?
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: OldCraig on August 25, 2008, 07:38:28 PM
Brenda,
   Don't do it.

Signed,
OldCraig

Title: Re: Doctors exploited; patients suffer, too
Post by: in lieu of on August 29, 2008, 06:47:42 PM

I am a foreign doctor (originally from Iraq) who was laid off several years back by my employer who sponsored my J-1 visa (I won the lottery fortunately that is how I got the residency) I remember it very well how hard it was to find employment - any type of employment - I guess it was because of my language skills that I got a job to survive during those hard years (I was employed by a contractor in need of translation services from Dari to English - Dari is the name given to classical Persian poetry and court language, as well as to Persian dialects spoken in Afghanistan. Various dialects of Dari are also spoken by a few people in Iran and by many in Pakistan.


So basically this Dari language is Persian?
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Brenda on August 31, 2008, 01:16:31 PM
Please Old Craig, tell me more.

Brenda
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: OldCraig on August 31, 2008, 10:11:37 PM
Attn: Brenda

There is only one reason why you should attend law school at this juncture in your life: You already have financial security, and you're looking to understand how society works from a lawyer's perspective.

Otherwise, the fact that you're even asking the question leads me to believe you don't REALLY want to do it - If you did, no matter your age, your situation, or your income, you'd never ask strangers on a message board what they thought, or even further, take what they had to say seriously.

Lastly, if you're wondering if you'll do well, you probably won't. Those that do well have a California-sized brush fire blazing under their butts to excel or die trying, and even then, many people are VERY unhappy with their performance in law school.

Boiled down, depending on how much attending law school will cost you, you're making quite a gamble on something you don't sound gung-ho about. But when the first day of class rolls around, man, you better be ready to go to war, and give up at least a solid year and a half of your life establishing your academic worth to employers while your social life is decimated.

It's up to you though, seriously.
Title: Re: Doctors exploited; patients suffer, too
Post by: s t a s h on September 02, 2008, 02:02:56 PM

I am a foreign doctor (originally from Iraq) who was laid off several years back by my employer who sponsored my J-1 visa (I won the lottery fortunately that is how I got the residency) I remember it very well how hard it was to find employment - any type of employment - I guess it was because of my language skills that I got a job to survive during those hard years (I was employed by a contractor in need of translation services from Dari to English - Dari is the name given to classical Persian poetry and court language, as well as to Persian dialects spoken in Afghanistan. Various dialects of Dari are also spoken by a few people in Iran and by many in Pakistan.


hitch, you succeeded (you got the residency and became a specialist doctor) because you had it in you, so to speak - not because you're lucky and won the lottery. I assure you had the full range of abilities, capabilities, and capacities to become a professional in your field (medicine). You had the courage to come to this country alone, you survived the visa process, you kept your job despite constant difficulties and stress you were under and, I would assume, you did all this being a family man (having a wife and possibly kids). I would safely say the Dari part (your having foreign language abilities) and the fact that it helped you to keep the head above water for some time is the least important in the big picture of things, man! TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT HIM (the man you see every morning in the mirror) and you'll understand I'm not talking in vain!
Title: No ending at all!
Post by: OpaOpa on September 02, 2008, 05:44:34 PM

[...]

When this threads asks was is "one still glad?," it assumes that the question can be answered from emotion or experience or reason, but in reality none suffice, since the question can only be answered from one's will.

When a person's will is strong, there surroundings bend to it, even feelings of being glad or sad hold no sway ovr their choice.

[...]

In essence, this question is asking what type of will do you have -- a strong one, a herd-like one, a special one, a bright one, a dark one? I have observed each answer is nonsensical, but a small few address the root of the question.


I'm not entering into a philosophical discussion here, Mina, but I'd like to point out this: the Will is source of suffering, since willing never brings contentment, but only further desire. People are, in fact, condemned to the endless pursuit of impossible desires: we blow out a soap-bubble as long and as large as possible, although we well know that it will burst.

We are all in front of a portal inscribed "The Moment." An eternity lies behind us, and an eternity yet again lies before us; an unending chain of events in which we are inextricably involved. Like the punishment of Sisyphus in the Greek myth, we are condemned to a terrible repetition of events for all eternity. This lack of purpose or ending -- a form of meaninglessness is nothing else but the "endless desiring" mentioned above. We are, obviously, to put an emphasis on "the moment" -- on our present action and will -- and whatever follows is tied to this for all eternity.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: gia on September 02, 2008, 07:57:59 PM

(http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6181/vertchickeggao2kj3.jpg)

Interesting avatar as well! The question that has baffled scientists, academics and pub bores through the ages: What came first, the chicken or the egg?


It points out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence. The predestination paradox (also called either a causal loop or a causality loop) is a paradox of time travel that is often used as a convention in science fiction. It exists when a time traveller is caught in a loop of events that "predestines" him/her to travel back in time. Because of the possibility of influencing the past while time travelling, one way of explaining why history does not change is by saying that whatever has happened was meant to happen. A time traveller attempting to alter the past in this model, intentionally or not, would only be fulfilling his role in creating history as we know it, not changing it. The predestination paradox is in some ways the opposite of the grandfather paradox, the famous example of the traveller killing his own grandfather before his parent is conceived, thereby precluding his own travel to the past by canceling his own existence.

A dual example of a predestination paradox is depicted in the classic Ancient Greek play 'Oedipus'. Laius hears a prophecy that his son will kill him. Fearing the prophecy, Laius pierces Oedipus' feet and leaves him out to die, but a herdsman finds him and takes him away from Thebes. Oedipus, not knowing he was adopted, leaves home in fear of the same prophecy that he would kill his father and marry his mother. Laius, meanwhile, ventures out to find a solution to the Sphinx's riddle. As prophesied, Oedipus crossed paths with Laius and this leads to a fight where Oedipus slays Laius. Oedipus then defeats the Sphinx by solving a mysterious riddle to become king. He marries the widow queen Jocasta not knowing she is his mother.

A typical example of a predestination paradox (used in The Twilight Zone episode "No Time Like the Past") is as follows: A man travels back in time to discover the cause of a famous fire. While in the building where the fire started, he accidentally knocks over a kerosene lantern and causes a fire, the same fire that would inspire him, years later, to travel back in time.

A variation on the predestination paradoxes which involves information, rather than objects, traveling through time is similar to the self-fulfilling prophecy: A man receives information about his own future, telling him that he will die from a heart attack. He resolves to get fit so as to avoid that fate, but in doing so overexerts himself, causing him to suffer the heart attack that kills him. In both examples, causality is turned on its head, as the flanking events are both causes and effects of each other, and this is where the paradox lies. In the second example, the person would not have traveled back in time but for the fire that he or she caused by traveling back in time. Similarly, in the third example, the man would not have overexerted himself but for the future information he receives. In most examples of the predestination paradox, the person travels back in time and ends up fulfilling their role in an event that has already occurred. In a self-fulfilling prophecy, the person is fulfilling their role in an event that has yet to occur, and it is usually information that travels in time (for example, in the form of a prophecy) rather than a person. In either situation, the attempts to avert the course of past or future history both fail.


Ah, cause and effect! We have perfected images of how things become what they are -- sperm, egg, embryo, etc -- but we have not gotten past an image, or behind it. For example, we describe a cause as producing and effect, but this is a crude duality.

Cause and effect probably never occurs -- in reality there stands before us a continuum of which we isolate a couple of pieces... we do not see cause, we infer it. So, if we chop up the endless continuum of the world into manageable pieces for our digestion, let us not imagine that the menu we prepare for ourselves is the only, or even the tastiest, one. Yet the hubris of science insists that it is!

We have arranged for ourselves a world in which we are able to live -- with the postulation of bodies, lines, surfaces, causes and effects, motion and rest, form and content: without these articles of faith, nobody could now manage to live!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: le mains sales on September 05, 2008, 08:07:50 PM

HAHAHA follow me, I know what ya mean ;)


Quantum Ten? Does your handle stand for Quantum Ten, Q10?
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: wheresmyadude on September 06, 2008, 11:03:41 AM

Quantum Ten? Does your handle stand for Quantum Ten, Q10?


Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: u s e h e r n a m e on September 06, 2008, 12:53:31 PM

Ah, cause and effect! We have perfected images of how things become what they are -- sperm, egg, embryo, etc -- but we have not gotten past an image, or behind it. For example, we describe a cause as producing and effect, but this is a crude duality.

Cause and effect probably never occurs -- in reality there stands before us a continuum of which we isolate a couple of pieces... we do not see cause, we infer it. So, if we chop up the endless continuum of the world into manageable pieces for our digestion, let us not imagine that the menu we prepare for ourselves is the only, or even the tastiest, one. Yet the hubris of science insists that it is!

We have arranged for ourselves a world in which we are able to live -- with the postulation of bodies, lines, surfaces, causes and effects, motion and rest, form and content: without these articles of faith, nobody could now manage to live!


Here it is that your post is more appropriately placed, wheres:


[...]

Cause & Effect: Logical Reasoning

http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/IJCAI99/ijcai-99.pdf


Before the effect one believes in different causes than one does after the effect.

Title: Personality Type & Medical Specialty
Post by: BIR on September 06, 2008, 03:02:45 PM

Well, libo, internists are sometimes referred to as the "doctor's doctor," because they are often called upon to act as consultants to other physicians to help solve puzzling diagnostic problems. While the name "internal medicine" may lead one to believe that internists only treat "internal" problems, this is not the case. Doctors of internal medicine treat the whole person, not just internal organs.

Although Internists may act as primary care physicians, they are not "family physicians," "family practitioners," or "general practitioners" (whose training in certain countries includes the medical care of children, and may include surgery, obstetrics and pediatrics). General Internists practice medicine from a primary care perspective but they can treat and manage many ailments and are usually the most adept at treating a broad range of diseases affecting adults.

Internists can choose to focus their practice on general internal medicine, or may take additional training to "subspecialize" in one of 13 areas of internal medicine, generally organized by organ system. Cardiologists, for example, are doctors of internal medicine who subspecialize in diseases of the heart. The training an internist receives to subspecialize in a particular medical area is both broad and deep. Subspecialty training (often called a "fellowship") usually requires an additional 1-3 years beyond the standard 3-year general internal medicine residency (residencies come after a student has graduated from medical school). The following are the subspecialties recognized by the American Board of Internal Medicine:

  • Cardiology
  • Endocrinology
  • Gastroenterology
  • Hematology
  • Infectious diseases
  • Medical oncology
  • Nephrology
  • Pulmonology
  • Rheumatology


In 2000, the first large-scale effort to collect data on medical students since 1977 took place.  A study was conducted to determine changes in MBTI profiles of medical students over time, differences between the profiles of men and women and the effects of the increased number of women in medical school, possible associations between type and career choices, and possible type differences of graduates selecting primary care and specialties.  The study included data from 3,987 medical students and found that the type distribution of physicians had remained relatively stable since then 1950s. The study found that women are more likely to choose primary care specialties than men, which also holds true for those with preferences for introversion and feeling. While feeling types choose Family Medicine more often than other thinking types, males, extraverted, and thinking types choose surgical specialties more than women, introverted, and feeling types. The study concluded that personality typing is still useful for understanding how some aspects of personality relate to medical specialty choice.

All of the personality types are found in medicine, which led Isabel Briggs Myers to conclude that not only does medicine have appeal for all of the types, but it also gains strengths from all of the types. There are increasingly fewer SPs than other psychological types in the medical field. Since the 1950s, the percentage of SPs in the medical field has dropped from approximately 22% to 10%, which may reflect the increasing institutionalization and formalization of the profession. Psychological typing can be especially useful for medical students because a physician who changes specialties is more likely to move into a specialty in which the doctor’s type is more prevalent than in his or her initial choice.

The following are some generalizations about specialties and MBTI types:



This information can be found in greater detail at:

http://www2.msufame.msu.edu/temp/downloads/career_planning/workbooks/advising.pdf

Here it is also a PPT on the issue:

http://www.med.mun.ca/medcareers/downloads/Personality%20Type%20%20Medical%20Specialties_Ada%20Shave_complete%20version.ppt
Title: Less Is More
Post by: cosinger on September 08, 2008, 03:18:27 PM

I'm not entering into a philosophical discussion here, Mina, but I'd like to point out this: the Will is source of suffering, since willing never brings contentment, but only further desire. People are, in fact, condemned to the endless pursuit of impossible desires: we blow out a soap-bubble as long and as large as possible, although we well know that it will burst.

We are all in front of a portal inscribed "The Moment." An eternity lies behind us, and an eternity yet again lies before us; an unending chain of events in which we are inextricably involved. Like the punishment of Sisyphus in the Greek myth, we are condemned to a terrible repetition of events for all eternity. This lack of purpose or ending -- a form of meaninglessness is nothing else but the "endless desiring" mentioned above. We are, obviously, to put an emphasis on "the moment" -- on our present action and will -- and whatever follows is tied to this for all eternity.


It's no surprise that Coca-cola was first introduced as a medicine. Its strange taste seems to provide no particular satisfaction. It is not directly pleasing, however, it is as such, as transcending any use–value, like water, beer or wine, which definitely do quench our thirst, that Coke functions as the direct embodiment of "IT", the pure surplue of enjoyment over standard satisfactions. It is the mysterious and elusive X we are all after in our compulsive consumption. The unexpected result of this is not that, since Coke doesn't satisfy any concrete need we drink it only as supplement, after some other drink has satisfied our substantial need — it is rather this very superfluous character that makes our thirst for Coke all the more insatiable. Coke has the paradoxical quality that the more you drink it, the more you get thirsty. So, when the slogan for Coke was "Coke is it!", we should see in it some ambuigity — it's "it" precisely insofar as it's never IT, precisely insofar as every consumption opens up the desire for more. The paradox is thus that Coke is not an ordinary commodity, but a commodity whose very peculiar use–value itself is already a direct embodiment of the auratic, ineffable surplus. This process is brought to its conclusion in the case of caffeine–free diet Coke. We drink a drink for two reasons: for its nutritional value and for its taste. In the case of caffeine–free diet Coke, its nutritional value is suspended and the caffeine as the key ingredient of its taste is also taken away. All that remains is pure semblance, an artificial promise of a substance which never materialized. Is it not that in the case of caffeine–free diet Coke that we almost literally drink nothing in the guise of something?

