Med school vs. Law school question

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Originally posted by DrBodacious
MacGyver-

(I like your show BTW)

In all of my science courses that didn't have multiple choice tests (e.g. Physics, Ochem, Embryology) there was always partial credit given. Some profs gave more partial credit than others. For my physics classes, the questions were hard to get full credit on, but people could always get a few points just by writing down the correct formula. Or if you botched a caclulation, but used the correct formula, you got decent points.

Maybe my school is leniant compared to yours?

Well, it didnt take long for somebody to respond without understanding the caveat that I posted in my first post:

let me remind you that personal anecdotes are worthless and TRENDS AND AVERAGES are the arbiters in this dispute.

TRENDS AND AVERAGES dictate that science based classes are much more likely to be based on all/nothing, right/wrong answers, whereas TRENDS AND AVERAGES dictate that lib arts classes are much less likely to operate that way.

Note that I used TRENDS AND AVERAGES in my argument, NOT PERSONAL ANECDOTES.

PERSONAL ANECDOTES are worthless as indicators of a larger phenomenon. Surely you understand that right?

Members don't see this ad.
 
I'm record as saying that by and large the science classes are more "challenging" than the liberal arts ones are. There's no doubt about this when we are talking about the averages. However, THAT realization does not translate into the more robust statement that grades will tend to be higher in these liberal arts classes.

I agree that putting forth any sort of effort at all will likely secure some form of a B in just about any liberal arts class. But isn't the same pretty much true for most science classes as well. I don't know how it was at your school, but just about every science class I took at my school defined an A at 85-87%, and a B at 75% (or thereabouts). Even though i worked my ass off to make sure I got the highest grades I could, I came away from most of these classes thinking that even a slight effort at studying should secure at least a B in any science class no matter how hard it was.

Now I know, I know. . .A whole trainload of you people are going to come on this thread and argue with me "At MY school, Northwester, Princeton, Cornell, etc., etc., NOBODY gets an A, and the cutoff is a strict 93%" or some other such nonsense designed to convinced the rest of us unwashed masses that you worked harder than the rest of us, that its harder to get an A where YOU go to school, and that its a MIRACLE within the context of your NO GRADE INFLATION undergraduate institution that ANYBODY gets into medical school, and that THANK GOD everybody who goes there simply works hard enough, and more to the point, harder than anybody else, to rise above the background noise created by the standardless science classes taken by everybody else. But I don't buy it for one minute. I've no doubt that you had SOME science classes with a traditional 90% A- cutoff (my General Chem was like that), but i don't think the majority did. The trend among ALL schools at this point is to decrease the scores needed to get some form of an A in a science class. And I think that applies ALMOST equally across the board. If I have to hear one more time about how at school X only the top 5% of the people get A's, I think i am going to puke.

[off my box]

In my estimation the MAJOR thing that seperates science classes from many of the liberal arts classes (including many upper level ones) is a lack of any sort of accountabilty and standards for those liberal arts classes. Let me give you an example. I took a number of upper level philosophy courses (like "existentialism and hermeneutics" or "Derida" or somesuch) where the subject matter was extremely difficult, and where a great deal of "knowledge" could have been tested on an exam. BUT, for those of you who have had upper level liberal arts classes know, many times the final grade (perhaps even the only grade for the whole class) would come down to a "paper" on a topic of our choice (provided it had some relevance to the course). I can't tell you how may times we'd spend an entire semester diving into the minutia of this philosphy or that concept only to be asked to write a 20 page paper on "whatever". In that case, there's little in the way of accountability for what one was expect to know from taking the class in the first place.

Anyway, just my take.

I've been through a liberal arts undergrad (and masters), an decent law school, and a premed post-bacc stint (as well as a few extra science classes) and while I think on average the science classes required more accountability, it was about equally hard to get the same grades in all the classes.

I will be interested to see how med school classes turn out. I suspect it will be much of the same.

