Should I still go into medicine if I am not altruistic

[xanthomondo]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Do you know how much effort/talent it takes to get into a low ranking law school? do you know how much effort I put into getting rejected by every medical school i applied to last year?

And even then you're still not taking into account the extra year and cost of medical school and the three years in residency.

I'll grant you that, one of the reasons we're probably arguing about this is that, the relative ease of making money by going into law or medicine is probably different for every person ... however, i'd guess that, for the average person that becomes a doctor, it is easier to make money by going into law ... I could be wrong, but im pretty sure thats true for, at least, me ...

I also think law students would be upset at how much you dismiss their education. Law school requires a lot of work, too

 

[Gallix23]

How many times do i have to repeat my point? i don't think the average lawyer salary vs average doctor salary statistic answers the question - is it easier to make money by becoming a doctor or a lawyer?

If you BECOME a doctor, that is, finish all schooling and training to become a doctor, you will make far greater money -more easily- than if you became a lawyer, statistically. (heck, in residency a training physician makes an average lawyer salary).

However, since the average lawyer makes an average salary anyways, there are other means to make THAT kind of money without the stress and hard work of being a lawyer.

 

[jult24er]

If you BECOME a doctor, that is, finish all schooling and training to become a doctor, you will make far greater money -more easily- than if you became a lawyer, statistically. (heck, in residency a training physician makes an average lawyer salary).

However, since the average lawyer makes an average salary anyways, there are other means to make THAT kind of money without the stress and hard work of being a lawyer.

statistically, the data you are using has a selection bias, meaning, the population of doctors and lawyers are not the same - they are not both selected randomly from the general population.

So, yes, an average doctor makes more than an average lawyer, but you cant jump from that fact to the conclusion that an average doctor would have made less money, had they gone into law. Why? Because you dont know that an average doctor would have become an average lawyer. In fact, im betting they wouldnt ...

 

[ThreeBrassRings]

Terrible misinformation about law salaries here.

First of all, shame on the med school student who can't properly interpret a simple chart.

Secondly, all law salary stats are dragged down by the fact that public interest, government jobs, and small law offices don't pay very much, not to mention the numerous temp employees and flat-out unemployed JDs that are created by the highly saturated legal market. But, if you were to look at somebody who has been in private practice for 10+ years in lit, transactional work, tax, etc - the average is closer to $200K+. Market for the top 15% of first year law grads (ceiling salary at about the 60-70 largest firms + a smaller but still prestigious regional firms) is around 125-160K, plus bonuses, and this increases every year after that (though there are many salary freezes at the large firms due to the economy). This means that for a lot of law grads, they can be making close to $200K a year with only three years of fairly easy post-grad schooling - it's not a bad deal for many, especially when you consider that a lot of these first year associates are around 25. No other industry provides this opportunity, even if it is just for the top performers in law.

The downside is that most of those people don't last more than three to four years at the large firms and then take a pay cut when they downgrade. Still, the paycut usually moves them to regional firms or in-house, where they'll average $120K or so to start, plus bonus, with guaranteed bumps every year or a contracted partnership agreement. And obviously the few attorneys who make partner make a ton of money because they're business owners. Partners at the largest firms (0.001% of all lawyers) make millions a year. A partner at a smaller but prestigious boutique or regional makes anywhere from $350K to high sixes every year.

But as I said, many attorneys just stick with government work or public interest. PI tops out at something like $90K for a few after many years but usually pays about par with school teachers or cops. Government varies, but a long career in the public sector can work up to around $175K plus all the benefits and such.

So law is a hugely mixed bag. Some are able to go solo and in fact most of the wealthiest lawyers are just savvy businessmen who started their own practices. Others never really get too far, but again, it's rare to find anybody who has been practicing law consistently for a decade that doesn't make a very comofrtable living. Salaries are driven down by the fact that there are something like 300+ law schools and many law grads really are incompetent to practice or do any high level work, but for those who went to a decent school and did well, it's hard not make a good living if you stick with it. The mistake in this thread is conflating the total reports on salaries with the large number of lawyers from decent schools who are in private practice. There's just so much more variation in law that it's not really comparable to medicine.

Nobody denies that the AMA takes care of doctors and keeps the salaries for even the screw-ups very high, but the ceiling for doctors is also lower, you work harder, your school is rougher and much longer, you work more hours (usually - doesn't apply to the largest firms), and law school is cheaper. You also sit on your butt for the whole day as an attorney and frequently get to enjoy long, boozy lunches and can take your career in wider range of directions if you choose, but those aren't serious considerations for everybody. The relative lack of job security for many lawyers relative to medicine is something that I would cite as the #1 drawback, not the greater difficulty of attaining a $100K+ starting salary.

 

[andrewnwi]

This thread is bananas.

 

[jult24er]

Terrible misinformation about law salaries here.

First of all, shame on the med school student who can't properly interpret a simple chart.

Secondly, all law salary stats are dragged down by the fact that public interest, government jobs, and small law offices don't pay very much, not to mention the numerous temp employees and flat-out unemployed JDs that are created by the highly saturated legal market. But, if you were to look at somebody who has been in private practice for 10+ years in lit, transactional work, tax, etc - the average is closer to $200K+. Market for the top 15% of first year law grads (ceiling salary at about the 60-70 largest firms + a smaller but still prestigious regional firms) is around 125-160K, plus bonuses, and this increases every year after that (though there are many salary freezes at the large firms due to the economy). This means that for a lot of law grads, they can be making close to $200K a year with only three years of fairly easy post-grad schooling - it's not a bad deal for many, especially when you consider that a lot of these first year associates are around 25. No other industry provides this opportunity, even if it is just for the top performers in law.