What I am referring to, of course, is Nietzsche's opposition between "wanting nothing", in the sense of "I do not want anything," and the nihilistic stance of actively wanting the Nothingness itself. Following Nietzsche, Lacan emphasized how, in anorexia, the subject doesn't simply not eat anything, he rather actively wants to eat the Nothingness itself. The same goes for the famous patient who felt guilty of stealing, although he didn't effectively steal anything — what he did steal was, again, Nothingness itself. Along the same lines, in the case of caffeine–free diet Coke, we drink Nothingness itself, the pure semblance of a property. This example makes palpable the link between three notions: that of Marxist surplus-value, that of Lacan's objet petit a as surplus enjoyment, a concept which Lacan elaborated with direct reference to Marxist surplus value, and the paradox of the superego, long ago perceived by Freud. The more profit you have, the more you want, the more you drink Coke, the more you are thirsty, the more you obey the superego command, the more you are guilty. In all three cases, the logic of balanced exchange is disturbed in favor of an excessive logic of "the more you give the more you owe", or the "more you possess what you are longing for, the more you are missing and thus the greater your craving", or the consumerist version, "the more you buy the more you must spend". This paradox is the very opposite of the paradox of love where, as Juliet put it to Romeo, "the more I give, the more I have."

So what then is superego, what is this superego injunction which is replacing more and more the old symbolic law of prohibition? Superego is the reversal of the permissive "You May!" into the prescriptive "You Must!", the point in which permitted enjoyment turns into ordained enjoyment. We all know the formula of Kant's unconditional imperative: "Du canst, denn du sollst" (You can do your duty, because you must do it) Superego turns this around into "You must, because you can." Nowhere is this clearer than in the case of Viagra, the potency pill that promises to restore the capacity of male erection in a purely biochemical way, by-passing all problems of psychological inhibitions and so on. Now Viagra takes care of the erection, there is no excuse, you can enjoy sex so you should enjoy it, otherwise you are guilty. At the opposite end of the spectrum, the New Age wisdom of recovering the spontaneity of your true self seems to offer a way out of this superego predicament. However, what do we get effectively? Is this attitude not secretly sustained by the superego imperative? You must do your duty of achieving full self–realization and self–fulfillment because you can. This is the reason why we feel, a kind of terrorist pressure beneath the compliant tolerance of New Age preachers. They seem to preach peace and letting go and so on but there is an implicit terrorist dimension in it.

So what is superego? The external opposition between pleasure and duty is precisely overcome in the superego. It can be overcome in two opposite ways. On one hand, we have the paradox of the extremely oppressive, so–called totalitarian post–traditional power which goes further than the traditional authoritarian power. It does not only tell you "Do your duty, I don't care if you like it or not." It tells you not only "You must obey my orders and do your duty" but "You must do it with pleasure. You must enjoy it." It is not enough for the subjects to obey their leader, they must actively love him. This passage from traditional authoritarian power to modern totalitarianism can be precisely rendered through superego in a joke. Let's say that you are a small child and one Sunday afternoon you have to do the boring duty of visiting your old senile grandmother . If you have a good old–fashioned authoritarian father, what will he tell you? "I don't care how you feel, just go there and behave properly. Do your duty." A modern permissive totalitarian father will tell you something else: "You know how much your grandmother would love to see you. But do go and visit her only if you really want to." Now every idiot knows the catch. Beneath the appearance of this free choice there is an even more oppressive order. You seem to have a choice, but there is no choice, because the order is not only you must visit your grandmother, you must even enjoy it. If you don't believe me, just try to say "I have a choice, I will not do it." I promise your father will say "What did your grandmother ever do to you? Don't you know how she loves you? How could you do this to her?" That's superego. On the other hand, we have the opposite paradox of the pleasure itself whose pursuit turns into duty. In a permissive society, subjects experience the need to have a good time, to really enjoy themselves, as a kind of duty, and consequently feel guilty for failing to be happy. The concept of the superego designates precisely this mysterious overlapping in which the command to enjoy overlaps with the duty to enjoy yourself. Maybe we can in this way distinguish the totalitarian from the liberal–permissive superego. In both cases, the message is "You may enjoy, but because you may, you must".
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: klepsi on September 09, 2008, 04:07:39 PM

Yeah, we're going to have f-in' babies... haha


Don't take the babies thing lightly! Take a look here,

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,33732.0.html


As I understand it, you don't have to actually go with a guy to have a baby. I think I am goin' for it! ;)
Title: Re: Less Is More
Post by: just Trev on September 09, 2008, 08:38:57 PM

I'm not entering into a philosophical discussion here, Mina, but I'd like to point out this: the Will is source of suffering, since willing never brings contentment, but only further desire. People are, in fact, condemned to the endless pursuit of impossible desires: we blow out a soap-bubble as long and as large as possible, although we well know that it will burst.

We are all in front of a portal inscribed "The Moment." An eternity lies behind us, and an eternity yet again lies before us; an unending chain of events in which we are inextricably involved. Like the punishment of Sisyphus in the Greek myth, we are condemned to a terrible repetition of events for all eternity. This lack of purpose or ending -- a form of meaninglessness is nothing else but the "endless desiring" mentioned above. We are, obviously, to put an emphasis on "the moment" -- on our present action and will -- and whatever follows is tied to this for all eternity.


It's no surprise that Coca-cola was first introduced as a medicine. Its strange taste seems to provide no particular satisfaction. It is not directly pleasing, however, it is as such, as transcending any use–value, like water, beer or wine, which definitely do quench our thirst, that Coke functions as the direct embodiment of "IT", the pure surplue of enjoyment over standard satisfactions. It is the mysterious and elusive X we are all after in our compulsive consumption. The unexpected result of this is not that, since Coke doesn't satisfy any concrete need we drink it only as supplement, after some other drink has satisfied our substantial need — it is rather this very superfluous character that makes our thirst for Coke all the more insatiable. Coke has the paradoxical quality that the more you drink it, the more you get thirsty. So, when the slogan for Coke was "Coke is it!", we should see in it some ambuigity — it's "it" precisely insofar as it's never IT, precisely insofar as every consumption opens up the desire for more. The paradox is thus that Coke is not an ordinary commodity, but a commodity whose very peculiar use–value itself is already a direct embodiment of the auratic, ineffable surplus. This process is brought to its conclusion in the case of caffeine–free diet Coke. We drink a drink for two reasons: for its nutritional value and for its taste. In the case of caffeine–free diet Coke, its nutritional value is suspended and the caffeine as the key ingredient of its taste is also taken away. All that remains is pure semblance, an artificial promise of a substance which never materialized. Is it not that in the case of caffeine–free diet Coke that we almost literally drink nothing in the guise of something?

What I am referring to, of course, is Nietzsche's opposition between "wanting nothing", in the sense of "I do not want anything," and the nihilistic stance of actively wanting the Nothingness itself. Following Nietzsche, Lacan emphasized how, in anorexia, the subject doesn't simply not eat anything, he rather actively wants to eat the Nothingness itself. The same goes for the famous patient who felt guilty of stealing, although he didn't effectively steal anything — what he did steal was, again, Nothingness itself. Along the same lines, in the case of caffeine–free diet Coke, we drink Nothingness itself, the pure semblance of a property. This example makes palpable the link between three notions: that of Marxist surplus-value, that of Lacan's objet petit a as surplus enjoyment, a concept which Lacan elaborated with direct reference to Marxist surplus value, and the paradox of the superego, long ago perceived by Freud. The more profit you have, the more you want, the more you drink Coke, the more you are thirsty, the more you obey the superego command, the more you are guilty. In all three cases, the logic of balanced exchange is disturbed in favor of an excessive logic of "the more you give the more you owe", or the "more you possess what you are longing for, the more you are missing and thus the greater your craving", or the consumerist version, "the more you buy the more you must spend". This paradox is the very opposite of the paradox of love where, as Juliet put it to Romeo, "the more I give, the more I have."

So what then is superego, what is this superego injunction which is replacing more and more the old symbolic law of prohibition? Superego is the reversal of the permissive "You May!" into the prescriptive "You Must!", the point in which permitted enjoyment turns into ordained enjoyment. We all know the formula of Kant's unconditional imperative: "Du canst, denn du sollst" (You can do your duty, because you must do it) Superego turns this around into "You must, because you can." Nowhere is this clearer than in the case of Viagra, the potency pill that promises to restore the capacity of male erection in a purely biochemical way, by-passing all problems of psychological inhibitions and so on. Now Viagra takes care of the erection, there is no excuse, you can enjoy sex so you should enjoy it, otherwise you are guilty. At the opposite end of the spectrum, the New Age wisdom of recovering the spontaneity of your true self seems to offer a way out of this superego predicament. However, what do we get effectively? Is this attitude not secretly sustained by the superego imperative? You must do your duty of achieving full self–realization and self–fulfillment because you can. This is the reason why we feel, a kind of terrorist pressure beneath the compliant tolerance of New Age preachers. They seem to preach peace and letting go and so on but there is an implicit terrorist dimension in it.

So what is superego? The external opposition between pleasure and duty is precisely overcome in the superego. It can be overcome in two opposite ways. On one hand, we have the paradox of the extremely oppressive, so–called totalitarian post–traditional power which goes further than the traditional authoritarian power. It does not only tell you "Do your duty, I don't care if you like it or not." It tells you not only "You must obey my orders and do your duty" but "You must do it with pleasure. You must enjoy it." It is not enough for the subjects to obey their leader, they must actively love him. This passage from traditional authoritarian power to modern totalitarianism can be precisely rendered through superego in a joke. Let's say that you are a small child and one Sunday afternoon you have to do the boring duty of visiting your old senile grandmother . If you have a good old–fashioned authoritarian father, what will he tell you? "I don't care how you feel, just go there and behave properly. Do your duty." A modern permissive totalitarian father will tell you something else: "You know how much your grandmother would love to see you. But do go and visit her only if you really want to." Now every idiot knows the catch. Beneath the appearance of this free choice there is an even more oppressive order. You seem to have a choice, but there is no choice, because the order is not only you must visit your grandmother, you must even enjoy it. If you don't believe me, just try to say "I have a choice, I will not do it." I promise your father will say "What did your grandmother ever do to you? Don't you know how she loves you? How could you do this to her?" That's superego. On the other hand, we have the opposite paradox of the pleasure itself whose pursuit turns into duty. In a permissive society, subjects experience the need to have a good time, to really enjoy themselves, as a kind of duty, and consequently feel guilty for failing to be happy. The concept of the superego designates precisely this mysterious overlapping in which the command to enjoy overlaps with the duty to enjoy yourself. Maybe we can in this way distinguish the totalitarian from the liberal–permissive superego. In both cases, the message is "You may enjoy, but because you may, you must".

are you serious?!?  you simply can't be...    please give me a freakin' break!  i almost puked three times...
Title: The Faces Model
Post by: ergot on October 06, 2008, 01:01:55 PM

This information can be found in greater detail at:

http://www2.msufame.msu.edu/temp/downloads/career_planning/workbooks/advising.pdf

Here it is also a PPT on the issue:

http://www.med.mun.ca/medcareers/downloads/Personality%20Type%20%20Medical%20Specialties_Ada%20Shave_complete%20version.ppt


Type Faces and Archetypes

Robert Louis Stevenson helped nudge the duality of our nature in the Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde. The dramatic portrayal of Joanne Woodward of the Three Faces of Eve is another example as is the pejorative declaration that "so and so" is "two-faced." The penchant of conventional psychology to identify personality traits has helped to "abnormalize" our dual nature. Having more than one "personality" is considered a disorder: Multiple Personality Disorder. At the sub-clinical level, while not considered clinically significant, showing "two different faces" is not healthy. Being "two-faced" is considered not a good thing to be!

Yet, Having Two Faces is Normal! This assertion stems from C.G.Jung's discovery that all people have both an extraverted and introverted nature. Yet, again, the influence of trait psychology has clouded this distinction by converting the preferences into a scale, with I at one extreme and E at the other, and a midpoint in between. So it has been seductively easy to fall into the trap of classifying people along this scale depending on which side of the midpoint a person fell. Even serious students of psychological type and admirers of Isabel Myers are guilty of talking about Introverts and Extroverts -- as if Introverts have no extraverted nature and Extraverts have no introverted nature. In commenting on this modern day distortion of his mother's work at a conference in the Spring of 2000, Peter Myers was quoted as saying: "There are no extraverts. There are 8 functions." He further explained that his mother was forced to linearize MBTI type preferences in scale form because all the stats at that time applied to traits. The 8 functions Peter Myers' referenced are: the i (introverted) and e (extraverted) expressions of the 4 Jungian mental functions of S (sensing), N (intuition), T (thinking), and F (feeling). Thus Se is extraverted sensing and Si is introverted sensing.

The Type Letters Are Not Additive. The 4 MBTI type letters are too often misconstrued as the component parts of a whole as in INTJ=I+N+T+J. Wherein in reality INTJ is the code designation for a distinct pattern of how 8 functions interact and result in a "whole type." The longhand version of this code would write out the order of the 8 functions from most dominant and conscious to most inferior and unconscious. Thus INTJ refers to the following pattern of mental functions: Ni, Te, Fi, Se, Ne, Ti, Fe, and Si. Expressed in this way, the wholeness of type, in encompassing all the functions and attitudes is more evident.