Judd
 
I am a J.D. and my opinion is that law school is probably more based on numbers than med school, because they don't do interviews, they don't really look at your EC's, and they don't really put much weight on your personal statement or LORs. Plus, there's not nearly the hoops to jump through for law school admissions like doing x number of hours of clinical experience, etc. In that sense, law school admission is a breeze. Most applications are 4 pages long--none of this secondary nonsense.

Anyhow, as for law school itself, I felt it was FAR easier than undergrad, and I went to a pretty darn good undergrad. Basically, the reason I say this is because there are no homework assignments, no papers, no tests--nothing in each class (exept for one--legal research and writing, which is a 1L class and has lots of papers and stuff) except for one final at the end of each semester. Thus, my approach was to let things go and do minimal to no studying until the very last month before finals, when I'd hit the books hard. Basically, I did little to no studying in law school, and my grades were fine. Not stellar, but I didn't really aim for stellar.

It was more like a three-year vacation, to tell you the truth. Med school, in my opinion, will be far, far harder.

-Tofurkey
 
Members don't see this ad :)
By the way, I forgot to mention that I am presently finishing up my pre-med post-bacc program (not a formal one, but a semi-formal one.) I find my pre-med classes to be far more challenging than any law school class or college class was (except for corporations class in law school). But I am more of a liberal arts person innately, and really have to work at my science skills.

Like some others have mentioned, I, too, wanted to do pre-med in college, but I was a slacker, and couldn't get up the motivation (though my grades were good.) I got into a good law school and it was there that I found the motivation and drive to realize med school was within reach.

I disagree with Juddson about the LSAT being an intelligence test. I personally think I am pretty intelligent though I did not score well on the LSAT. I did not prepare enough, and logic is not one of my best subjects--it still isn't, even after law school. I think there are many different kinds of intelligence--not just one big, all-encompassing Intelligence--so the argument that the LSAT is an intelligence test seems very flawed to me. Some people are better at logic than others, and the LSAT heavily tests logic.

-Tofurkey
 
Originally posted by MacGyver
Well, it didnt take long for somebody to respond without understanding the caveat that I posted in my first post:



TRENDS AND AVERAGES dictate that science based classes are much more likely to be based on all/nothing, right/wrong answers, whereas TRENDS AND AVERAGES dictate that lib arts classes are much less likely to operate that way.

Note that I used TRENDS AND AVERAGES in my argument, NOT PERSONAL ANECDOTES.

PERSONAL ANECDOTES are worthless as indicators of a larger phenomenon. Surely you understand that right?

I'm not talking about personal anecdotes, I'm talking about three subjects at my school, two of which are two classes each. Physiology, Physics I and II and Orgo I and II. And add Genetics to the list. I would suspect that many if not most schools have written exams for those subjects or certainly for the majority of upper level science courses.
What I was saying, which you didn't understand, was that one of the premises of the argument in your earlier post--"In sciences/engineering, its usually all or nothing, right or wrong answers" is flawed. To clarify: I think the majority of people BS many a point on a many a science test.

Moreover, your "TRENDS and AVERAGES" disclaimer was only covering your ass if someone proposed that an outlying liberal arts professor may give you 0 credit for an attempt on an essay.

If you don't understand your own argument, and then you don't understand my counter argument, it's not my problem, and it doesn't make for a very intellegent debate on your part.
 
Originally posted by juddson
Even if you do poorly from the worst medical school in the country, you are going to get a high paying job and make a good living, and not have to try to hard to get it.

Not necessarily. Don't forget you have residency (and possibly fellowship) first. The way the market is today, many urban centers are already oversaturated with docs from certain fields.

Originally posted by Trekkie963
Yes, but those 187 law schools have WAY more spots for students than do the 126 medical schools. It is not uncommon for a law school class to have 500 people in it.

Yup. A quick Yahoo! search reveals that, according to the LSAC, there were 99,500 applicants last fall. 56,800 were accepted into law school, 46,200 matriculated.

From the AAMC, there were 34,786 med school applicants last year; a total of 16,538 matriculated.
 