The downside is that most of those people don't last more than three to four years at the large firms and then take a pay cut when they downgrade. Still, the paycut usually moves them to regional firms or in-house, where they'll average $120K or so to start, plus bonus, with guaranteed bumps every year or a contracted partnership agreement. And obviously the few attorneys who make partner make a ton of money because they're business owners. Partners at the largest firms (0.001% of all lawyers) make millions a year. A partner at a smaller but prestigious boutique or regional makes anywhere from $350K to high sixes every year.

But as I said, many attorneys just stick with government work or public interest. PI tops out at something like $90K for a few after many years but usually pays about par with school teachers or cops. Government varies, but a long career in the public sector can work up to around $175K plus all the benefits and such.

So law is a hugely mixed bag. Some are able to go solo and in fact most of the wealthiest lawyers are just savvy businessmen who started their own practices. Others never really get too far, but again, it's rare to find anybody who has been practicing law consistently for a decade that doesn't make a very comofrtable living. Salaries are driven down by the fact that there are something like 300+ law schools and many law grads really are incompetent to practice or do any high level work, but for those who went to a decent school and did well, it's hard not make a good living if you stick with it. The mistake in this thread is conflating the total reports on salaries with the large number of lawyers from decent schools who are in private practice. There's just so much more variation in law that it's not really comparable to medicine.

Nobody denies that the AMA takes care of doctors and keeps the salaries for even the screw-ups very high, but the ceiling for doctors is also lower, you work harder, your school is rougher and much longer, you work more hours (usually - doesn't apply to the largest firms), and law school is cheaper. You also sit on your butt for the whole day as an attorney and frequently get to enjoy long, boozy lunches and can take your career in wider range of directions if you choose, but those aren't serious considerations for everybody. The relative lack of job security for many lawyers relative to medicine is something that I would cite as the #1 drawback, not the greater difficulty of attaining a $100K+ starting salary.

Wow, awsome. The first of many intelligent and informed posts im sure ...

 

[bashir]

I'm not sure how this thread turned into another debate about whether doctors or lawyers can more easily make very good money, but ThreeBrassRings summed up the situation quite cogently for anyone who's interested in this comparison.

 

[DrYoda]

I'm not sure how this thread turned into another debate about whether doctors or lawyers can more easily make very good money, but ThreeBrassRings summed up the situation quite cogently for anyone who's interested in this comparison.

Don't they all?

 

[jult24er]

i dont know if this has been said... but dont you think the fact that you have taken the time to think about what patients would think of your "lack of altruism" and write about it on sdn shows that you have some kind of altruistic or compassionate tendencies?

you underestimate yourself padawon.

and to quote a lot of dead people, "hell is paved with good intentions". A sick person doesnt need someone full of sympathy, they need someone that can do their job well and save their life.

nice point, i think.

 

[atomi]

-

 

[atomi]

-

 

[atomi]

-

 

[ThreeBrassRings]

Fail.

A very large percentage of them are unemployed. Law school is one of the biggest scams in this country.

I noted that a large number of law graduates are unemployed. About a year out employment - not including temps - is much better, though in the current climate there will be many more people than usual still looking for jobs. Also factor in that a percentage fail the bar and also target poorly. There are a large number of law grads every year that simply don't understand how to properly job hunt and select potential employers.

I agree that many law schools are borderline scams, but they're the minority. The for-profit places that essentially exist to make money from the pipe dreams of stupid people who think simply acquiring a law degree is some path to wealth should all be shut down, but the ABA is addicted to the institutional profits they reap from opening more and more law schools.

The majority of schools are not like this, and while I agree that it's lame that they all bake their employment figures, the burden of figuring out whether or not law is a sound investment is on the applicants. If you take out $200K in private loans to attend a second or third tier law school in NYC because you believe that all law jobs are lucrative and easy to get, you didn't do any research before you signed your life away. If you go to law school because you want to practice law, understand the financial commitment and planned accordingly or went somewhere that offered a scholarship, you'll most like be just fine.

So, you know, grow up.

 

[NotAndrew]

This thread is bananas.

B-A-N-A-N-A-S, this thread is bananas, B-A-N-A-N-A-S

 

[ThreeBrassRings]

Not true. If you're talking about educational paths, you can make $150k out of pharm school at 23.

In non-educational path, I have a friend who was making 6 figures in his early 20s selling cars (of course, the bottom has dropped out in this industry now).

Yes, if you start planning to be a pharmacist when you're 17, this can be done. Not many people do this but I take your point, although I would also add that $150K is about the top ceiling for the most lucratively employed pharmacists and it would be extremely rare for a person to make this straight out of school. I believe the average starting salary is closer to $80K for pharma, but I haven't seen the figure in a while and could be way off base there.

So far as making six figures selling cars - great, I love anecdotal accounts. I also know a guy who got rich because he fell at work and sued his employer and I know somebody else who started a cabinetry business in a wealthy area and quickly starting making a lot of money - but we're just talking about outliers here. The discussion was centered on law/medicine/other professions that require post-grad professional degrees, not all the ways you can command a large income at a young age.

 

[starfishprime]

B-A-N-A-N-A-S, this thread is bananas, B-A-N-A-N-A-S

 

[ThreeBrassRings]

1. Most people have no problem with a $500k pay ceiling. Most other salaried professions top out right around $100k.

2. Law school is not cheaper. Compare avg. indebtness of law school grads to med school grads. It's about the same.

3. Attorneys at big firms usually work from 9-9 and often on weekends. They keep track of their time in 15 minute increments. If you're honest, this means not billing for the time you were on the can. And nobody at the firm cares about the time you don't bill. There is a light at the end of the tunnel in the MD world. Not so in the biglaw world. There's more money, but a lot more hours, a lot more divorces, and a lot more of a life you never had because you were at the office a 100 hours last week shoving paper around. And this is in biglaw, the so-called supposed 'good life' in the legal world. Sound like fun? Apparently a lot of people think so...