True Type is Hidden. Because of the influence of "trait" psychology on how we think about personality, it is easy for the type practitioner to lose sight of the fact that Jung's theory of types is not based on observable traits of behavior. When we talk about Type, we are actually talking about something that is hidden beneath the collection of traits and behaviors we think about when using the term personality. A person's "Type" may be something we can infer from traits and behaviors, yet we cannot directly observe it. If we examine the root of the word personality ("persona") we discover it means "mask." So the origin of the term suggests the early philosopher-psychologists believed the real self was hidden beneath the mask of personality. When we observe in others consistent patterns of behavior, we are seeing, not type itself, but the influence of what can be called the Faces of Type. The Faces are pair patterns of Judging and Perceiving mental functions (ST, SF, NT, NF). There is a unique combination associated with each type. Each of the 16 types has 2 primary Type Faces (derived from the fact that each of us responds to both E and I energy sources): a more public outer-energized face and a more private inner-energized one. While these faces hide the true type, they are not masks in the sense of being false because they are part of the overall Gelstalt of type. They are extrapolations of our type. While our Myers-Briggs Type is a lifelong constant, the Type Faces are the building blocks of a maturing and developing personality.

Type Faces and Archetypes. Jungian analyst John Giannini believes the 4 primary pairings of judging and perceiving mental functions represent the fundamental Jungian archetypes of the Briggs & Myers' model. These 4 basic archetypes can be expanded to 16 by having them be expressed in either the 'e' or 'i' attitude and by which of the 2 functions in the pair takes the lead (i.e. is the principal function). For example, when ST is introverted it plays out somewhat differently than when it is extraverted; likewise when the coupling is reversed in order with Thinking predominant (TS) we get 2 more variations on the general theme of the pairing of Sensing-Thinking. Our 2 primary faces are anchored by our 2 most preferred mental functions, indicated by the middle 2 type letters. One anchors the extraverted face, the other the introverted face. The remaining 2 mental functions are aligned in a complimentary and supporting role to more fully define the 2 primary faces. So each Face has both a judging and a perceiving function. Here it is a diagram illustrating this pattern for ENFP.

(http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/386/njri6ai8.jpg)

This same pattern could be depicted in table. The right column represents the "E" energized face (NeTe); while the left column identifies the "I" energized face (FiSi). The subscripts "i" and "e" appended to the mental function letters signify the "introverted" or "extraverted" expression of the mental function. Thus Fe is extraverted Feeling; Fi is introverted Feeling.

(http://www.avatarhosting.net/pics/5775/tblkb2.jpg)

Type Paradoxes -- An I/ENFP example -- These natural changes and growth in adults account for the apparent paradoxes we sometimes observe in people of all types. Development of the NeTe face of INFPs accounts for the "coolness" and "detachment" we sometimes observe in them. INFP mid-life changes, such as an increasing desire to organize and take charge of one's life or to stop being used as a doormat by others, are consistent with this developing outer NT. Some INFPs have become quite proficient in masking their "true feelings" with their NT face. This same facility in their ENFP cousins has them able to mimic ENTJ stereotypical behavior. They can assume control, take charge of a situation, make the hard decisions, and move on with their job. They can have masterly control over lawyer-speak, slicing careful nuances in meaning and logic. Even though they prefer Feeling over Thinking, they can become and are competent attorneys. While NFPs are people-oriented folks, many are drawn to latest technology and technological gadgetry of all sorts -- ascribable to their extraverted NT face. Let's look at the other primary I/ENFP face (SF). The SF pattern suggests a persona more consistent with the "traits" frequently ascribed to ENFPs -- the warm, fun and people loving side of their personality who can very much live in and enjoy the moment. INFPs more typically keep the SF face hidden, yet it provides the energy for their participation in helping professions, all kinds of nurturing activities, and their interest in performing arts and arts and crafts work in general.

The Mirror Image Faces (Shadow functions). By middle or later age, additional psychological growth may have produced new patterns that are the mirror image of the two primary faces. The "I" face has an "E" reflection and the "E" face has an "I" reflection -- as illustrated in the INTJ Chart below.

(http://www.avatarhosting.net/pics/5776/pntgs2.jpg)

An INTJ is not only developing an inner NiFi, but also an outer NeFe. Thus, she begins to actually talk the walk and walk the talk. The 4th face, though largely hidden from the outer world, has risen to be more within the conscious awareness and thereby affecting more of the INTJs' conscious behavior. As this 4th face (SiTi) garners more influence, the INTJ may crave a higher degree of inner simplicity and rational order; i.e. a simpler, more orderly, less complex life. Perhaps these changes, overlaying additional faces or new archetypes arising, accounts for the mellowness that seems to frequently come with moving into our senior years.
Title: Hierarchy of Mental Functions
Post by: Teach Me Tiger on October 07, 2008, 05:34:51 PM
Each of the 16 personality types has a characteristic pattern in the alignment of the four mental functions. This pattern is referred to as a "hierarchy" because they typically differ in the degree of influence on the personality and the degree they are consciously experienced. As indicated above, the most important or influential function is termed the "Dominant" function (#1) and the second most important is termed the "Auxiliary" (#2). The third in the hierarchy is called the "Tertiary" (#3) and is the polar opposite of whatever function is the Auxiliary. The 4th in order Jung termed the "Inferior" function (#4). It is the mental process with the least conscious awareness and typically the least developed of the four functions. It is the polar opposite of whatever is the Dominant.

(http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/5923/sfsmn2ya3.jpg)

So if INtuition is Dominant, its opposite - Sensing - is the Inferior or 4th. If Feeling is Dominant, then its opposite - Thinking - is Inferior or 4th.

(http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/7668/70123937mx2fp2.jpg)

The rationale for the opposite relationship of the Dominant and the Inferior (fourth function) has to do with energy and the natural polarity of the mental functions. For example, a person with dominant Intuition will direct his/her primary energy to this function - which happens to be in the exact opposite direction of Sensing. It is like trying to go North and South at the same time. It is much easier to couple that dominant with either the Auxiliary or Tertiary because these are not polar opposites to the main direction. They are like East and West on the compass. So navigating NW or NE is a natural direction of movement -- but North-South is not.

(http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/9637/83955606ri3ap8.jpg)

You may be uncomfortable with using Jung's term for the 4th function: "Inferior." Bear in mind Jung was writing in the 1920's and his works had to be translated from German to English. Caution against jumping to conclusions on this Dominant-Inferior pairing. To wit, although a person's dominant function might be Feeling and therefore their inferior function is Thinking, do not presume that their "thinking" is inferior, i.e. defective!! There is often a built-in growth dynamic to consciously develop whatever is opposite one's dominant mental function.

Attitude is Also Important. Here's another Jungian term that carries a somewhat different meaning in the English speaking world. We don't mean your world view or the rosyness of your outlook. It isn't like "Lose the attitude, Dude!"
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: .org on October 08, 2008, 02:41:01 PM

ad astra, if we'd begin to showcase our buddies' achievements here this thread would be like 100 pages long (it's 40 as of now, I believe?) Case in point, a friend of mine just got a job as business intelligence analyst earning some $70K a year. He has a B.A. in Business Administration and some pretty strong computer software skills (Combined Theater, ArcGIS 8.3, Pathfinder, etc). Granted, he had also some experience in the health care strategic planning that helped him get the job. The point I am making, however, is that it does not take some highly refined individual to get these type of positions..


Intelligence research specialists are also in high demand pretty much everywhere. Their salary is not much lower than that of analysts, though (depends on the locality as well, although you'd go for it pretty much anywhere)
Title: Re: Trauma-based Mind Control
Post by: Lindsey on October 08, 2008, 08:55:50 PM

Conditioning

As far as I understand it (which admittedly is nothing close to first-hand experience), trauma-based mind control is kind of similar to the whole favorite-album phenomenon. The idea is basically that you condition the mind according to certain stimuli. When you experience a sensory trigger, a correlated interior state is achieved. The most common example of this is called Classical or Pavlovian Conditioning:

Quote
Classical Conditioning is the type of learning made famous by Pavlov's experiments with dogs. The gist of the experiment is this: Pavlov presented dogs with food, and measured their salivary response (how much they drooled). Then he began ringing a bell just before presenting the food. At first, the dogs did not begin salivating until the food was presented. After a while, however, the dogs began to salivate when the sound of the bell was presented. They learned to associate the sound of the bell with the presentation of the food. As far as their immediate physiological responses were concerned, the sound of the bell became equivalent to the presentation of the food.

Other types of behavioral conditioning exist as well, with "operant conditioning" relating to the reinforcement or punishing of behavior. For our current purposes though, the easiest way to understand all this is through Pavlov's dogs salivating when they hear a bell, or us being flooded by emotions when we hear a song we've not heard for many years.

[...]


I would not dismiss as complete b u l l * & ^ % the behaviorist theory with its Pavlovian principles and the like ... I remember it very well indeed when a friend of mine was talking one day to a woman about some pills she'd be getting from her ... stuff prescribed to her before by an idiotic doctor ... she became dependent on them having to find sources herself later on ... well, I remember the scene very well when she was asking her for the pills, promising the latter to do everything for her, become her slave ... now this woman turned out was a lesbian and yes ... my very good friend, a straight woman all the way, was willing to become her slave just to get the pills ... that's the "power" of addiction ... what do I mean? People become "conditioned" to do the most unbelievable things in order to get something they desperately need, be it drugs, gamble money, whatever ... I'm sure many of you may find alternative explanations for the behavior of my friend, but I'm pretty sure mine is the most logical explanation of all!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Savvy? on October 09, 2008, 10:50:40 AM

  • Pascual Jordan, the ardent Aryan nationalist, came uninvited


Politically speaking, Jordan was not such a good fella :) He joined the NSDAP (Nazi Party) in May 1933. The following November he joined the Sturmabteilung (SA) - the brown shirted storm troopers. He enlisted in the Luftwaffe in 1939 and worked for a while at the Peenemünde rocket center. During the war he attempted to interest the party in various schemes for advanced weapons, but these were ignored because he was considered "politically unreliable", probably because of his past associations with Jews (in particular: Courant, Born, and Wolfgang Pauli) and "Jewish Physics" (such a stigma also followed Werner Heisenberg for some time under the Nazis). It has been speculated that Jordan would have likely shared the 1954 Nobel Prize in Physics awarded to Max Born were it not for his membership in the Nazi party.

Wolfgang Pauli declared Jordan "rehabilitated" to the authorities some time after the war, allowing Jordan to regain academic employment after a 2-year period and then recover his full status as a tenured professor in 1953. Jordan went against Pauli's advice, and reentered politics after the period of denazification came to an end under the pressures of the Cold War. He secured election to the Bundestag standing with the conservative Christian Democrats. In 1957, Jordan came out in support for the arming of the Bundeswehr with tactical nuclear weapons by the Adenauer government, while the Göttinger 18 (which included Born, Heisenberg, and Pauli) authored the Göttinger Manifest in protest. This and other issues were to further strain his relationships with his former friends and colleagues.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: manypulate on October 09, 2008, 09:01:03 PM

Yeah, we're going to have f-in' babies... haha


Don't take the babies thing lightly! Take a look here,

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,33732.0.html


As I understand it, you don't have to actually go with a guy to have a baby. I think I am goin' for it! ;)


Hahaha - you're so funny, klepsi! ;)
Title: Re: Personality Type & Medical Specialty
Post by: co-cain on October 10, 2008, 12:15:09 PM

This information can be found in greater detail at:

http://www2.msufame.msu.edu/temp/downloads/career_planning/workbooks/advising.pdf

Here it is also a PPT on the issue:

http://www.med.mun.ca/medcareers/downloads/Personality%20Type%20%20Medical%20Specialties_Ada%20Shave_complete%20version.ppt


Countries, too, can be classified as having an MBTI "type"

USA is an ESTJ with its primary function extraverted thinking and secondary one introverted sensing. Besides the USA and Australia (both originally colonies of ESTJ England), ESTJs and ISTJs are all European countries. The ESTJ American, English and Dutch have differences, though. The English are more contained, accomodating or indirect, whereas the Dutch and Americans are not. The English clearly prefer order and tradition, whereas the Dutch and Americans prefer to be unconventional and casual. The Dutch may be more similar to the Americans than the English but the Dutch are obviously empathic with their concern for the welfare of others, whereas Americans tend to be logical and impersonal. America is a pretty cold country. You are reminded of that expression 'We are a nation of laws' that politicians frequently state. A friend of mine says, "being impersonal is the only way to be" -- and he is not joking. Extraverted thinking types like the establishment of order and logic that laws provide, despite the obvious disregard for the human side of the equation. This is also the reason for the contractual nature of American society.

American thinking preference is seen in its love of competition in sports and business. Americans are taught to be "RAM tough" and be willing to get in a fight or go to war to prove we ain't gonna be kicked around. Individuals are responsible for succeeding on their own, and the homeless are just people who don't want to work. Americans have to take as much stress as it takes to succeed. One Australian commented after visiting New York, "What's the problem with Americans? Why are they so uptight?" One American embassy employee replied, "As Embassy staff it wouldn't be appropriate for us to convey our personal feelings." This is classic extraverted thinking -- feelings are not appropriate. As a thinking type, American culture does not prefer the accomodating facet of feeling. American extraverted thinking culture is ends-oriented, and develops 'mechanisms' for dealing with and solving problems. Americans expect everyone to fit in and be productive. Extraverted thinking types have principles and laws they live by and built an intellectual theory of logical organization of the world. This theory guides their personal actions and interactions with others. They personally believe and follow their theory and believe the rest of the world should be like America and tries to aggressively 'organize' the world. Even today, Americans continue corporate globalization and forceful democratization (i.e., 'live free or die') of the world. Democracy is a feeling-based system (harmony, consensus, tolerance, etc) but capitalism is based on the thinking logic of economics -- one that doesn't have human considerations. On the white horse of democracy is the dark rider of capitalism.

ESTJs can be blind to other points of view. Americans fail to understand and embrace other countries and cultures... Americans, as thinking types, have a tendency to be challenging and competitive, yet may occasionally prefer harmony. We love to observe debate, but when it comes down to it, we seem to prefer harmony as evidenced by the lack of efficacy in negative campaigns. As a culture, we prefer the positive while having a morbid sense of curiosity for the Jerry Springer-type of entertainment. Americans are thinking types, yet may feign acceptance and tolerance in some circumstances. The USA, actually, is a troublesome little fellow to try to analyze as a culture because what we value based on our actions is so very different based on what we claim to hold important. USA is not in reality very accepting, but with political correctness and other social pressures people keep some judgments to themselves more than they would. It's like a form of cognitive dissonance since we are really rather judgmental, but have decided that we should not be, which likely results in more than a little self-flagellation. 