Originally posted by japhy
in terms of admissions, getting into a top 15 law school is every bit as difficult as getting into most med schools. getting into yale or stanford is damn near impossible.

Really? From Yale's law school website, over the past 3 years, they've had a total of 3,927 JD applicants with 624 admits. (Average per year of 1,309 applicants, 208 admits, 16% acceptance rate.) For the 2005 entering class at Stanford (also for JD), they had 4,200 applicants for 170 total matriculants.

Then you take a top-ranked med school like Harvard, and their stats are as follows for the 2003 entering class: 4,523 applicants, 165 total matriculants. Johns Hopkins (5.6% acceptance rate, from US News) has a similarly high number of applicants for relatively few slots.

Obviously, mere acceptance rates don't tell the whole story. You'd have to compare applicants to see which ones were more competitive (better stats, etc.). Tough to compare GPAs, too, since pre-law students and pre-med students typically take different classes.
 
Originally posted by DrBodacious
I'm talking about three subjects at my school, two of which are two classes each. Physiology, Physics I and II and Orgo I and II. And add Genetics to the list. I would suspect that many if not most schools have written exams for those subjects or certainly for the majority of upper level science courses.

you still dont get it. Its RELATIVE to the lib arts classes. Are you HONESTLY going to sit back there and tell me that the physics, genetics, and orgo classes at your school are as subjective as the philosophy, english lit, and art history classes?

Thats BS and you know it.

Science classes across the board are MUCH more likely than lib arts classes to use objective, right/wrong type formats for tests.

When you make an argument of science vs non-science classes, you have to use RELATIVE COMPARISONS. Making absolutist statements about science classes with no RELATIVE COMPARISON to lib arts classes means nothing.
 
Originally posted by MacGyver
you still dont get it. Its RELATIVE to the lib arts classes. Are you HONESTLY going to sit back there and tell me that the physics, genetics, and orgo classes at your school are as subjective as the philosophy, english lit, and art history classes?

Thats BS and you know it.


Philosophy, whether you know it or not, is the foundation upon which science is built...Modern science would not be what it is today without Plato, Aristotle, or even Descarte and Bacon. So if you're going to argue that philosophy is "merely" subjective, you'll also have to accept that the science which is built upon it is hopelessly subjective as well...
 
Originally posted by SoulRFlare
Philosophy, whether you know it or not, is the foundation upon which science is built...Modern science would not be what it is today without Plato, Aristotle, or even Descarte and Bacon. So if you're going to argue that philosophy is "merely" subjective, you'll also have to accept that the science which is built upon it is hopelessly subjective as well...

Indeed philosophy is subjective, but saying science is subjective because philosophy gave birth to it is flawed. What I don't get is whether you are referring to subjectivity in science relative to philosophy or you consider the former independently. But, by summary, relative to philosophy, science is way more objective.

Yes, science possibly has its springboards from classical philosophy, but science has evolved very much since then. Since science has evolved to being much more built on empiricism, it is not reasonable to compare it with philosophy, which merely probes conjectural and speculative phenomena, in terms of subjectivity and objectivity. Relative to each other, they have become reasonably divergent with regards to time.
 
blade,

if you look at the numbers for yale and stanford you quickly see how hard it is to get into both of these schools. at yale their 25th percentile lsat is a 168, and their 75th is 174. for the lsat overall, these are the 95th and 99.4th percentile. stanford requires similar numbers. a full quarter of yale's class scored ABOVE the 99.4th percentile.

of course, some people are getting accepted. but you have to be perfect to get into these schools.
 
Originally posted by japhy
if you look at the numbers for yale and stanford you quickly see how hard it is to get into both of these schools. at yale their 25th percentile lsat is a 168, and their 75th is 174. for the lsat overall, these are the 95th and 99.4th percentile. stanford requires similar numbers. a full quarter of yale's class scored ABOVE the 99.4th percentile.

That just proves that the top law schools are all LSAT numbers ******. I can think of only one med school (WashU, I'm looking at you) that operates this way.