1. I never suggested anybody had a problem with the ceiling in medicine, I simply made the point that the ceiling for top performers is much higher in law. Also, let's be honest, $500K is available to a limited amount of specialties or guys in private practice, not all doctors - not that I want to start quibbling over junk like that, but just like lawyers, there's a substantive difference between a pediatrics guy in a depressed market and a orthopedic surgeon working in a highly respected hospital. The take home point was that there are probably far more lawyers commanding $1 mill+ salaries than doctors, even though doctors are virtually guaranteed better starting salaries. It was a trenchant insight at all, just a substantive difference worth pointing out since we're pissing on about salaries.

2. I'd like to see that statistic if you have it. Law school (private) is going to on average run you about $30K in tuition for three years, plus cost of living, so I'd say average total cost could be pegged at around $150K. The best schools cost a little more, and obviously if you have in-state tuition (comes out to like $8K/year tuition at somewhere like U. of Florida - not bad) or scholarships (as many, many law students do), it's much cheaper. Most people can get all their costs covered with Stafford and Grad Plus loans, which are federally guaranteed and aren't much of a burden.

Also, I'd point out that I specified "cost," not indebtedness, though I'm a little dubious about your debt claim. At any rate, nobody can deny that med school costs more (in terms of money paid and also opportunity cost - many years when you could have been doing something else to earn), so I'm not sure what your point is.

3. LOL, I'll take this tirade piece by piece, if that's alright:

"Attorneys at big firms usually work from 9-9 and often on weekends"

No. Biglaw lawyers work a lot, but not really anymore than most doctors. The average for large NYC and Chicago firms is about 55 hours a week, total. One or two weekends a month may require weekend time, and there are occasional late nights - it's not at all a big deal for anybody who has worked hard before. Compared to an ER doctor or investment bankers (RIP), I'd say the hours and grind at large firms are actually quite easy by comparison. Also, because of the deal-based nature of large firm work, there are long stretches of time where there is literally nothing going on and you don't do anything, can work from home, take off in the middle of the day, etc. It's feat or famine, but your statement is a comical exaggeration of the workload.

"They keep track of their time in 15 minute increments. If you're honest, this means not billing for the time you were on the can. And nobody at the firm cares about the time you don't bill."

BIllable hours suck, but it's not a difficult thing to deal with. What's your point here? Nobody caring about the time you don't bill is actually an advantage in the eyes of most associates - they can largely operate as they please during the day so long as they're in touch with the partners. If you want to just kick off for a while and read some BS online or lie down on the floor and sleep, feel free. If you do this all the time, all year, you're going to end up not billing much and place your job in peril, but the point is that you have an enormous amount of freedom as a Biglaw attorney. And though it's competitive, it's not as cutthoat as you're insinuating. I won't go into greater detail than that, but if you want to make a serious case against law (not sure of your motivations why, but whatever), then at least go about it seriously.

"There is a light at the end of the tunnel in the MD world. Not so in the biglaw world."

Where did I ever say anything contradictory to this? I actually noted that Biglaw is just a stopgap for most lawyers. It's probably the best way to start your career if you plan to spend it in private practive and very lucrative, especially for kids in their 20s trying to wipe out student loans. The average Biglaw associate can destroy their loan debt and be free and clear long before they hit 30, and many erase large debt burdens inside of two years. Many would consider that a nice return, if not a "light at the end of the tunnel." Fact is, law school and practicing law aren't nearly as grueling as medicine, so law students and lawyers don't tend to use terms like "light at the end of the tunnel."

"There's more money, but a lot more hours, a lot more divorces, and a lot more of a life you never had because you were at the office a 100 hours last week shoving paper around"

Eh, we're not talking about who's happier here - there are miserable doctors and miserable lawyers, and blissful doctors and blissful lawyers. You're expanding the scope into unrelated and subjective territory with each new comment. Also, you're being pretty myopic here - considering that shoving papers around is not only appealing to some but also pretty much a common fact of life for all white collar workers, I'm not sure how you figure this is a strong point. And, let's not pretend that MDs don't ahve to deal with their fair share of bureaucratic and administrative bull****. It's not heart-pounding excitement and lifesaving every hour of the shift, unless I've been misinformed.

And also, as I noted, I'd say that the average Biglaw lawyer is working a hell of a lot less hard than your average resident, at they're being paid much more handsomely for it. This will always vary in some cases, but the fact is, by the time many Biglaw associates are moving on to a slower lifestyle outside of a huge firm, most doctors are just finishing their educations. I'm not saying one side is better here, just noting that you're still pretty wrong about how you're choosing to characterize the workload and career trajectory in law.

"And this is in biglaw, the so-called supposed 'good life' in the legal world. Sound like fun? Apparently a lot of people think so..."

It's a great life if you enjoy what you do, period. You can make a lot of money and it affords you a lot more freedom than other jobs. You do have to work hard, no doubt, but most anybody who earns a larger salary and works in a demanding field works hard, dcotors included. Again, you're jsut making a subjective point that you think law sucks, not making a substantive comparison between the two professions.

 

[Kaustikos]

Yes, if you start planning to be a pharmacist when you're 17, this can be done. Not many people do this but I take your point, although I would also add that $150K is about the top ceiling for the most lucratively employed pharmacists and it would be extremely rare for a person to make this straight out of school. I believe the average starting salary is closer to $80K for pharma, but I haven't seen the figure in a while and could be way off base there.