American culture is an extraverted thinking culture, but it also has a secondary preference for introverted sensing, types that are interested in commerce. The USA is a consumer society and Americans like commercials, advertising, promotions, sales, etc. The TV infomercials are filled with get-rich, start-your-own-business, and home business programs like how to flip properties, medical billing from home, multi-level marketing, etc. Some people say that English is the language of commerce; well, USA is a nation of commerce. Why do so many people want to come here? Sure it's that freedom thing, but wouldn't you agree, it's mostly for the money? There is a misconception that the USA is the most technologically advanced country. For example, compared to the USA, people living in countries like Japan and Korea can get a 100 times faster high-speed Internet access in their homes. One American attended an European conference on digital resources and was surprised at how advanced the Europeans were. She returned home to report what she had learned, but found her American co-workers weren't interested. They were determined to believe that the Europeans couldn't possibly know more than Americans about technology. Technological advancements are easier to see than social differences. There is also the American misconception that the USA is the most socially advanced society. Yet, when you live in other countries you find there are many different ways of life that are superior to American ways. Quality of life is better through the choices a society makes. These choices are the result of the culture type. A society that is a thinking culture will make very different choices from a feeling culture.

The American government doesn't publish stats on where Americans emigrate to, but there are loads of stats on immigrants coming to the USA. It's as if subconsciously Americans believe people only want to come to the USA and no American would want to leave it. But Americans do leave the USA, for social, cultural, and other reasons. Canada (a feeling type culture) has received a large number of American immigrants, especially after W. Bush was reelected. One Ontario Canadian commented, "Americans are immigrating to Canada for the better quality of life, national healthcare, and higher minimum wage, but many Canadian doctors are moving to the USA because they can make more money. One Australian joked that the biggest illegal immigration problem they have is with Americans. Americans may think of themselves as also having a few intuitive traits. The USA is very structured, but also built on resourceful, inventive and entrepreneural people. Some of the USA is theoretical and well-read (northeast) and some experiental. One east-coast American thought practical (sensing) represented the blue collar and conceptual (intuition) the white collar. Americans trust experience, yet may have a hard time separating that from theories. I doubt most Americans actually understand the difference. See any news report that starts with, 'According to a recent study,' as an example how Americans don't successfully separate hard, empirical science from the theoretical and initial observations. We are more pseudo-intellectuals and more of an instant gratification culture. Therefore we are more results-oriented. We don't want to think too much, we just want some product or service right at this instant.

The warrior and seeker are the dominant archetypes in American culture. The USA is a "Warrior/Seeker" culture in which we are surrounded by self-improvement schemes, all of which are designed to help us live up to some standard or other. The sage was determined as the dominant archetype in Eastern Buddhist culture; on the other hand, Western Christianity is a "Ruler/Magician religion." Additionally, the magician and jester archetypes are part of the African and American Indian cultures. Archetypes play out in individual lives and cultures like dominant themes that come and go in a cyclical way. The German culture played out the dark side of the destroyer during WWII and rebirthed to a new country after the fall of the Berlin wall. Currently, France with its riots is also playing out the destroyer as one of its rising archetypes. The destroyer is a reoccuring archetype as seen in France's history of revolution. France is an ENTJ and has a destroyer archetype rising and subsiding throughout its history. Maybe other NT countries share this same archetype experience.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: currency on October 15, 2008, 12:15:48 PM

I would not dismiss as complete b u l l * & ^ % the behaviorist theory with its Pavlovian principles and the like ... I remember it very well indeed when a friend of mine was talking one day to a woman about some pills she'd be getting from her ... stuff prescribed to her before by an idiotic doctor ... she became dependent on them having to find sources herself later on ... well, I remember the scene very well when she was asking her for the pills, promising the latter to do everything for her, become her slave ... now this woman turned out was a lesbian and yes ... my very good friend, a straight woman all the way, was willing to become her slave just to get the pills ... that's the "power" of addiction ... what do I mean? People become "conditioned" to do the most unbelievable things in order to get something they desperately need, be it drugs, gamble money, whatever ... I'm sure many of you may find alternative explanations for the behavior of my friend, but I'm pretty sure mine is the most logical explanation of all!


(http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedishrag/images/2008/10/14/maureenmccormick.jpg)
Maureen McCormick, who played the adorable Marcia Brady on the popular sweet and silly '70s sitcom, is now revealing intimate details about her secret life of cocaine binging, trading sex for drugs and dating Greg Brady, her TV sibling.

OK, icky. I mean, we know they weren't really brother and sister, but still ... In "Here's the Story: Surviving Marcia Brady and Finding My True Voice," she reveals hot romances with Michael Jackson and Steve Martin as well as an off-screen love affair with Barry Williams, who played her brother, Greg Brady. Seems even she felt it was a bit depraved. "We couldn't hold back any longer," she writes of their "Brady Bunch" filming in Hawaii. "It was our first kiss, and it was long, passionate and deep. It was wonderful, too, though as we continued to kiss and press against each other so closely that we could feel each other's body heat, a part of me — a tiny part, admittedly — said to myself, 'Oh my God! I'm kissing my brother. What am I doing?'" Read the book if you want to know more about McCormick's struggle with drugs, cocaine binges, parties at the Playboy Mansion, an unwanted pregnancy and trading sex for drugs.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/showbiz/2008/10/15/sbt.marcia.brady.cnn
Title: Re: Trauma-based Mind Control
Post by: Labor Omnia Vincit on October 15, 2008, 06:57:43 PM

I would not dismiss as complete b u l l * & ^ % the behaviorist theory with its Pavlovian principles and the like ... I remember it very well indeed when a friend of mine was talking one day to a woman about some pills she'd be getting from her ... stuff prescribed to her before by an idiotic doctor ... she became dependent on them having to find sources herself later on ... well, I remember the scene very well when she was asking her for the pills, promising the latter to do everything for her, become her slave ... now this woman turned out was a lesbian and yes ... my very good friend, a straight woman all the way, was willing to become her slave just to get the pills ... that's the "power" of addiction ... what do I mean? People become "conditioned" to do the most unbelievable things in order to get something they desperately need, be it drugs, gamble money, whatever ... I'm sure many of you may find alternative explanations for the behavior of my friend, but I'm pretty sure mine is the most logical explanation of all!


May it not be that she was lured to this specific lesbian woman you mention as a source for the pills because she somehow was intrigued by the idea of having woman-to-woman sex? (She could have found a straight woman or a man to give her the pills, for instance) On the other hand, it's conceivable that it was securing the addicting pills that led her to strings-attached sex, just like you say. In other words, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
Title: Re: Trauma-based Mind Control
Post by: paymen on October 16, 2008, 08:46:20 PM

I would not dismiss as complete b u l l * & ^ % the behaviorist theory with its Pavlovian principles and the like ... I remember it very well indeed when a friend of mine was talking one day to a woman about some pills she'd be getting from her ... stuff prescribed to her before by an idiotic doctor ... she became dependent on them having to find sources herself later on ... well, I remember the scene very well when she was asking her for the pills, promising the latter to do everything for her, become her slave ... now this woman turned out was a lesbian and yes ... my very good friend, a straight woman all the way, was willing to become her slave just to get the pills ... that's the "power" of addiction ... what do I mean? People become "conditioned" to do the most unbelievable things in order to get something they desperately need, be it drugs, gamble money, whatever ... I'm sure many of you may find alternative explanations for the behavior of my friend, but I'm pretty sure mine is the most logical explanation of all!


(http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/1467/womanrobotcor450x350zk3.jpg)
Title: Re: Trauma-based Mind Control
Post by: ycer on October 17, 2008, 03:13:48 PM

I would not dismiss as complete b u l l * & ^ % the behaviorist theory with its Pavlovian principles and the like ... I remember it very well indeed when a friend of mine was talking one day to a woman about some pills she'd be getting from her ... stuff prescribed to her before by an idiotic doctor ... she became dependent on them having to find sources herself later on ... well, I remember the scene very well when she was asking her for the pills, promising the latter to do everything for her, become her slave ... now this woman turned out was a lesbian and yes ... my very good friend, a straight woman all the way, was willing to become her slave just to get the pills ... that's the "power" of addiction ... what do I mean? People become "conditioned" to do the most unbelievable things in order to get something they desperately need, be it drugs, gamble money, whatever ... I'm sure many of you may find alternative explanations for the behavior of my friend, but I'm pretty sure mine is the most logical explanation of all!


May it not be that she was lured to this specific lesbian woman you mention as a source for the pills because she somehow was intrigued by the idea of having woman-to-woman sex? (She could have found a straight woman or a man to give her the pills, for instance) On the other hand, it's conceivable that it was securing the addicting pills that led her to strings-attached sex, just like you say. In other words, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"


How about the drugs themselves having induced these "forbidden" desires to have lesbian sex? Too simple and novel for you? Later on, she asks her for drugs, given the fact she may have some.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: straub on October 20, 2008, 08:47:16 PM

I would not dismiss as complete b u l l * & ^ % the behaviorist theory with its Pavlovian principles and the like ... I remember it very well indeed when a friend of mine was talking one day to a woman about some pills she'd be getting from her ... stuff prescribed to her before by an idiotic doctor ... she became dependent on them having to find sources herself later on ... well, I remember the scene very well when she was asking her for the pills, promising the latter to do everything for her, become her slave ... now this woman turned out was a lesbian and yes ... my very good friend, a straight woman all the way, was willing to become her slave just to get the pills ... that's the "power" of addiction ... what do I mean? People become "conditioned" to do the most unbelievable things in order to get something they desperately need, be it drugs, gamble money, whatever ... I'm sure many of you may find alternative explanations for the behavior of my friend, but I'm pretty sure mine is the most logical explanation of all!


(http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/1467/womanrobotcor450x350zk3.jpg)

Hahaha - I was kinda confused what it's all about, now I think I get it! ;)
Title: Re: Personality Type & Medical Specialty
Post by: Morgan de Toi on October 22, 2008, 01:35:29 PM

[...] Americans may think of themselves as also having a few intuitive traits. The USA is very structured, but also built on resourceful, inventive and entrepreneural people. Some of the USA is theoretical and well-read (northeast) and some experiental. One east-coast American thought practical (sensing) represented the blue collar and conceptual (intuition) the white collar. Americans trust experience, yet may have a hard time separating that from theories. I doubt most Americans actually understand the difference. [...]


To illustrate the creative advantage of intuition over logic: logic is represented by the pure foundation notes, A, B, C, D, E, F, G. Creativity bent logic this way and that and discovered notes beyond the foundation: sharps and flats. By splitting the pure, creativity exponentially increased music's potential and possibility. Over time, once their measure had been gained, once their definition had been worked out and agreement reached, logic incorporated sharps and flats into known, thus expanding music's foundation. As musicians, logicals have potential for technical perfection. They would sit at the keyboard armed with a background of vast musical knowledge from which to build music. Logical creativity is contained within the bounds of known rules and notes. Their challenge is to find new musical interpretations, mixes, and twists, and does not range beyond proven limits of upper and lower. They convert old music into new sounds.

Intuitives bring an equally vast knowledge with them, but their challenge is different: to marry what's known, with what's felt. Intuitives follow emotions, not rules, not notes. Inside logic's music base they search for sound combinations, distortions, and subtleties that most accurately reflect how they feel. They take known and using emotions as guide, find sounds that ring as true without as within. They convert sounds of music into musical experiences. Intuitives go beyond what is deemed logically possible. They know one thing logicals do not. Infinite possibility and ultracreativity live in one place, intuition. And the only bus that goes there is emotions. Logic, no matter how broad or wide, follows a straight line. Intuition neatly tucks the logic narrow into its brace and continues on its merry own... 360-degrees around and beyond it.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: tandem2 on October 24, 2008, 04:07:18 PM

Politically speaking, Jordan was not such a good fella :) He joined the NSDAP (Nazi Party) in May 1933. The following November he joined the Sturmabteilung (SA) - the brown shirted storm troopers. He enlisted in the Luftwaffe in 1939 and worked for a while at the Peenemünde rocket center. During the war he attempted to interest the party in various schemes for advanced weapons, but these were ignored because he was considered "politically unreliable", probably because of his past associations with Jews (in particular: Courant, Born, and Wolfgang Pauli) and "Jewish Physics" (such a stigma also followed Werner Heisenberg for some time under the Nazis). It has been speculated that Jordan would have likely shared the 1954 Nobel Prize in Physics awarded to Max Born were it not for his membership in the Nazi party.

Wolfgang Pauli declared Jordan "rehabilitated" to the authorities some time after the war, allowing Jordan to regain academic employment after a 2-year period and then recover his full status as a tenured professor in 1953. Jordan went against Pauli's advice, and reentered politics after the period of denazification came to an end under the pressures of the Cold War. He secured election to the Bundestag standing with the conservative Christian Democrats. In 1957, Jordan came out in support for the arming of the Bundeswehr with tactical nuclear weapons by the Adenauer government, while the Göttinger 18 (which included Born, Heisenberg, and Pauli) authored the Göttinger Manifest in protest. This and other issues were to further strain his relationships with his former friends and colleagues.


While one surely not get so excited about Jordan's politics, people have clearly been applying double standards there. Because of reasons that seem partly comprehensible, Jordan was close to these far-right programs and he became politically organized. David Bohm was organized in completely analogous far-left, communist organizations. Nevertheless, Jordan is usually treated as trash while Bohm is routinely celebrated as a saint hero. And by the way, Jordan was much better a physicist than Bohm. Because Nazism and communism were two comparably big evils - and Stalin actually killed more people than Hitler - this asymmetry in the treatment of these two guys is a worrisome testimony of the pro-communist bias in the Academia. A membership in NSDAP or SA was not an "ultimately selective" crime. By 1945, there were 8.5 million NSDAP members so it should not be shocking that something like 10% of German physicists would be members, too. In 1934, there were 3 million members of SA. The political bias in science - and even in Nobel prizes - is wrong in all directions. I guess Jordan will remain an "unsung hero" of quantum mechanics for quite some time if not forever.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: exgss on October 27, 2008, 08:19:46 PM
To answer the question the thread poses: yes, 1 year later I am still glad that I went.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: kehre on October 28, 2008, 04:21:21 PM

(http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6181/vertchickeggao2kj3.jpg)

Interesting avatar as well! The question that has baffled scientists, academics and pub bores through the ages: What came first, the chicken or the egg?