Its clearly more difficult OVERALL, to get accepted ot med school.

Yes, Yale Law is harder to get into than, say, UChigago medicine. Just like Wharton business is harder to get into than, say, Baylor college of medicine.

of course, some people are getting accepted. but you have to be perfect to get into these schools.

A better comparison is programs at the same institution.

Yale Law vs Yale Med
Harvard Law vs Harvard Med
Stanford Law vs Stanford Med

In just about every peer program at the same university, med school wins hands down in terms of difficulty in getting accepted.
 
Actually, I wasn't making the point that philosophy is subjective...rather, when done well, philosophy is just as "objective" as science (though i think that complete objectivity is a myth...or rather, the strict demarcations between so called subjective and objective are artificial...) Plato demonstrates this when Socrates impels a slave boy to answer a mathmatical problem by asking him "self-evident" questions. I guess I get frustrated when people say things like "merely subjective" in order to invalidate something, when that is in fact throwing out a very important dimension of human endevor. Again, Plato gave the subjective a very important place in his philosophy by imbedding dialogue and myth within.

and I wasn't arguing that philosophy simply gave birth to science. rather, philosophy continues to "underwrite" science so to speak--it determines how we define knowledge, what we consider valid, how we go about investigating, and what we consider worth investigating--all aspects which could be considered subjective. for example, science of today is based on the assumption that it should serve utility...and not just any utility; most research and development is concerned with what will make money. if our system were based on the philosophy of the greeks, we would pursue science in the name of wonder and the common good, with little or no concern for money making.

as for saying the argument is flawed...look, the philosophical ground of science today (as you say, empiracism) is based upon certain assumptions which are not strictly objective. for instance, it assumes that our senses (or extensions thereof such as instruments, computers) offer a faithful representation of what is "really out there." this is necessarily subjective because let's face it--we are in part subjective beings. this is the way our minds make sense of the world. so is science "subjective" because philosophy, which gave birth to it, is also "subjective"? I think the better statement would be to say "both philosophy and science have elements of objectivity and subjectivity because the human mind, which gave birth to the two, is both subjective and objective (not either one or the other)."

I think the real problem is not that science is just as subjective as objective, but the denegrating attitude placed upon the subjective. any physician will tell you that validating the subjective "art" of medicine is what differentiates the physician from the technician/automaton. ultimately, our success cannot be determined by erasing all vestiges of the subjective in our pursuit of truth, for in doing so we are destroying an important aspect of truth (as well as ourselves). the goal we as philosophers and scientists should have is to balance the two sides of the coin (subjective and objective) and learn how to skillfully wield each in the best possible ways. in other words...let's grow beyond the philosophy of dualism which pervades much of modern thought!
 
soul,

nobody is saying that because something is objective, that makes it inherently better.

What we are saying is that the more subjective a college course is, the more likely you are to get partial credit.

This is the argument:

1) Science classes, ON AVERAGE, tend to be more objectively oriented RELATIVE TO LIB ARTS CLASSES.

2) Partial credit is easier to come by, ON AVERAGE, in objective based courses, RELATIVE TO SUBJECTIVE based courses.

Now, before some idiot comes along and says "in my science courses, we had only essay questions on the tests," or "my science prof always gave us partial credit" please note that I used specific terms such as ON AVERAGE, and RELATIVE. Another reminder that personal anecdotes are worthless.
 
Originally posted by japhy
if you look at the numbers for yale and stanford you quickly see how hard it is to get into both of these schools. at yale their 25th percentile lsat is a 168, and their 75th is 174. for the lsat overall, these are the 95th and 99.4th percentile. stanford requires similar numbers. a full quarter of yale's class scored ABOVE the 99.4th percentile.

Agreed that top law schools are VERY difficult to get into. You won't get any arguments from me. I'm just stating that top med schools are also extremely difficult to get into.

Maybe we should also be comparing the average stats of ALL law schools versus the average stats of ALL med schools? Difficult to compare just the cream of the crop.
 