So far as making six figures selling cars - great, I love anecdotal accounts. I also know a guy who got rich because he fell at work and sued his employer and I know somebody else who started a cabinetry business in a wealthy area and quickly starting making a lot of money - but we're just talking about outliers here. The discussion was centered on law/medicine/other professions that require post-grad professional degrees, not all the ways you can command a large income at a young age.

I've always known that there is a "cap" to pharmacist salaries that increases slowly every year. Last I heard, it was somewhere around 115k (a year ago), but that can change if
a) you own a private pharmacy
b) you manage the retail pharmacy
c) you sell drugs illegally in addition to regular pharmacy

anyways...altruism is awesome

 

[ThreeBrassRings]

I've always known that there is a "cap" to pharmacist salaries that increases slowly every year. Last I heard, it was somewhere around 115k (a year ago), but that can change if
a) you own a private pharmacy
b) you manage the retail pharmacy
c) you sell drugs illegally in addition to regular pharmacy

anyways...altruism is awesome

Definitely, I was just pointing out that pharmacists pulling down $150K at like 23 are not exactly the norm for the industry. I actually know some people with Pharm degrees that eventually moved into jobs that involved consulting with doctors and doing in-house stuff with large corporations and some oil companies and make a lot more money than $150K, but again, they're certainly far above average.

And, to address your second point, I do apologize for hijacking the thread. I reasoned that it would be alright as it seemed to be dying anyway and the topic at hand isn't exactly a rarity around here.

By way of further comparison, discussion of altruism and social benefit is pretty uncommon in the law world - most everybody is there because they want the paycheck or weren't sure what else to do with the liberal arts degree, though that's not generally discussed either. No pre-reqs for law school means you get a lot more confused and misinformed people who really have no idea what law is or why they're there other than it "seems like a good idea." Those are also usually the folks who don't do very well.

Ostensibly, the only altruistic lawyers go into public interest, and they're generally looked down on as naive and underachievers, sadly enough. The trend towards self-interest and away from service is probably part of the reason law schools don't bother to interview - it'd just be disheartening.

 

[andrewnwi]

 

[TMP-SMX]

Yes, if you start planning to be a pharmacist when you're 17, this can be done. Not many people do this but I take your point, although I would also add that $150K is about the top ceiling for the most lucratively employed pharmacists and it would be extremely rare for a person to make this straight out of school. I believe the average starting salary is closer to $80K for pharma, but I haven't seen the figure in a while and could be way off base there.

So far as making six figures selling cars - great, I love anecdotal accounts. I also know a guy who got rich because he fell at work and sued his employer and I know somebody else who started a cabinetry business in a wealthy area and quickly starting making a lot of money - but we're just talking about outliers here. The discussion was centered on law/medicine/other professions that require post-grad professional degrees, not all the ways you can command a large income at a young age.

You take the same classes as you do as a pre-med. So I'd say a lot of beginning pre-meds are ready to go into pre-pharm at age 18 while starting college. Since all you need are two years of pre-pharm it can be done by age 23 and the six years of post-secondary school.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

I like to avoid pre-allo, but I'd like to support what atomi has to say.

The notion that law = money is a HUGE scam. My sister is a lawyer with over $150k of debt and works in the public defender's office for a salary of under $40k. Previously she was working in pricey Nassau county, NY in a family law agency for around $50k. Granted, she did go to a 3rd tier law school and didn't excel. She is essentially going to be a slave to her debt for the rest of her life unless she gets bailed out by a spouse or a relative or something radical happens with student debt. Her crime: not doing the research on outcomes for law school graduates, rather than buying the nonsensical prestige/money propaganda about law that's thrown at us.

Medicine for 99% of people who enter medical school is a sure thing. Once you're in, if you make a good effort of studying and organize yourself you will pass all your classes, pass the USMLEs (and possibly do well), and at least get a primary care residency, which translates to between $100k and $200k. That doesn't count subspecialties of pediatrics and especially internal medicine which can catapult you to $250-400k (like cardio and GI). Surgery has pay substantially exceeding that. Psych has good pay with joke hours. Anesthesia/ER has great pay with controlled hours. Derm/rads/radonc/ent/ophtho have mindnumbingly good pay for the lifestyle.

Be grateful for the medical career as it currently stands. If you do your basic work, you are practically guaranteed a $100k-200k salary in primary care. If you excel, you can easily get a salary of $200-400k for non-surgical procedures and $400k-800k for surgery. If you have business savy, you can do boutique medicine, dermatopathology, plastics, etc. and make over a million. You can do shift work, inpatient, outpatient, non-surgical procedures, surgery, lab work (pathology), research, health care policy, 3rd world medicine, education, locum tenens, etc. These are AMAZING opportunities afforded practically solely by completing well medical school and a residency program.

Law, in general, has neither the security nor the opportunity of medicine.

 

[ThreeBrassRings]

You take the same classes as you do as a pre-med. So I'd say a lot of beginning pre-meds are ready to go into pre-pharm at age 18 while starting college. Since all you need are two years of pre-pharm it can be done by age 23 and the six years of post-secondary school.

How does what I said at all contradict this? I didn't deny it was possible, I just don't think it's terribly common for really young people to be deadset on a pharmacy career. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[ThreeBrassRings]

I like to avoid pre-allo, but I'd like to support what atomi has to say.

The notion that law = money is a HUGE scam. My sister is a lawyer with over $150k of debt and works in the public defender's office for a salary of under $40k. Previously she was working in pricey Nassau county, NY in a family law agency for around $50k. Granted, she did go to a 3rd tier law school and didn't excel. She is essentially going to be a slave to her debt for the rest of her life unless she gets bailed out by a spouse or a relative or something radical happens with student debt. Her crime: not doing the research on outcomes for law school graduates, rather than buying the nonsensical prestige/money propaganda about law that's thrown at us.