It points out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence. The predestination paradox (also called either a causal loop or a causality loop) is a paradox of time travel that is often used as a convention in science fiction. It exists when a time traveller is caught in a loop of events that "predestines" him/her to travel back in time. Because of the possibility of influencing the past while time travelling, one way of explaining why history does not change is by saying that whatever has happened was meant to happen. A time traveller attempting to alter the past in this model, intentionally or not, would only be fulfilling his role in creating history as we know it, not changing it. The predestination paradox is in some ways the opposite of the grandfather paradox, the famous example of the traveller killing his own grandfather before his parent is conceived, thereby precluding his own travel to the past by canceling his own existence.

A dual example of a predestination paradox is depicted in the classic Ancient Greek play 'Oedipus'. Laius hears a prophecy that his son will kill him. Fearing the prophecy, Laius pierces Oedipus' feet and leaves him out to die, but a herdsman finds him and takes him away from Thebes. Oedipus, not knowing he was adopted, leaves home in fear of the same prophecy that he would kill his father and marry his mother. Laius, meanwhile, ventures out to find a solution to the Sphinx's riddle. As prophesied, Oedipus crossed paths with Laius and this leads to a fight where Oedipus slays Laius. Oedipus then defeats the Sphinx by solving a mysterious riddle to become king. He marries the widow queen Jocasta not knowing she is his mother.

A typical example of a predestination paradox (used in The Twilight Zone episode "No Time Like the Past") is as follows: A man travels back in time to discover the cause of a famous fire. While in the building where the fire started, he accidentally knocks over a kerosene lantern and causes a fire, the same fire that would inspire him, years later, to travel back in time.

A variation on the predestination paradoxes which involves information, rather than objects, traveling through time is similar to the self-fulfilling prophecy: A man receives information about his own future, telling him that he will die from a heart attack. He resolves to get fit so as to avoid that fate, but in doing so overexerts himself, causing him to suffer the heart attack that kills him. In both examples, causality is turned on its head, as the flanking events are both causes and effects of each other, and this is where the paradox lies. In the second example, the person would not have traveled back in time but for the fire that he or she caused by traveling back in time. Similarly, in the third example, the man would not have overexerted himself but for the future information he receives. In most examples of the predestination paradox, the person travels back in time and ends up fulfilling their role in an event that has already occurred. In a self-fulfilling prophecy, the person is fulfilling their role in an event that has yet to occur, and it is usually information that travels in time (for example, in the form of a prophecy) rather than a person. In either situation, the attempts to avert the course of past or future history both fail.


Ah, cause and effect! We have perfected images of how things become what they are -- sperm, egg, embryo, etc -- but we have not gotten past an image, or behind it. For example, we describe a cause as producing and effect, but this is a crude duality.

Cause and effect probably never occurs -- in reality there stands before us a continuum of which we isolate a couple of pieces... we do not see cause, we infer it. So, if we chop up the endless continuum of the world into manageable pieces for our digestion, let us not imagine that the menu we prepare for ourselves is the only, or even the tastiest, one. Yet the hubris of science insists that it is!

We have arranged for ourselves a world in which we are able to live -- with the postulation of bodies, lines, surfaces, causes and effects, motion and rest, form and content: without these articles of faith, nobody could now manage to live!


Suppose for a moment, in the spirit of certain out-there physical theories, that parallel universes exist. Suppose more specifically that for every possible permutation of matter and energy in the universe, there exist corresponding parallel universes. As I understand it, the 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics essentially espouses this view (not down to the last detail, but I believe they are essentially equivalent). Anyway, let's be a little bolder. Let's suppose that time is a 4th physical dimension linking each of these parallel universes. That would make each universe timeless, essentially a snapshot describing a particular permutation of matter and energy in a 3-dimensional space; the 'flow' of time would actually be movement in the 4th dimension from one snapshot 3D universe to another. The laws of physics, then, would not describe the changes in matter and energy in a dynamic world so much as they would describe the particular motion along the 4th dimension from one snapshot universe to the next that we human consciousnesses seem to be following. As far out as this sounds, I seem to recall reading that it was essentially the worldview of a relatively prominent physicist.

So... if the above were an accurate ontological description, wouldn't we drastically have to redefine our notions of 'cause and effect'? The idea of cause and effect that we commonly hold would merely be an illusion generated by the particular path we are riding through a series of static 3D universes. So long as we suppose that this multi-universe space is interconnected with alternate traversable paths (which from our point of view would correspond to a dynamic universe with different physical laws, or perhaps with nothing resembling laws at all), there is nothing that makes our particular path anything special -- and therefore conclusions that we derive from it and hold to be absolute (e.g., cause and effect) are actually relative, and do not hold for the entire ontology of existence.

Of course, to even consider this speculation requires abandoning some conventional ideas of cause and effect (e.g., that all existing things need a cause -- what 'caused' each permutation of the universe to 'exist'?) But the above paragraph goes further -- it calls into question the validity of our entire notion of the cause/effect relationship. We take it as a given, above all reproach, but even such a foundational concept is not necessarily foolproof. So what? Well, it's just a little shot of humility I guess. As an added bonus, you can pretty much summarily chop down any 'proofs' for or against the existence of God, since no assumption is above reproach beyond the limited scope of self-evident, subjective phenomena (e.g., "I am seeing the color I call blue right now" or "I think therefore I am").
Title: Re: Trauma-based Mind Control
Post by: munee on October 30, 2008, 03:42:53 PM

I would not dismiss as complete b u l l * & ^ % the behaviorist theory with its Pavlovian principles and the like ... I remember it very well indeed when a friend of mine was talking one day to a woman about some pills she'd be getting from her ... stuff prescribed to her before by an idiotic doctor ... she became dependent on them having to find sources herself later on ... well, I remember the scene very well when she was asking her for the pills, promising the latter to do everything for her, become her slave ... now this woman turned out was a lesbian and yes ... my very good friend, a straight woman all the way, was willing to become her slave just to get the pills ... that's the "power" of addiction ... what do I mean? People become "conditioned" to do the most unbelievable things in order to get something they desperately need, be it drugs, gamble money, whatever ... I'm sure many of you may find alternative explanations for the behavior of my friend, but I'm pretty sure mine is the most logical explanation of all!


(http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/1467/womanrobotcor450x350zk3.jpg)

Exactly, paymen - trying to make love to a drugged person is like trying to make love to a robot! Great illustration!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Lipsheetz on November 03, 2008, 08:32:38 PM
munee, depends on the kind of drug that person is on. What you're saying is definitely true with opiates (heroin, morphine and the like); however, stimulants (meth, cocaine, etc) are considered to be pro-sex drugs ... likewise E (ecstasy) increases sensual/erotic sensations (although it inhibits sexual intercourse itself due to causing temporary ED) ... marijuana has been used as an aphrodisiac for thousands of years, yet ironically it has also been used to decrease sexual desire (modern research teaches the lesson that marijuana's effects are determined by the personality, physiology, intention, environment, and culture of the user) ... as far as LSD is concerned, well, you'll hear stuff like, "You can come for 45 minutes without stopping - 45 minutes 'earth time', measured by clock," "I came 5 or 6 times within a minute that night" ... well, you get the point ... :) 
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: pentium on November 04, 2008, 12:39:54 PM

Suppose for a moment, in the spirit of certain out-there physical theories, that parallel universes exist. Suppose more specifically that for every possible permutation of matter and energy in the universe, there exist corresponding parallel universes. As I understand it, the 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics essentially espouses this view (not down to the last detail, but I believe they are essentially equivalent). Anyway, let's be a little bolder. Let's suppose that time is a 4th physical dimension linking each of these parallel universes. That would make each universe timeless, essentially a snapshot describing a particular permutation of matter and energy in a 3-dimensional space; the 'flow' of time would actually be movement in the 4th dimension from one snapshot 3D universe to another. The laws of physics, then, would not describe the changes in matter and energy in a dynamic world so much as they would describe the particular motion along the 4th dimension from one snapshot universe to the next that we human consciousnesses seem to be following. As far out as this sounds, I seem to recall reading that it was essentially the worldview of a relatively prominent physicist.

So... if the above were an accurate ontological description, wouldn't we drastically have to redefine our notions of 'cause and effect'? The idea of cause and effect that we commonly hold would merely be an illusion generated by the particular path we are riding through a series of static 3D universes. So long as we suppose that this multi-universe space is interconnected with alternate traversable paths (which from our point of view would correspond to a dynamic universe with different physical laws, or perhaps with nothing resembling laws at all), there is nothing that makes our particular path anything special -- and therefore conclusions that we derive from it and hold to be absolute (e.g., cause and effect) are actually relative, and do not hold for the entire ontology of existence.

Of course, to even consider this speculation requires abandoning some conventional ideas of cause and effect (e.g., that all existing things need a cause -- what 'caused' each permutation of the universe to 'exist'?) But the above paragraph goes further -- it calls into question the validity of our entire notion of the cause/effect relationship. We take it as a given, above all reproach, but even such a foundational concept is not necessarily foolproof. So what? Well, it's just a little shot of humility I guess. As an added bonus, you can pretty much summarily chop down any 'proofs' for or against the existence of God, since no assumption is above reproach beyond the limited scope of self-evident, subjective phenomena (e.g., "I am seeing the color I call blue right now" or "I think therefore I am").


The quantum level is the smallest one science has detected so far. The study of quantum physics began in 1900, when the physicist Max Planck first introduced the concept to the scientific world. Planck's study of radiation yielded some unusual findings that contradicted classical physical laws. These findings suggested that there are other laws at work in the universe, operating on a deeper level than the one we know. In fairly short order - physicists studying the quantum level noticed some peculiar things about this tiny world. For one, the particles that exist on this level have a way of taking different forms arbitrarily. For example, scientists have observed photons -- tiny packets of light -- acting as particles and waves. Even a single photon exhibits this shape-shifting. Imagine if you looked and acted like a solid human being when a friend glanced at you, but when he looked back again, you'd taken a gaseous form :)

This has come to be known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The physicist Werner Heisenberg suggested that just by observing quantum matter, we affect the behavior of that matter. Thus, we can never be fully certain of the nature of a quantum object or its attributes, like velocity and location. This idea is supported by the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Posed by the Danish physicist Niels Bohr, this interpretation says that all quantum particles don't exist in one state or the other, but in all of its possible states at once. The sum total of possible states of a quantum object is called its wave function. The state of an object existing in all of its possible states at once is called its superposition. According to Bohr, when we observe a quantum object, we affect its behaviour. Observation breaks an object's superposition and essentially forces the object to choose one state from its wave function. This theory accounts for why physicists have taken opposite measurements from the same quantum object: The object "chose" different states during different measurements.

But may it be that measuring a quantum object does not force it into one comprehensible state or another, but instead, a measurement taken of a quantum object causes an actual split in the universe? The universe is literally duplicated, splitting into one universe for each possible outcome from the measurement. For example, say an object's wave function is both a particle and a wave. When a physicist measures the particle, there are two possible outcomes: It will either be measured as a particle or a wave. This distinction makes Many-Worlds theory a competitor of the Copenhagen interpretation as an explanation for quantum mechanics. When a physicist measures the object, the universe splits into two distinct universes to accommodate each of the possible outcomes. So a scientist in one universe finds that the object has been measured in wave form. The same scientist in the other universe measures the object as a particle. This also explains how one particle can be measured in more than one state. As unsettling as it may sound, the Many-Worlds interpretation has implications beyond the quantum level. If an action has more than one possible outcome, then the universe splits when that action is taken. This holds true even when a person chooses not to take an action :)

Another disturbing aspect of the Many-Worlds interpretation is that it undermines our concept of time as linear. Imagine a time line showing the history of the Vietnam War. Rather than a straight line showing noteworthy events progressing onward, a time line based on the Many-Worlds interpretation would show each possible outcome of each action taken. From there, each possible outcome of the actions taken (as a result of the original outcome) would be further chronicled. But a person cannot be aware of his other selves -- or even his death -- that exist in parallel universes. So how could we ever know if the Many-Worlds theory is correct? Assurance that the interpretation is theoretically possible came in the late 1990s from a thought experiment -- an imagined experiment used to theoretically prove or disprove an idea -- called quantum suicide. Since Many-Worlds was proven possible, physicists and mathematicians have aimed to investigate the implications of the theory in depth. But the Many-Worlds interpretation is not the only theory that seeks to explain the universe. Nor is it the only one that suggests there are universes parallel to our own.

­Since their science was developed, physicists have been engaged in reverse engineering the universe -- they have studied what they could observe and worked backward toward smaller and smaller levels of the physical world. By doing this, physicists are attempting to reach the final and most basic level. It is this level, they hope, that will serve as the foundation for understanding everything else. Following his famous Theory of Relativity, Albert Einstein spent the rest of his life looking for the one final level that would answer all physical questions. Physicists refer to this phantom theory as the Theory of Everything. Quantum physicists believe that they are on the trail of finding that final theory. But another field of physics believes that the quantum level is not the smallest level, so it therefore could not provide the Theory of Everything. These physicists turn instead to a theoretical subquantum level called string theory for the answers to all of life. What's amazing is that through their theoretical investigation, these physicists have also concluded that there are parallel universes.