Originally posted by MacGyver
soul,

nobody is saying that because something is objective, that makes it inherently better.

What we are saying is that the more subjective a college course is, the more likely you are to get partial credit.

Whereas in more objectively based courses, partial credit is harder, RELATIVE TO LIB ARTS (i.e. more subjectively based) CLASSES, to come by.

The implication is "philosophy, art, and english are so much easier than the robust and strictly objective sciences." which is untrue. case in point: look how well people do on the "subjective" MCAT verbal compared to the PS or BS sections...
 
Originally posted by MacGyver
you still dont get it. Its RELATIVE to the lib arts classes. Are you HONESTLY going to sit back there and tell me that the physics, genetics, and orgo classes at your school are as subjective as the philosophy, english lit, and art history classes?

Thats BS and you know it.

Science classes across the board are MUCH more likely than lib arts classes to use objective, right/wrong type formats for tests.

When you make an argument of science vs non-science classes, you have to use RELATIVE COMPARISONS. Making absolutist statements about science classes with no RELATIVE COMPARISON to lib arts classes means nothing.

I never said I was totally disagreeing with your argument, I just think you are taking it too far. And no I am not BSing just to play devil's advocate.

a) I think both humanities and science classes have a basis in facts. For a class that covers the writings of Dostoevsky for which you have to write a paper, you have to base your paper on facts or instances from the writing. Similarly, for a physics class you have to be able to work a variety of problems using the theorums and laws that have been established.

Case in point (for this argument): the verbal reasoning section of the MCAT, or the LSAT verbal section. There are only right or wrong answers. You can draw incorrect conclusions from humanities-type material just as easily as you can draw incorrect conclusions from physics laws and facts.

In the classroom setting, you can BS on a written test or paper about the facts that are present in order to convey some level of incomplete understanding of the material.

b) I do agree that there is a great deal more interpretation involved in humanities classes, especially in a creative writing class for instance. Therefore humanities subjects are more subjective, but both science and humanities exams/grades are subjective to a great extent.

So going back to what this humaities vs. science argument started with... I think that the LSAT is not subjective just because it deals with only humanities-type verbal reasoning. I think the significant difference is that is lacks the emphasis on pre-learned facts. It is near equally as objective as the MCAT.
 
Originally posted by SoulRFlare

as for saying the argument is flawed...look, the philosophical ground of science today (as you say, empiracism) is based upon certain assumptions which are not strictly objective. for instance, it assumes that our senses (or extensions thereof such as instruments, computers) offer a faithful representation of what is "really out there." this is necessarily subjective because let's face it--we are in part subjective beings. this is the way our minds make sense of the world. so is science "subjective" because philosophy, which gave birth to it, is also "subjective"? I think the better statement would be to say "both philosophy and science have elements of objectivity and subjectivity because the human mind, which gave birth to the two, is both subjective and objective (not either one or the other)."
!

I agree with you in general. There is something called scientific faith which draws upon induction and deduction. Induction and deductive reasoning suggest that we must take certain things as true insofar as they are applicable generally; they consist of presumptions which are necessarily true for a given theory to hold. This could be subjective, but that is the essence of epistemology--the problem of the validity of knowledge. I won't argue this here but the argument abounds in philosophy journals.

My point is that science is more empirically operative than philosophy as we see it today, and therefore, less likey to be tainted by subjective elements. Yes, we are, as individuals in constitution, both subjective and objective, but the nature of science limits the extent at which subjectivity can be incorporated. At least we won't see a paper in Nature saying "DNA indicates the presence of the Soul". That would be downright silly

:laugh:
 
I can't believe this discussion is still going on.

Law school in general is probably easier to get into - more spots per applicant. However, the top 10 law schools are probably as hard or harder to get into than lower-ranked medical schools bc there is stiff competition for these spots. Being gainfully employed in law is probably a little harder than medicine bc there are more lawyers and fewer positions - a more saturated market. I've known a few unemployed lawyers, but not any unemployed doctors.