Medicine for 99% of people who enter medical school is a sure thing. Once you're in, if you make a good effort of studying and organize yourself you will pass all your classes, pass the USMLEs (and possibly do well), and at least get a primary care residency, which translates to between $100k and $200k. That doesn't count subspecialties of pediatrics and especially internal medicine which can catapult you to $250-400k (like cardio and GI). Surgery has pay substantially exceeding that. Psych has good pay with joke hours. Anesthesia/ER has great pay with controlled hours. Derm/rads/radonc/ent/ophtho have mindnumbingly good pay for the lifestyle.

Be grateful for the medical career as it currently stands. If you do your basic work, you are practically guaranteed a $100k-200k salary in primary care. If you excel, you can easily get a salary of $200-400k for non-surgical procedures and $400k-800k for surgery. If you have business savy, you can do boutique medicine, dermatopathology, plastics, etc. and make over a million. You can do shift work, inpatient, outpatient, non-surgical procedures, surgery, lab work (pathology), research, health care policy, 3rd world medicine, education, locum tenens, etc. These are AMAZING opportunities afforded practically solely by completing well medical school and a residency program.

Law, in general, has neither the security nor the opportunity of medicine.

"The notion that law = money is a HUGE scam"

Nobody said this is always the case. It's not like medicine - just getting the degree and completing a residency doesn't win you the battle. You need a decent school, you need grades, and you need to be decent at practicing. Line all that up (not really all that difficult, especially compared to the rigor of medicine), and you'll make some money. Don't misrepresent my statements.

"My sister is a lawyer with over $150k of debt and works in the public defender's office for a salary of under $40k. Previously she was working in pricey Nassau county, NY in a family law agency for around $50k. Granted, she did go to a 3rd tier law school and didn't excel. She is essentially going to be a slave to her debt for the rest of her life unless she gets bailed out by a spouse or a relative or something radical happens with student debt."

Anecdotal. And please, go back and read my posts. Your sister is practicing in the least lucrative area of law, in one of the most expensive areas of the country, she went to a junk school and then did poorly, and she took out a large amount of debt to do this -- I basically cite her exact situation as the worst moves a young lawyer can make and note that people in her position are always going to struggle. But I also note that they put themselves in this position. Sorry she's hosed, but she made her own bed. I'm sorry she's hosed, but that whole story suggests any unbelievably poor sequence of choices.

"Her crime: not doing the research on outcomes for law school graduates, rather than buying the nonsensical prestige/money propaganda about law that's thrown at us."

Not a crime, just a mistake. If you're going to take out $100K in debt, why the hell wouldn't you do your research? This is what I don't understand when people complain about this. It's like buying a house without learning anything about equity or home ownership. There's no real excuse for it - if you're borrowing a huge pile of money to embark on a career, you should use more than the brochure the school sent you to learn about what's going to be happening. Again, sorry, but your example is not indicative of the larger picture for law school/the legal profession.

"Medicine for 99% of people who enter medical school is a sure thing"

I have never denied this and have repeatedly noted that it's a huge plus for medicine.

The rest of your post is just standard waxing about the piles of cash doctors earn with no effort or sacrifice, so I'll let it be, save for:

"Law, in general, has neither the security nor the opportunity of medicine"

Definitely not the security, you're right on that. Opportunity is a whole different thing. As I've said, the ceiling is much higher for attorneys and law is an avenue into other areas for many, though this feature of the profession tends to be overstated by eager young law students. But overall, you'd be hardpressed to make a case that your standard MD somehow has much more career freedom or versatility than an average attorney. These are really apples and oranges professions when we get into these sorts of areas - the initial discussion was about salary trajectories and some quality of life issues for them, respectively - we're now approaching some increasingly abstract points.

But thanks for being honest about where your raging bias against law comes from - it sucks to see a family member struggle.

 

[SiR99]

There are good doctors and then there is everyone else (the medium and bad doctors).

Someone who cares about what they do is usually better at their job then someone who doesnt care.

Seeing how being a doctor means you have to care for someone elses health, those that care more are usually the better doctors.

Nobody would want you as their doctor when your not willing to sacrifice and do whatever you can in order to help them/save their lives.

If you do become a doctor you should go into a specialty that doesnt include too many serious illnesses because its not right for someone to trust you and think your doing your best to help them when you really just care about yourself.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

"The notion that law = money is a HUGE scam"

Nobody said this is always the case. It's not like medicine - just getting the degree and completing a residency doesn't win you the battle. You need a decent school, you need grades, and you need to be decent at practicing. Line all that up (not really all that difficult, especially compared to the rigor of medicine), and you'll make some money. Don't misrepresent my statements.

"My sister is a lawyer with over $150k of debt and works in the public defender's office for a salary of under $40k. Previously she was working in pricey Nassau county, NY in a family law agency for around $50k. Granted, she did go to a 3rd tier law school and didn't excel. She is essentially going to be a slave to her debt for the rest of her life unless she gets bailed out by a spouse or a relative or something radical happens with student debt."

Anecdotal. And please, go back and read my posts. Your sister is practicing in the least lucrative area of law, in one of the most expensive areas of the country, she went to a junk school and then did poorly, and she took out a large amount of debt to do this -- I basically cite her exact situation as the worst moves a young lawyer can make and note that people in her position are always going to struggle. But I also note that they put themselves in this position. Sorry she's hosed, but she made her own bed. I'm sorry she's hosed, but that whole story suggests any unbelievably poor sequence of choices.

"Her crime: not doing the research on outcomes for law school graduates, rather than buying the nonsensical prestige/money propaganda about law that's thrown at us."