Time Travel

The many-worlds interpretation could be one possible way to resolve the paradoxes that one would expect to arise if time travel turns out to be permitted by physics (permitting closed timelike curves and thus violating causality). Entering the past would itself be a quantum event causing branching, and therefore the timeline accessed by the time traveller simply would be another timeline of many. In that sense, it would make the Novikov self-consistency principle unnecessary.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: False Vacuum on November 04, 2008, 02:25:08 PM

Not only are persons spread out through worlds, but they, like everything else, are quantized through time in any given world. Time is a series of moments, and a person who exists at a moment exists there forever in 4-dimensional spacetime, rather than being transformed continuously through the flow of time. Such change and flow are mythical. The argument doesn't strictly require the multiverse hypothesis, because deterministic physics since Newton has implied that the openness of the future is an illusion, and consequently that free will is an illusion. What the multiverse adds to a block time theory is an attenuated account of common sense's ideas of causation and free will. Although an effect can't be changed by its cause, the counterfactuals that causal statements support are true. If the cause hadn't occurred, the effect would not have occurred. For the multiverse, which is "to a first approximation" a very large number of co-existing and slightly interacting spacetimes, includes universes in which the cause doesn't occur and its effect doesn't occur. And although the "me-copy" in this spacetime could not have done otherwise, there are me-copies in other worlds that actually do otherwise (thus, the common-sense idea that, in choosing one course of action, one refrains from another, is not retained). There is a branching of these me-copies that validates my sense that my future is open, in contrast to spacetime physics. However, the open future of common sense is a myth. There is no flow of time dividing the actualities of the past from the unactualized potentialities of the future.

An intellectual descendant of David Hume via the paternity of Popper, you are not only a critic of induction but also a Humean about causation, to the degree that you reject the idea of a causal power effecting a change, in favor of construing it as a multiverse regularity. So A causes B means something like After A-copies occur in many nearby parallel worlds, including the one in this world, B-copies occur. This regularity supports counterfactuals that accompany true causal claims, such as If A hadn't happened, B would not have taken place. There are affinities to Hume's constant-conjunction understanding of causation and Popper's deductive-nomological account.

Time and personal identity

Since "other times are just special cases of other universes," the temporal granularity of personhood through time is a special case of being spread out through worlds. In addition to one's identically time-stamped copies at a moment across parallel worlds transversely, there are the differently time-stamped copies across parallel worlds longitudinally, linked by natural law so as to give the individual's experience of one world and a continuous self. The implications for the theory of personal identity are not yet clear, but Derek Parfit's Reductionist view seems to be favored: The concept of personal identity ceases to apply when branching is taken into account, but branching maintains what's important about personal identity, such as psychological continuities having to do with memory, desire, character, and so forth. Another possibility is that Robert Nozick's Closest-Continuer theory could be modified so as to track closeness transversely as well as longitudinally. The tracked slices of "me-copies" would be the continuing person.

There are "multiple identical copies" of me in the multiverse. Which one am I? "I am, of course, all of them." (The Parfitian answer would be, "The concept of personal identity doesn't apply.") Copies need not be strictly identical in the sense of the identity of indiscernibles relativized to universes: All of my copies see a coin spinning in a coin toss, but an instant later half my copies see 'heads' come up, the other half see 'tails'. A distinction between copies, versions, and variants is at work here. Variants of me need not see the spinning coin. Versions of me see it though some of them see 'heads' and some 'tails'. The multiple identical copies of me all see the spinning coin.


(http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/2932/icwlb7.jpg)


How do people come to understand their actions as their own? Common sense tells us we know when actions are ours because we have caused them; we are intrinsically informed of what we do by our conscious will. But it turns out people can be mistaken about their own authorship, either because they suffer from schizophrenia, dissociative disorder, or a psychogenic movement disorder -- or because they encounter situations that mislead them about the origins of action. In hypnosis, facilitated communication, and co-actions such as ouija-board spelling, for example, people can become profoundly mistaken about the sources of their actions. People can come to believe that they have performed actions they did not do, or that they were not the source of actions that were in fact their own. Wegner and Wheatley (1999) proposed a theory of apparent mental causation that accounts for these anomalies by suggesting that people will feel they are the source of action when they think about that action in advance of its occurrence, and alternative sources of the action are not known. This theory calls into question the common sense view that conscious will is the cause of action.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Mina on November 05, 2008, 10:52:53 PM
Interesting theory that time is 4-dimensional, i read that before to solve the probelms of identity. I would like to know more about Nozick's theory too. I think the problem lie in the starting point.

"...earth revolves around the Sun not vice versa. In order to prove the Copernican model of the universe true, Galileo Galilei and other leaders of the Scientific Revolution developed new tools and techniques for studying the natural world – tools and techniques that ultimately showed not just that Aristotle’s cosmology was wrong [that the sun revolves around earth], but almost every aspect of Aristotelian science. The Scientific Revolution involved more than a rejection of Aristotelian science, however; it involved a rejection of Aristotelian philosophy as well. In its place people erected a new philosophy based on dichotomies: freedom versus determinism, fact versus value, mind versus body. These dichotomies are responsible for the problems of modern philosophy. The task of philosophy since the Scientific Revolution has been to resolve the tensions they generate – to explain how we can be free, mental, moral beings if we inhabit a universe that at a fundamental physical level has none of these features."


Mr. Obama is the US president!!!!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: did on November 06, 2008, 09:53:44 AM

(http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/2932/icwlb7.jpg)

How do people come to understand their actions as their own? Common sense tells us we know when actions are ours because we have caused them; we are intrinsically informed of what we do by our conscious will. But it turns out people can be mistaken about their own authorship, either because they suffer from schizophrenia, dissociative disorder, or a psychogenic movement disorder -- or because they encounter situations that mislead them about the origins of action. In hypnosis, facilitated communication, and co-actions such as ouija-board spelling, for example, people can become profoundly mistaken about the sources of their actions. People can come to believe that they have performed actions they did not do, or that they were not the source of actions that were in fact their own. Wegner and Wheatley (1999) proposed a theory of apparent mental causation that accounts for these anomalies by suggesting that people will feel they are the source of action when they think about that action in advance of its occurrence, and alternative sources of the action are not known. This theory calls into question the common sense view that conscious will is the cause of action.


Imagine yourself standing on a cliff where you not only fear falling off it, but also dread the possibility of throwing yourself off. In this experience that "nothing is holding me back," you sense the lack of anything that predetermines you to either throw yourself off or to stand still; you experience your own freedom.
Title: How Quantum Suicide Works
Post by: Lichtung on November 07, 2008, 11:21:36 AM
Quote


Assurance that the interpretation is theoretically possible came in the late 1990s from a thought experiment -- an imagined experiment used to theoretically prove or disprove an idea -- called quantum suicide.


Here it is how it works:

A man sits down before a gun, which is pointed at his head. This is no ordinary gun; i­t's rigged to a machine that measures the spin of a quantum particle. Each time the trigger is pulled, the spin of the quantum particle -- or quark -- is measured. Depending on the measurement, the gun will either fire, or it won't. If the quantum particle is measured as spinning in a clockwise motion, the gun will fire. If the quark is spinning counterclockwise, the gun won't go off. There'll only be a click.

(http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/3654/spiralhpk3.gif)
http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/3654/spiralhpk3.gif


­Nervously, the man takes a breath and pulls the trigger. The gun clicks. He pulls the trigger again. Click. And again: click. The man will continue to pull the trigger again and again with the same result: The gun won't fire. Although it's functioning properly and loaded with bullets, no matter how many times he pulls the trigger, the gun will never fire. He'll continue this process for eternity, becoming immortal. Go back in time to the beginning of the experiment. The man pulls the trigger for the very first time, and the quark is now measured as spinning clockwise. The gun fires. The man is dead. But, wait. The man already pulled the trigger the first time -- and an infinite amount of times following that -- and we already know the gun didn't fire. How can the man be dead? The man is unaware, but he's both alive and dead. Each time he pulls the trigger, the universe is split in two. It will continue to split, again and again, each time the trigger is pulled. This thought experiment is called quantum suicide. It was first posed by then-Princeton University theorist Max Tegmark in 1997 (now on faculty at MIT). A thought experiment is an experiment that takes place only in the mind. The quantum level is the smallest level of matter we've detected so far in the universe. Matter at this level is infinitesimal, and it's virtually impossible for scientists to research it in a practical manner using traditional methods of scientific inquiry.

The Many-Worlds Theory

The quantum suicide thought experiment is based on and seeks to prove what has bec­ome an increasingly accepted interpretation of quantum physics, the Many-Worlds theory. This theory was first proposed in 1957 by a doctoral student at Princeton University named Hugh Everett III. The theory was scorned for decades until fellow Princetonian Max Tegman created the quantum suicide experiment, which lends support to the interpretation.

(http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/6648/quantumsuicide9va2.gif)
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/6648/quantumsuicide9va2.gif

According to the Many-Worlds theory, for each possible outcome to an action, the world splits into a copy of itself. This is an instantaneous process Everett called decohesion. It's kind of like a choose-your-own-adventure book, but rather than choosing between either exploring the cave or making off with the treasure, the universe splits in two so that each action is taken.
One vital aspect of the Many-Worlds theory is that when the universe splits, the person is unaware of himself in the other version of the universe. This means that the boy who made off with the treasure and ends up living happily ever after is completely unaware of the version of himself who entered the cave and now faces great peril, and vice versa. This is the same case with quantum suicide. When the man pulls the trigger, there are two possible outcomes: the gun either fires or it doesn't. In this case, the man either lives or he dies. Each time the trigger is pulled, the universe splits to accommodate each possible outcome. When the man dies, the universe is no longer able to split based on the pulling of the trigger. The possible outcome for death is reduced to one: continued death. But with life there are still two chances that remain: The man continues living or the man dies.
 
­When the man pulls the trigger and the universe is split in two, however, the version of the man who lived will be unaware that in the other version of the split universe, he has died. Instead he will continue to live and will again have the chance to pull the trigger. And each time he does pull the trigger, the universe will again split, with the version of the man who lives continuing on, and being unaware of all of his deaths in parallel universes. In this sense, he will be able to exist indefinitely. This is called quantum immortality. So why aren't all of the people who have ever attempted to kill themselves immortal? What's interesting about the Many-Worlds interpretation is that according to the theory, in some parallel universe, they are. This doesn't appear to be the case to us, because the splitting of the universe isn't dependent on our own life or death. We are bystanders or observers in the case of another person's suicide, and as observers we're subject to probability. When the gun finally went off in the universe -- or version -- we inhabit, we were stuck with that result. Even if we pick up the gun and continue shooting the man, the universe will remain in a single state. After all, once a person is dead, the number of possible outcomes for shooting a dead person is reduced to one.
Title: Re: Less Is More
Post by: random house on November 16, 2008, 01:28:12 PM

So what is superego? The external opposition between pleasure and duty is precisely overcome in the superego. It can be overcome in two opposite ways. On one hand, we have the paradox of the extremely oppressive, so–called totalitarian post–traditional power which goes further than the traditional authoritarian power. It does not only tell you "Do your duty, I don't care if you like it or not." It tells you not only "You must obey my orders and do your duty" but "You must do it with pleasure. You must enjoy it." It is not enough for the subjects to obey their leader, they must actively love him. This passage from traditional authoritarian power to modern totalitarianism can be precisely rendered through superego in a joke. Let's say that you are a small child and one Sunday afternoon you have to do the boring duty of visiting your old senile grandmother . If you have a good old–fashioned authoritarian father, what will he tell you? "I don't care how you feel, just go there and behave properly. Do your duty." A modern permissive totalitarian father will tell you something else: "You know how much your grandmother would love to see you. But do go and visit her only if you really want to." Now every idiot knows the catch. Beneath the appearance of this free choice there is an even more oppressive order. You seem to have a choice, but there is no choice, because the order is not only you must visit your grandmother, you must even enjoy it. If you don't believe me, just try to say "I have a choice, I will not do it." I promise your father will say "What did your grandmother ever do to you? Don't you know how she loves you? How could you do this to her?"


Funny, yet intriguing illustration, cosinger!
Title: Nothing is Ever an Accident!
Post by: t h e r m o s on November 17, 2008, 10:47:50 AM

(http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/2932/icwlb7.jpg)

How do people come to understand their actions as their own? Common sense tells us we know when actions are ours because we have caused them; we are intrinsically informed of what we do by our conscious will. But it turns out people can be mistaken about their own authorship, either because they suffer from schizophrenia, dissociative disorder, or a psychogenic movement disorder -- or because they encounter situations that mislead them about the origins of action. In hypnosis, facilitated communication, and co-actions such as ouija-board spelling, for example, people can become profoundly mistaken about the sources of their actions. People can come to believe that they have performed actions they did not do, or that they were not the source of actions that were in fact their own. Wegner and Wheatley (1999) proposed a theory of apparent mental causation that accounts for these anomalies by suggesting that people will feel they are the source of action when they think about that action in advance of its occurrence, and alternative sources of the action are not known. This theory calls into question the common sense view that conscious will is the cause of action.


Imagine yourself standing on a cliff where you not only fear falling off it, but also dread the possibility of throwing yourself off. In this experience that "nothing is holding me back," you sense the lack of anything that predetermines you to either throw yourself off or to stand still; you experience your own freedom.


ACCIDENTS

A barber has accidentally taken off an ear. It lies like something newborn on the floor in a nest of hair.
Oops, says the barber, but it mustn't've been a very good ear. It came off with so little complaint.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: potentprodigy on November 17, 2008, 05:18:03 PM
I agree with the fact that "most law schools students and attorneys are miserable".  I agree with it because it is true.The stress of law school and the practice of law ends relationships, causes many to turn to addictions, and leave so may that wish to do something else without a way out because of student loans. 
Lessons learned from law school:
1) Wasted money
2) Idealism turns into cynicism
3) Relationships end
4) Friendships end
5) Your entire perception on life becomes different after you enter into law school.