Whether science or research/writing intensive curriculum is harder is really relative. I've always found that literature and liberal arts was naturally easier for me - it was just more intuitive than science. I went to law school at a top 10 school and would not say it was very hard. I'm sure I'll find medical school harder, simply bc I've never really focused and will need to get reacquainted with the sciences. But this is not true for everyone - I've known many people who find science interesting and naturally intuitive, but have a difficult time spelling jurisdiction, much less understanding it. For these people, law school would, hands down, be pure hell and much harder than medical school. Some people are not at all creative or flexible and would have a difficult time adjusting to the concept in law school that there is no right answer or way to view a situation.

It really depends on whether you're a math/science or literature/liberal arts type person. Neither one is all that hard to gain a basic grasp of - they are areas that been studied and restudied for thousands of years, but usually one area requires more work than other based on the natural tendencies of that particular person.

This discussion is based largely on each posters personal areas of strengths and weakness - and actually in the reversal. The people who end up in law school are for the most part, people who naturally understand liberal arts/literature and have built on these strengths through their undergrad study. The people in medical school, for the most part, are people who obviously have natural inclination and strength in the sciences - and less so in liberal arts/literature. It is a process of self-selection - build on your strengths, stick with what you know and what you're good at. Yet, the people in medical school swear science is harder, and the people in law school swear that liberal arts and literature can be more challenging. The truth is, that if they really thought that, they'd be in the other profession/area of study. Human nature, as a general rule, does not drive people into areas of study/professions that they find the most difficult.
 
Originally posted by LilyMD
It really depends on whether you're a math/science or literature/liberal arts type person. Neither one is all that hard to gain a basic grasp of - they are areas that been studied and restudied for thousands of years, but usually one area requires more work than other based on the natural tendencies of that particular person.

This discussion is based largely on each posters personal areas of strengths and weakness - and actually in the reversal. The people who end up in law school are for the most part, people who naturally understand liberal arts/literature and have built on these strengths through their undergrad study. The people in medical school, for the most part, are people who obviously have natural inclination and strength in the sciences - and less so in liberal arts/literature. It is a process of self-selection - build on your strengths, stick with what you know and what you're good at. Yet, the people in medical school swear science is harder, and the people in law school swear that liberal arts and literature can be more challenging. The truth is, that if they really thought that, they'd be in the other profession/area of study. Human nature, as a general rule, does not drive people into areas of study/professions that they find the most difficult.

Very true, I said this less explicitly earlier. I think the question of which is harder or easier is ignorant.
 
Originally posted by Blade28
Agreed that top law schools are VERY difficult to get into. You won't get any arguments from me. I'm just stating that top med schools are also extremely difficult to get into.

Maybe we should also be comparing the average stats of ALL law schools versus the average stats of ALL med schools? Difficult to compare just the cream of the crop.

I think you are missing the point. If you graduate from a crappy med school, you will still get an OK residency and make good money (especially if you do botox injections). You need to go to a top ten law school or graduate very high in your class to have a lock on a good job. There are lots of law graduates bustin'-a-hump to find crappy law jobs. This doesn't happen in medicine.

Ed
 
Originally posted by Gleevec
I think getting into med school is MUCH harder then getting into law school.

How many premeds do you know who drop out of premed and enter prelaw? I know several.

How many prelaws do you know who drop out of prelaw and enter premed? I know of none.


I'm a pre-law dropout going pre-med now. In all of the years I was a poli-sci/pre-law guy I saw law as a glamorous position where I would be named youngest Justice on the Supreme Court at the age of 26 and not really what 99% of all lawyers do, which is crap. Not to offend any lawyers on here, but I was under the impression that law was much more academic than it actually is and once I got some real exposure to it I realized it wasn't for me. I've gotten some real exposure to medicine and I think it is for me so I'm glad I made the switch.

As to which is harder, that's a personal opinion on a case by case basis depending on what you're good at. I know I would get an F in an art class if I were to take one whereas a MFA degree might be considered by some as easy - to each his own.
 
Top