Not a crime, just a mistake. If you're going to take out $100K in debt, why the hell wouldn't you do your research? This is what I don't understand when people complain about this. It's like buying a house without learning anything about equity or home ownership. There's no real excuse for it - if you're borrowing a huge pile of money to embark on a career, you should use more than the brochure the school sent you to learn about what's going to be happening. Again, sorry, but your example is not indicative of the larger picture for law school/the legal profession.

"Medicine for 99% of people who enter medical school is a sure thing"

I have never denied this and have repeatedly noted that it's a huge plus for medicine.

The rest of your post is just standard waxing about the piles of cash doctors earn with no effort or sacrifice, so I'll let it be, save for:

"Law, in general, has neither the security nor the opportunity of medicine"

Definitely not the security, you're right on that. Opportunity is a whole different thing. As I've said, the ceiling is much higher for attorneys and law is an avenue into other areas for many, though this feature of the profession tends to be overstated by eager young law students. But overall, you'd be hardpressed to make a case that your standard MD somehow has much more career freedom or versatility than an average attorney. These are really apples and oranges professions when we get into these sorts of areas - the initial discussion was about salary trajectories and some quality of life issues for them, respectively - we're now approaching some increasingly abstract points.

But thanks for being honest about where your raging bias against law comes from - it sucks to see a family member struggle.

Much of what you say is true. My grudge against law predates my sister's experience. I find the profession dreadfully boring and frequently borderline inethical.

Anyway, we agree that if you get into A US allopathic medical school, if you study as much as necessary, i.e. put in an adequate effort (for some that might be 3 hours a day, for others 8 hours a day) during the first two years and during Step 1 prep, you will pass and you will do adequately if not quite decently on the Step 1. If you are conscientious, punctual, neat and proper in 3rd year and use basic science knowledge from the first two years and common sense, you will pass if not high pass all your rotations and Step 2.

How many people seriously fail out of medical school? Usually the ones who struggle had some sort of poor study strategy, sleep disturbance, family problems, etc. How many fail out of a reasonable residency? If you're conscientious, responsible, avoid repeated mistakes, and humble you'll get through. It isn't rocket science. If you couldn't hack med school to get into rad onc and are stuck in FM, it's not likely that FM is suddenly going to be so intellectually challenging that you can't do it with a good effort.

In contrast, law has offered this promise of saving the world (capital defense, defending the indigent, representing the downtrodden, etc.), influencing politics, society, and history (lawmakers, governors, justices, etc.), prestige, the high life, etc. The reality is that going to law school does NOT mean there is a high chance of that happening. There's 2nd, 3rd, and (yes) 4th tier law schools. They take your money and run. They have no responsibility to you. They'll drop you so easily you wouldn't believe it. There's no organized internship/residency program where you are trained in your work. They do not even teach to the bar exam. It's sink or swim after three years and unfortunately MANY, even those who trained at 1st tier schools, sink. The economy now is quite bad. A med student classmate of mine is married to a law student who's at a 1st tier law school and is very sharp. He says there are no jobs around, he's been looking for months, and things are looking down.

Now, I grant that there is nothing intrinsically special about medicine. Much of the present state is contrived. Med schools only accept individuals that have a very high chance of success. They work with them to remediate their shortcomings. The residency system practically guarantees (for 99% of students) that they will get credentialed, certified, guaranteed training so they can pass all their exams and get employed. And then it's a sellers market where their services are in demand and their wages will be high.

Law and medicine in the US are worlds apart. The propaganda that the likes of law2doc spreads of "there are so many easier ways to make money than medicine" is BS. Law is not one of them. Business in this economy isn't either.

There's only one other group of profession(s) whose services are always going to be needed, even more so than healthcare. And that's food production and distribution. And that doesn't pay particularly well, nor is it very secure.

 

[Vihsadas]

I'm pretty sure most pre-meds who get admitted to medical school got in without really having a "real" reason to become a doctor besides liking learning about the human body.

What about liking to learn about human beings? The issue I have with "I have always been intrigued by the human body", is that the people you will meet and affect in medicine are far more than the sum of their mechanical parts. You have to have the desire to explore the total of how medicine affects their lives; their interactions with the people they know and their interactions with you. It's in loving all of that IMHO, both the science, what's behind the science, and the way that medicine affects the people in your service (last but not least). This holistic attitude is what's so sorely missing from the motivation of "I want to learn about the human body." And I think this is why adcoms are so adamant about volunteer work, physician shadowing and empathy.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

What about liking to learn about human beings? The issue I have with "I have always been intrigued by the human body", is that the people you will meet and affect in medicine are far more than the sum of their mechanical parts. You have to have the desire to explore the total of how medicine affects their lives; their interactions with the people they know and their interactions with you. It's in loving all of that IMHO, both the science, what's behind the science, and the way that medicine affects the people in your service (last but not least). This holistic attitude is what's so sorely missing from the motivation of "I want to learn about the human body." And I think this is why adcoms are so adamant about volunteer work, physician shadowing and empathy.

BS. Most fields in medicine do NOT require your whole-person approach. Practically all of surgery and many other procedural fields do not require "empathy" in the competent performance of the work whatsoever. Compassion is important but adcoms have no way of knowing who is and who isn't compassionate. Extracurricular activities merely reflect admissions standards, not necessarily what interests a student and means something to him. Unfortunately, medical training also has a way of obliterating compassion by making many doctors into abused and abusing, bitter, money-hungry and desensitized people.

 

[kingofthehill]

BS. Most fields in medicine do NOT require your whole-person approach. Practically all of surgery and many other procedural fields do not require "empathy" in the competent performance of the work whatsoever. Compassion is important but adcoms have no way of knowing who is and who isn't compassionate. Extracurricular activities merely reflect admissions standards, not necessarily what interests a student and means something to him. Unfortunately, medical training also has a way of obliterating compassion by making many doctors into abused and abusing, bitter, money-hungry and desensitized people.

mercapto..., are you a resident? A few residents and older folks on this forum give me the impression that med students in general become jaded once they reach their residency, and you seem to be of the same opinion. I do agree with you that empathy is not a prerequisite....who has empathy for the hookers and drug addicts who show up at the ER at wee hours in the morning high on coke???