Enjoy!
Title: Re: Trauma-based Mind Control
Post by: P e r i c l e s on November 19, 2008, 11:00:31 AM

I would not dismiss as complete b u l l * & ^ % the behaviorist theory with its Pavlovian principles and the like ... I remember it very well indeed when a friend of mine was talking one day to a woman about some pills she'd be getting from her ... stuff prescribed to her before by an idiotic doctor ... she became dependent on them having to find sources herself later on ... well, I remember the scene very well when she was asking her for the pills, promising the latter to do everything for her, become her slave ... now this woman turned out was a lesbian and yes ... my very good friend, a straight woman all the way, was willing to become her slave just to get the pills ... that's the "power" of addiction ... what do I mean? People become "conditioned" to do the most unbelievable things in order to get something they desperately need, be it drugs, gamble money, whatever ... I'm sure many of you may find alternative explanations for the behavior of my friend, but I'm pretty sure mine is the most logical explanation of all!


(http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/1467/womanrobotcor450x350zk3.jpg)

Exactly, paymen - trying to make love to a drugged person is like trying to make love to a robot! Great illustration!


Hahaha - you're so funny, munee! ;)
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Non, je ne regrette rien on November 19, 2008, 08:52:33 PM

Entertainingly sarcastic! Edson appears to be in line with Steven Wright's quotes and work.


(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61zwDVUcH%2BL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)

Steven Wright rocks!
Title: Re: Nothing is Ever an Accident!
Post by: me-copy on November 20, 2008, 08:53:31 PM

(http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/2932/icwlb7.jpg)

How do people come to understand their actions as their own? Common sense tells us we know when actions are ours because we have caused them; we are intrinsically informed of what we do by our conscious will. But it turns out people can be mistaken about their own authorship, either because they suffer from schizophrenia, dissociative disorder, or a psychogenic movement disorder -- or because they encounter situations that mislead them about the origins of action. In hypnosis, facilitated communication, and co-actions such as ouija-board spelling, for example, people can become profoundly mistaken about the sources of their actions. People can come to believe that they have performed actions they did not do, or that they were not the source of actions that were in fact their own. Wegner and Wheatley (1999) proposed a theory of apparent mental causation that accounts for these anomalies by suggesting that people will feel they are the source of action when they think about that action in advance of its occurrence, and alternative sources of the action are not known. This theory calls into question the common sense view that conscious will is the cause of action.


Imagine yourself standing on a cliff where you not only fear falling off it, but also dread the possibility of throwing yourself off. In this experience that "nothing is holding me back," you sense the lack of anything that predetermines you to either throw yourself off or to stand still; you experience your own freedom.


ACCIDENTS

A barber has accidentally taken off an ear. It lies like something newborn on the floor in a nest of hair.
Oops, says the barber, but it mustn't've been a very good ear. It came off with so little complaint.



So how come this was not an accident? 
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: cAMP on November 21, 2008, 01:21:10 PM
Very simple, me-copy: the ear would have complained, were it an indispensable part of the body. Since it did not really stand for itself, but allowed the barber to do with it what he wanted, the ear was destined to be cut off.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: teafairn on November 22, 2008, 12:43:03 PM

Imagine yourself standing on a cliff where you not only fear falling off it, but also dread the possibility of throwing yourself off. In this experience that "nothing is holding me back," you sense the lack of anything that predetermines you to either throw yourself off or to stand still; you experience your own freedom.


Mon ami, you do understand how ridiculous you sound when you say that, don't you?
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: powderh2o on November 22, 2008, 01:44:42 PM

[...] Internists can choose to focus their practice on general internal medicine, or may take additional training to "subspecialize" in one of 13 areas of internal medicine, generally organized by organ system. Cardiologists, for example, are doctors of internal medicine who subspecialize in diseases of the heart. [...] Subspecialty training (often called a "fellowship") usually requires an additional 1-3 years beyond the standard 3-year general internal medicine residency (residencies come after a student has graduated from medical school). [...]

  • Cardiology
  • Endocrinology
  • Gastroenterology
  • Hematology
  • Infectious diseases
  • Medical oncology
  • Nephrology
  • Pulmonology
  • Rheumatology


Jesus @ # ! * i n g Christ! This means you can become a cardiologist only when your 33 years old:

4 years college - you're 22 y.o.
4 years med school -- 26 y.o.
1 year social service -- 27 y.o.
3 years Internal Medicine residency -- 30 y.o.
3 years Cardiology subspecialy -- 33 y.o.

I get it now why only rich kids become doctors specializing in the most sought-after specialties! No middle class (let alone working-class) family can afford to support financially their children studying for 15 straight years!


this time, you obviously don't know what you are talking about! Are you even aware how much money do specialties like Cardio earn after they finish up their residencies? FYI I'm listing here some of the specialties (the first column the number of years it takes to become a specialist in that field and the second the median gross earnings per year reported)

Pulmonology (3+2) $206,000
Nehrology (3+2) $205,000
Hematology (3+2) $225,000
Gastroenterology (3+2) $271,000
Endocrinology (3+2) $173,000
Cardiology (3+3) $307,000
Rheumatology (3+3) $172,000
Allergy-Immunology (3+2) $194,000

To them paying up their student loans (even though they may be massive -- in the range of $300,000) is a joke -- in 5 years they'll be solvent. And we're not discussing Surgery-related specialties (and even some not related to surgery at all) -- their earning potential is simply unreal!

Surgery, General (5 years) $270,000
Neurosurgery (1 year General Surgery + 6-7 years) $401,000
Plastic surgery (5 years General Surgery + 2-3 years) $285,000
ORL (1-2 years + 3-4 years) $283,000
Cardiothoracic surgery $400,000
Retinal surgery $350,000
Ophthalmology $240,000
Dermatology (1+3) $220,000
Anesthesiology (1+3) $290,000
Radiology $300,000
Radiation Oncology $400,000
Orthopedic surgery $350,000
Obstetrics $257,000
Gynecology $202,000
Gynecology oncology $285,000

More modest earnings are in effect for

Neurology (1+3) $186,000
Psychiatry (1+3) $162,000 Children Psychiatry $187,000

Internal Medicine (3 years) earn around $150,000, Family Medicine (2 years) $150,000 and Emergency Medicine $200,000. Combined specialties are Internal Medicine-Pediatrics (4 years), Internal Medicine-Neurology/Psychiatry (5 years), Internal Medicine-Emergency Medicine (5 years). 

EXTREMELY COMPETITIVE
- Plastic surgery
- Dermatology
- Urology
- ORL
- Radiation Oncology

VERY COMPETITIVE
- General surgery
- Orthopedic surgery
- Neurosurgery
- Ophthalmology
- Anesthesiology

COMPETITIVE
- Physical Medicine
- Neurology
- OBGYN
- Pathology
- Emergency Medicine

LESS COMPETITIVE
- Radiology
- Psychiatry
- Pediatrics
- Internal Medicine
- Family Medicine


I just don't get why would one spend 2-3 more years in a fellowship doing scat work to specialize in Endocrinology  $173,000, Rheumatology  $172,000, Allergy-Immunology $194,000, when just completing the Internal Medicine resident he can earn $150,000.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: connotation on November 24, 2008, 02:01:35 PM

Politically speaking, Jordan was not such a good fella :) He joined the NSDAP (Nazi Party) in May 1933. The following November he joined the Sturmabteilung (SA) - the brown shirted storm troopers. He enlisted in the Luftwaffe in 1939 and worked for a while at the Peenemünde rocket center. During the war he attempted to interest the party in various schemes for advanced weapons, but these were ignored because he was considered "politically unreliable", probably because of his past associations with Jews (in particular: Courant, Born, and Wolfgang Pauli) and "Jewish Physics" (such a stigma also followed Werner Heisenberg for some time under the Nazis). It has been speculated that Jordan would have likely shared the 1954 Nobel Prize in Physics awarded to Max Born were it not for his membership in the Nazi party.

Wolfgang Pauli declared Jordan "rehabilitated" to the authorities some time after the war, allowing Jordan to regain academic employment after a 2-year period and then recover his full status as a tenured professor in 1953. Jordan went against Pauli's advice, and reentered politics after the period of denazification came to an end under the pressures of the Cold War. He secured election to the Bundestag standing with the conservative Christian Democrats. In 1957, Jordan came out in support for the arming of the Bundeswehr with tactical nuclear weapons by the Adenauer government, while the Göttinger 18 (which included Born, Heisenberg, and Pauli) authored the Göttinger Manifest in protest. This and other issues were to further strain his relationships with his former friends and colleagues.


While one surely not get so excited about Jordan's politics, people have clearly been applying double standards there. Because of reasons that seem partly comprehensible, Jordan was close to these far-right programs and he became politically organized. David Bohm was organized in completely analogous far-left, communist organizations. Nevertheless, Jordan is usually treated as trash while Bohm is routinely celebrated as a saint hero. And by the way, Jordan was much better a physicist than Bohm. Because Nazism and communism were two comparably big evils - and Stalin actually killed more people than Hitler - this asymmetry in the treatment of these two guys is a worrisome testimony of the pro-communist bias in the Academia. A membership in NSDAP or SA was not an "ultimately selective" crime. By 1945, there were 8.5 million NSDAP members so it should not be shocking that something like 10% of German physicists would be members, too. In 1934, there were 3 million members of SA. The political bias in science - and even in Nobel prizes - is wrong in all directions. I guess Jordan will remain an "unsung hero" of quantum mechanics for quite some time if not forever.


Oh please, tandem2, don't try to justify him! No matter how good of a physicist he may have been, he supported the Nazis and that's something that just won't do! Nazis were animals, and in fact, animal would be too kind and non-judgmental a label. I just cannot imagine a scientist -- who's supposed to strive towards high levels of excellence -- to support such an anti-intellectual organization as the Nazi Party!

www.pptpalooza.net/PPTs/EHAP/EHAPStudentProjects/Anti-IntellInNaziGermany-DavidS.ppt
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: m e t a n o i a on November 24, 2008, 08:04:40 PM

[...] It is practically impossible to get residency spots in the highly competitive specialties like Radiology, Orthopedics and Dermatology being an IMG, US or non-US one. You end up as a general family practice physician or internal medicine resident, specialties which pay much less than the highly sought-after specialties such as Surgery, Anesthesiology, Obstetrics/gynecology, etc.

Equally important, almost all training slots filled by IMGs are in teaching hospitals in large urban areas that have traditionally served large numbers of minorities, uninsured, and low-income patients. It is a bit easier for US-IMGs compared to non-US IMGs. The latter, for example, who usually are on J-1 Visas (with 80% of these physicians actually staying in the US) are compelled to practice in designated rural or inner city physician shortage areas in order to have the "2-year return" requirement for J-1 visa waived. Both the initial training location and the subsequent service locations of IMGs frequently put them in minority communities where other doctors are scarce. In essence IMGs provide primary care to poor and underserved populations, with many inner-city hospitals in the U.S. relying almost exclusively on IMGs to provide services to America's poor.


Honey, I've been a dirty stinky Indian all my life and I can tell ya it's not like that ... several friends of mine (poor, stinky Indian b i t c h e s, if you like!) have been able to get some pretty damn good residencies in the US.

A very dear friend of mine just recently began Rheumatology fellowship at a quite good hospital after having finished the 3-year Internal Medicine residency. It'll take 3 years for the fellowship to be completed and my friend is looking at some $200,000 per annum - not bad at all for someone who lived all the time in a city like Calcutta or Bombay! :)


My boyfriend is a physician and he says some programs don't even require USCE (US Clinical Experience), but in order to make yourself a more desirable applicant you should get some. The experience should be as long as possible with hands-on work. It's VERY important that you get good LORs (letters of recommendation) from US physicians. Ideally, you should try for at least 1month per attachments. I've come across programs which require IMG applicants to have 12 months of USCE.

As for how to get USCE, you have to be creative. The most straight forward way is to get busy on the phone and email and contact all the programs/hospitals listed on FRIEDA and ask them if you can spend a couple of months with them. Most hospitals have a Continuing/Graduate Medical Education (CME or GME) department who will deal with this. VA hospital are apparently more easy to get placements at. If you're still a medical student then you are at an advantage as you can still apply for an externship which will allow you to obtain Hands-on USCE which is like GOLD! However, if you leave it until you graduate then it becomes really (REALLY) difficult to get an externship and most hospitals will only offer Observerships which technically do not allow hands-on work which will mean that your LOR from here probably won't be able to comment on your clinical skills, and consequently will not help you much in applications. A research job is probably best but most places are going to want a several month or year commitment.
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: yourlocalsuperhero on November 25, 2008, 12:22:38 PM
Yes and no.

Yes, because of several tremendous developments in my life that, while largely incidental to my law school career, may not have happened otherwise.

Yes, because I've learned valuable things about the law and legal instruction and practice; honed writing, research and critical thinking skills; and am generally a more competent member of society.  (Perhaps it's needless to say that all of these mostly intellectual developments should be available to all citizens, outside of law school.)

No, because legal instruction stinks, past and present.  No, because legal practice stinks, past and present, and I want no part in it.    No, because there are more valuable things to do for one's self and one's community.  No, because of the limited options that graduate face due to crazy amounts of debt. 
 
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: no634 on November 25, 2008, 12:35:18 PM
so, lots of people have finished 1L now.  hey, lots of people are finishing 2L and 3L now.  so the question to everyone is, are you still glad you decided to go to law school? 

there are countless things you could have been doing this last 1,2, or 3 years so are you happy you decided to spend the time at your respective law school?  also are you happy knowing that you've spent this recent time preparing for a career in law? 




Yes, I love my school and the work. It’s been a lot of fun!
Title: Residency "MATCH Formula" GUIDE for IMGs
Post by: koan on November 25, 2008, 02:01:53 PM

Honey, I've been a dirty stinky Indian all my life and I can tell ya it's not like that ... several friends of mine (poor, stinky Indian b i t c h e s, if you like!) have been able to get some pretty damn good residencies in the US.

A very dear friend of mine just recently began Rheumatology fellowship at a quite good hospital after having finished the 3-year Internal Medicine residency. It'll take 3 years for the fellowship to be completed and my friend is looking at some $200,000 per annum - not bad at all for someone who lived all the time in a city like Calcutta or Bombay! :)


My boyfriend is a physician and he says some programs don't even require USCE (US Clinical Experience), but in order to make yourself a more desirable applicant you should get some. The experience should be as long as possible with hands-on work. It's VERY important that you get good LORs (letters of recommendation) from US physicians. Ideally, you should try for at least 1month per attachments. I've come across programs which require IMG applicants to have 12 months of USCE.