I agree compassion is important, or at the very least a willingness to devote your life to serving others. I know a few doctors that don't strike me as compassionate (one is very vain and runs some kind of medical beauty spa, whatever that is...prolly graduated from a carib med school), but all the doctors I know at least CARE about their patients. So CARING for others, IMO, is a minimum.

The whole money issue has really blown up here. Anyone who argues that one should go into medicine without money being a factor is silly. I do want to help others, and I consider myself to be a very compassionate person, and of course I'm passionate about medicine as a career, but I gotta admit I am damn glad that I won't ever have to worry about being out of work, assuming I get all my ducks lined up in a row. A lot of my friends earning degrees - even future lawyers - can't say that!

If physicians earned one-half of what they do now, I would probably not go into medicine because of the time, effort and debt. Thus, money IS a factor in my choice to be a doctor, but it's not the only one. Does this mean I am NOT altruistic/compassionate/caring for others? Absolutely not.

 

[Vihsadas]

BS. Most fields in medicine do NOT require your whole-person approach. Practically all of surgery and many other procedural fields do not require "empathy" in the competent performance of the work whatsoever. Compassion is important but adcoms have no way of knowing who is and who isn't compassionate. Extracurricular activities merely reflect admissions standards, not necessarily what interests a student and means something to him. Unfortunately, medical training also has a way of obliterating compassion by making many doctors into abused and abusing, bitter, money-hungry and desensitized people.

I never said it was required, but I do believe that approaching the field with an attitude of caring more about only the mechanics of medicine can make you a better, more fulfilled and happier physician (personal opinion). I would argue (unqualified) that people with that type of perspective are happier in general and able to better deal emotionally with the problems that do arise. I think this ideal can apply to almost all fields in medicine including surgery...and I didn't necessarily mean that the people you are affecting have to be patients. The same motivation can be found in the super dedicated medical school professor who loves to teach, or the doctor that's able to maintain an up-beat and close-knit working environment with his peers and subordinates regardless of the tragedies that happen daily in medicine. I realize my opinion is unqualified and could change, but I'd like to hold on to my idealism as long as possible until its beaten out of me with a stick...It was this "unrealistic" idealism that allowed me to have the chance to be a physician, and I'm going to take it as far as is practical. I think the people that truly believe in changing the status quo to meet those ideals are the ones that can really change the whole field. I see that kind of attitude in the actions of doctors like Atul Gawande, John Rich, Paul Farmer, the late Artur Guyton...or look to the example of Dr. Hinojosa, a neurosurgeon at hopkins that exemplifies the kind of "caring about the effects of your actions on the whole person" that I'm talking about. Maybe I won't be able to hold onto my perspective as I go through medical school and residency. I don't want to be presumptuous in thinking that, but it doesn't mean I can't try to live up to the example of doctors like Atul Gawande as I progress. I'll get back to you in 8 years and we'll see. 🙂

 

[atomi]

-

 

[ThreeBrassRings]

Much of what you say is true. My grudge against law predates my sister's experience. I find the profession dreadfully boring and frequently borderline inethical.

Anyway, we agree that if you get into A US allopathic medical school, if you study as much as necessary, i.e. put in an adequate effort (for some that might be 3 hours a day, for others 8 hours a day) during the first two years and during Step 1 prep, you will pass and you will do adequately if not quite decently on the Step 1. If you are conscientious, punctual, neat and proper in 3rd year and use basic science knowledge from the first two years and common sense, you will pass if not high pass all your rotations and Step 2.

How many people seriously fail out of medical school? Usually the ones who struggle had some sort of poor study strategy, sleep disturbance, family problems, etc. How many fail out of a reasonable residency? If you're conscientious, responsible, avoid repeated mistakes, and humble you'll get through. It isn't rocket science. If you couldn't hack med school to get into rad onc and are stuck in FM, it's not likely that FM is suddenly going to be so intellectually challenging that you can't do it with a good effort.

In contrast, law has offered this promise of saving the world (capital defense, defending the indigent, representing the downtrodden, etc.), influencing politics, society, and history (lawmakers, governors, justices, etc.), prestige, the high life, etc. The reality is that going to law school does NOT mean there is a high chance of that happening. There's 2nd, 3rd, and (yes) 4th tier law schools. They take your money and run. They have no responsibility to you. They'll drop you so easily you wouldn't believe it. There's no organized internship/residency program where you are trained in your work. They do not even teach to the bar exam. It's sink or swim after three years and unfortunately MANY, even those who trained at 1st tier schools, sink. The economy now is quite bad. A med student classmate of mine is married to a law student who's at a 1st tier law school and is very sharp. He says there are no jobs around, he's been looking for months, and things are looking down.

Now, I grant that there is nothing intrinsically special about medicine. Much of the present state is contrived. Med schools only accept individuals that have a very high chance of success. They work with them to remediate their shortcomings. The residency system practically guarantees (for 99% of students) that they will get credentialed, certified, guaranteed training so they can pass all their exams and get employed. And then it's a sellers market where their services are in demand and their wages will be high.

Law and medicine in the US are worlds apart. The propaganda that the likes of law2doc spreads of "there are so many easier ways to make money than medicine" is BS. Law is not one of them. Business in this economy isn't either.

There's only one other group of profession(s) whose services are always going to be needed, even more so than healthcare. And that's food production and distribution. And that doesn't pay particularly well, nor is it very secure.