As for how to get USCE, you have to be creative. The most straight forward way is to get busy on the phone and email and contact all the programs/hospitals listed on FRIEDA and ask them if you can spend a couple of months with them. Most hospitals have a Continuing/Graduate Medical Education (CME or GME) department who will deal with this. VA hospital are apparently more easy to get placements at. If you're still a medical student then you are at an advantage as you can still apply for an externship which will allow you to obtain Hands-on USCE which is like GOLD! However, if you leave it until you graduate then it becomes really (REALLY) difficult to get an externship and most hospitals will only offer Observerships which technically do not allow hands-on work which will mean that your LOR from here probably won't be able to comment on your clinical skills, and consequently will not help you much in applications. A research job is probably best but most places are going to want a several month or year commitment.


Most Program directors will score your ERAS application based on the following "33 Score Formula":

1. USMLE Score from Score 1---> 5 (ECFMG Transcripts)
5 points for 220+ 1st attempt
4 points for 200+ 1st attempt
3 points for Pass 1st attempt
2 points for Pass 2nd attempt
1 points for Pass 3+ attempts

Step 1 = 1-5
Step 2CK = 1-5
Step 2CS = 1-3

MAX Score = 13 and MIN Score = 3


2. Years After Graduation: Score 1 to 5 (MD Diploma)

5 points for recent graduate
Every year after - deduct a point, if 5+ years after your MD 1 point

Max = 5 points, Min= 1 point


3. Letter of Recommendations & Rotations (LORs)

5 points = Rotations DONE in ACGME (US applicants), Strong LOR
3 Points = Rotations in ACGME, Average LOR
1 Point = NON ACGME Rotations, LOR Not Rated (e.g., translated)


4. Medical School's Performance (Transcripts), Dean's Letter

5 points: Strong Performance, Strong Dean's Letter
3 Points: Average performance / Dean's Letter
1 Point: Poor Performance / Passing


5. Personal Statement (PS)

5 = Strong PS
3 = Average
1 = Poor


Strong Candidate score over 30 !! That should be your ultimate GOAL!!
Title: Re: Residency "MATCH Formula" GUIDE for IMGs
Post by: Chevalier on November 25, 2008, 08:38:07 PM

1. USMLE Score from Score 1---> 5 (ECFMG Transcripts)

5 points for 220+ 1st attempt
4 points for 200+ 1st attempt
3 points for Pass 1st attempt
2 points for Pass 2nd attempt
1 points for Pass 3+ attempts

Step 1 = 1-5
Step 2CK = 1-5
Step 2CS = 1-3

MAX Score = 13 and MIN Score = 3


Indeed USMLEs are the most important criterion: So, Keep in mind:


HOWEVER, it's even better for you to focus a lot on getting a good score on the test, because many programs take scores of 80-85 and above. Later attempts sometimes are not even accepted.  Thus you really only get one chance to have an easy time getting residency later on down the road. So you may want to research hospitals you have in mind before you take step 1 to get a feel for the reality of what your test means and also to see what kind of score you need to achieve to get there and how hard you need to  study (but in the end its so competitive you just need to get as high score as possible nonetheless)

SO, study hard for the USMLE, especially step 1 if you want to get into certain good programs. Also, try to stay on schedule so that you can get things in time for the MATCH or the SCRAMBLE which is straight after the MATCH. This is the one opportunity you have to get into a good program of your choice... Later on there will be openings, but you wont have much of a choice at that point and there is still competition because there are still many in your shoes.  So get high scores and all qualifications you could possibly need before you Match, so that you can have an easy time during that time and avoid a lot of heartache.
Title: Residency Programs with No Score Requirements
Post by: daires on November 26, 2008, 01:44:40 PM

Indeed USMLEs are the most important criterion: So, Keep in mind:

  • USMLE scores really do count, especially for Internal Medicine. Don't listen to people that say just pass and you'll be fine.
  • Passing is better than failing, and passing on first attempt matters to many programs;

HOWEVER, it's even better for you to focus a lot on getting a good score on the test, because many programs take scores of 80-85 and above. Later attempts sometimes are not even accepted.  Thus you really only get one chance to have an easy time getting residency later on down the road. So you may want to research hospitals you have in mind before you take step 1 to get a feel for the reality of what your test means and also to see what kind of score you need to achieve to get there and how hard you need to  study (but in the end it's so competitive you just need to get as high score as possible nonetheless)


Don't sweat the USMLEs that much. In any event, there are programs out there that don't have score requirements:

Residency Programs with No Score Requirements

Internal Medicine

New York

NYU Downtown Hospital
St. Barnabas Hospital
NYMC/St. Vincents Hospital
Univ of Rochester program
Staten Island Univ. Hospital program
North Shore Univ. Hospital @ Forest Hills
Harlem Hospital Center
Beth Israel Med. Ctr/Albert Einstein COM
Elmhurst Hospital Ctr/Mt. Sinai SOM
SUNY Health Science Ctr @ Brooklyn

Michigan

Kalamazoo Ctr for Medical Studies/MSU program
Henry Ford
William Beaumont Hospital program

Arizona

Univ. of Arizona

California

Scripps Clinic/Green hospital
St. Mary's Medical Center

Missouri

St. John's Mercy Med. Ctr
Univ. of Missouri-Columbia

Ohio

Meridia Huron
Univ. Hospital/Univ. of Cincinnati COM
Forum Health/Western Reserve Care System
Akron General Hospital

Pennsylvannia

Mercy Catholic Med. Ctr
Allegheny Gen Hospital
Reading Hospital
Lehigh Valley Hospital/PSU program
MCP Hahneman Univ program
Thomas Jefferson Univ program
Univ. of Penn (Philly program)
Milton S Hershey Med Ctr./PSU program
Albert Einstein Med Ctr
Crozer-Chester Med. Ctr
UPMC Mckeesport Hospital

Tennessee

Univ. of Tennessee program

Delaware

Christiana Care Health Services program
Florida- Univ of Florida (Gainesville)

Illinois

Loyola Univ.
Univ of Illinois (Peoria)
Resurrection Health Care
Cook County Hospital

Kansas

Univ of Kansas med Ctr program @ Kansas city

Iowa

Univ. of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics program

Maryland

Good Samaritan Hospital of Maryland program
Univ of Maryland program
Franklin Square Hospital

Massachussets

St. Elizabeth's Med Ctr of Boston
Mt. Auburn Hospital program
Metrowest Med Ctr program
Salem Hospital
Cambridge Hospital/Cambridge Health Alliance

New Hampshire

Hitchcock Med Ctr

Rhode Island

Roger Williams

Texas

Baylor COM @ Houston
Univ of Texas Health Alliance Ctr. @ San Antonio

Virginia

East Virginia Medical School

Wash DC

Washington Hospital Ctr program
DC General Hospital

Others

Tuft's University


Family Medicine programs:

California

Ventura County Medical Center

Colorado

North Colorado Medical Center
St. Mary Corwin Regional Medical Center

Florida

St. Vincents Medical Center

Indiana

St. Marys Med. Ctr

Maryland

Franklin Sq. Hospital Ctr

Michigan

Kalamazoo Ctr. for Med. Studies/MSU
St. John Hospital & Med. Ctr
Genesys Regional Med. Ctr

New Jersey

JFK Medical Center

New York

SUNY HSC @ Brooklyn
Univ of Rochester/Highland Hospit of Rochester
Bronx Lebanon Hospital

Pennsylvania
 
Abington Memorial Hospital
Mckeesport Hospt/UPMC
Univ. of Pitt Med. Ctr/St Margaret program
Altoona Fam Practice program
Univ. of Penn program at Philly

Washington

Group Health Cooperative of Puget SOund

Virginia

Riverside Regional Med. Ctr

Louisiana

LSU/EA Conway Med Ctr @ Monroe program
East Jefferson General Hospital

Ohio

Mercy Health Partners

Iowa

Cedar Rapids Med Education Foundation

South Carolina

Medical Univ of South Carolina

Rhode Island

Brown Univ

Texas

Baylor COM
San Jacinto Methodist Fam practice program


Transitional year

Florida

Mayo Clinic

Illinois

Resurrection Health Care

Pennsylvania

Conemaugh Mem. Medical Ctr/Temple Univ
Reading Hospital
St. Francis Med. Ctr

Michigan

Hurley Med Ctr

 
Surgery

Illinois

Lutheran General Hospital

New Jersey

St. Francis Hospital

Maryland

St. Agnes Healthcare
Johns Hopkins University

California

Almeda County Medical Center

New York

Stamford Hospital, Columbia University
Mount Sinai School of Medicine

Georgia

Medical College of Georgia

Minnesota

Mayo Clinic, Rochester

Others

Baylor University Medical Center
Thomas Jefferson University
McGaw Med Center of Northwestern University
Hennepin County Med Center
Mayo Clinic Scottsdale
Indiana University School of Medicine
Univ of Kansas Med Center (Cornell)
North Oakland Medical Center
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: after virtue on December 01, 2008, 05:57:28 PM

[...] It is practically impossible to get residency spots in the highly competitive specialties like Radiology, Orthopedics and Dermatology being an IMG, US or non-US one. You end up as a general family practice physician or internal medicine resident, specialties which pay much less than the highly sought-after specialties such as Surgery, Anesthesiology, Obstetrics/gynecology, etc.

Equally important, almost all training slots filled by IMGs are in teaching hospitals in large urban areas that have traditionally served large numbers of minorities, uninsured, and low-income patients. It is a bit easier for US-IMGs compared to non-US IMGs. The latter, for example, who usually are on J-1 Visas (with 80% of these physicians actually staying in the US) are compelled to practice in designated rural or inner city physician shortage areas in order to have the "2-year return" requirement for J-1 visa waived. Both the initial training location and the subsequent service locations of IMGs frequently put them in minority communities where other doctors are scarce. In essence IMGs provide primary care to poor and underserved populations, with many inner-city hospitals in the U.S. relying almost exclusively on IMGs to provide services to America's poor.


Honey, I've been a dirty stinky Indian all my life and I can tell ya it's not like that ... several friends of mine (poor, stinky Indian b i t c h e s, if you like!) have been able to get some pretty damn good residencies in the US.

A very dear friend of mine just recently began Rheumatology fellowship at a quite good hospital after having finished the 3-year Internal Medicine residency. It'll take 3 years for the fellowship to be completed and my friend is looking at some $200,000 per annum - not bad at all for someone who lived all the time in a city like Calcutta or Bombay! :)


harrisons, my dear, you are simply lying - you can't be from India when you talk about a city, calling it by its old name! Once-Bombay now is called Mumbai!

And BTW, you may well want to examine your thoughts and beliefs, cuz it seems to be you are racist as well!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: Four,Christmases on December 01, 2008, 07:56:09 PM
after virtue, don't you think you're taking it too far? Try to be a little bit more open-minded!
Title: Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
Post by: apropos on December 03, 2008, 04:42:07 PM


This has come to be known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The physicist Werner Heisenberg suggested that just by observing quantum matter, we affect the behavior of that matter. Thus, we can never be fully certain of the nature of a quantum object or its attributes, like velocity and location. This idea is supported by the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Posed by the Danish physicist Niels Bohr, this interpretation says that all quantum particles don't exist in one state or the other, but in all of its possible states at once. The sum total of possible states of a quantum object is called its wave function. The state of an object existing in all of its possible states at once is called its superposition. According to Bohr, when we observe a quantum object, we affect its behaviour. Observation breaks an object's superposition and essentially forces the object to choose one state from its wave function. This theory accounts for why physicists have taken opposite measurements from the same quantum object: The object "chose" different states during different measurements.


Speaking of Heisenberg, the inventor of the 'uncertainty principle': he thought Heraclitus (you know who Heraclitus is, don'tcha) views only needed a bit of tweaking to bring them totally up-to-date:

Quote
Modern physics is in some ways extremely near to the doctrines of Heraclitus. If we replace the word 'fire' by the word 'energy' we can repeat this statement word for word from our modern point of view. Energy is in fact the substance from which all elementary particles, all atoms and therefore all things are made, and energy is that which moves... Energy may be called the fundamental cause for all change in the world.

By the way, Heraclitus was an aristocrat who lived on the Ionian cost of Greece. His preference for composing short, almost paradoxical philosophical epigrams later earned him the sobriquet 'the Dark'. But it is an innocuous-looking dictum about rivers that has made his reputation. You cannot step into the same river twice. Heracliteanism became a doctrine encapsulated by Plato as the view that "all is flux." But Plato himself was echoing Cratylus, who had only earlier decided for himself what it was that Heraclitus must have meant. Cratylus' idea that everything was changing all the time was then taken up by Empedocles, who embellished the other Heraclitean notion of a world continually torn between the two evocatively named forces, 'love' and 'strife', in order to reveal its essential character. The world becomes a sphere of perfect love in which strife, like a swirling vortex, has infiltrated. Whose idea was it, then? Heraclitus', or Cratylus', or...? It keeps changing.

But in any case, the point about the river seems to have been a more prosaic one to do with the nature of human experience. We encounter things all the time as being different, but behind the appearance of diversity is a more important and more fundamental unity: "cold things grow hot, the hot cools, the wet dries, the parched moistens." Not that Heraclitus is saying that the senses are deceived, for "whatever comes from sight, hearing, experience, this I privilege," he adds. Even life and death are as one, Heraclitus continues. "The same living and dead, what is awake and what sleeps, young and old... for those changed are those, and those changed around are these." The opposites are united by change: they change into each other. And change is the fundamental reality of the universe. The highest, 'divine' perspective sees all the opposites: "day and night, winter and summer, war and peace, plenty and famine," all are the same. With the divine perspective, even good and evil are the same.

Two thousand years later, Professor Hegel found in Heraclitus' swirling vortex of the unity of opposites the kernel of a n