"I find the profession dreadfully boring and frequently borderline inethical"

You mean unethical friend, and please consider that A) lawyers police ethics very hard despite popular conception, B) what part of the legal world are you even referring to? Certainly you mean it's the people, rather than the professions, who lack ethical standards?

"How many people seriously fail out of medical school?"

I have no idea - I'm sure a few, but not many. If you're attempting to contrast with law, I'd direct you to your own comments about studying hard, taking the rights steps, being prepared, diligent, competent, etc - do all these things in law school and law, and you're poised for success as well. You're essentially trying to have it both ways here.

"In contrast, law has offered this promise of saving the world (capital defense, defending the indigent, representing the downtrodden, etc.), influencing politics, society, and history (lawmakers, governors, justices, etc.), prestige, the high life, etc."

Oh good lord no - that might be your perception, but believe me when I say the vast majority of law students are nowhere near close to this naive. There is a little blustering about the betterment of society and such - as there always is at some level of pre-professional work, including medicine - but most law students realize that this is just a necessary pre-professional hurdle and aren't there because they believe they're going to change the world or lead their generation forward. Now, what they write their admissions essays about is another thing . . . but you get the point. You're just projecting your own ideas onto law school here, not stating anything even resembling a fact.

"They take your money and run. They have no responsibility to you. They'll drop you so easily you wouldn't believe it. There's no organized internship/residency program where you are trained in your work."

That's correct. I'm starting to wonder about your reading comprehension, because you frequently repeat things that I have stated from the beginning. There are many law schools that exist for profit or are usually a bad idea to attend (unless you're rich or it's otherwise free), and this is a frequent topic of discussion and derision in the legal world. The ABA has mismanaged school accredation and continue to do so - I said this from the very beginning. You're not making a more selective and secondary argument against SOME schools when we're attempting to discuss the professions as a whole. I always drew this distinction, so you don't need to repeat it.

"They do not even teach to the bar exam"

Just to point out your relative lack of understanding about law school here, the 3rd and 4th tier schools are actually little more than a three year long bar prep course, and famously so. They know their students are less intelligent and the school could lose accredation or enrollment if bar passage rates are too low, so they structure all their courses towards prepping for the state bar. It's only at decent law schools that classes tend to ignore the sort of 'nuts and bolts' law found on stat bar examinations and instead focus on legal reasoning and principles.

"A med student classmate of mine is married to a law student who's at a 1st tier law school and is very sharp. He says there are no jobs around, he's been looking for months, and things are looking down."

Sigh - where is your argument headed here? I, again, have already stated that the job market is tougher for lawyers, but you, again, are overstating the problem in service of argument and employing a random bit of anecdotal evidence. I know many more young lawyers who found good jobs despite the economy - so what? There's nothing of substance to be said when we start down the road of "well I know a guy." Really, you're just rehasing the same hyperbole and tangent with this. What is your point?

"Now, I grant that there is nothing intrinsically special about medicine"

I agree, and the same goes for law. I'm not arguing for the superiority of law, just clearing up some misconceptions. I'm not sure why that elicits such outrage and dispute from some of you - dude, where does the anger come from? I know your sister had it rough, but the number of false assumptions and unfounded statements you're willing to draw about law in the hopes of dismissing it's value are absurd.

"And then it's a sellers market where their services are in demand and their wages will be high."

Once more, I noted this at the very beginning, but thanks for repeating it. Please show me where I haven't agreed that doctors have a much easier go of it for employment. There are fewer doctors and the job market is artifically maintained at demand levels by the AMA. Lawyers, by comparison, are in surplus and this escalates every year, and the job market is unregulated. Do we need to repeat this many more times for you to feel satisifed? There is more risk involved with law, no doubt - this isn't a deal killer for many people.

"Law is not one of them. Business in this economy isn't either"

Lol dude, so you've now taken a roundabout way of stating that the only way of making money in this economy is medicine? Look, times are tough, but I promise you that next year, about 15% of law grads will get those insanely lucartive market jobs, just as they did the year before, and another 30% or so will get good private jobs paying between $65-$120K. The rest will be split between small firms, unemployment, public jobs that pay like teaching or firefighting, and a few alternative paths like clerking (actually about 10% of grads, who usually then go on to better private jobs but only make ~$40K as clerks). Once again, you've made a very sweeping statement based on nothing but opinions and generalities, some of which you clearly pulled out of your . . . well you know.

 

[ThreeBrassRings]

Response follows:

First, that half million dollar take-home is available to pretty much any doctor who wants to chase it. Most are satisfied with their pay and instead focus on what they like doing rather than trying to make the most money in the business. I know family docs that make around this level because they are able to do and advertise cosmetic and elective procedures such as vasectomies. This is not true in law. You can do everything humanly possible and still not make partner.

2. Honestly, it depends on the school. There are some very inexpensive medical schools that will cost $100k or less for all 4 years (e.g., Texas state schools), and there are some very expensive law schools that will cost $200k for all 3 years. The difference here is that Law schools are only 3 years, and there exist numerous 'for-profit' law schools. Most all medical schools I know of run at a loss and require subsidies in addition to tuition to operate, so the student only pays a small amount of the actual cost. In this regard, medicals school certainly cost more, but law school cost much more to the student in terms of what he or she actually gets out of it.

3. You're wrong about biglaw. 70 hour weeks are the norm and are expected. You flat out will be fired at the end of the year if you don't meet the minimum billable hours requirement, and there is no way in hell you can do that working 55 hour weeks (55 hours! that's already a lot!) all year unless you are grossly padding your timesheet. You are right about feast or famine. Sometimes your 60 hour famine work week will be pushed to 100. There is a reason that bigLaw offices have employee showers and beds. You mentioned ER doctors and bankers. ER doctors do shifts, have no call, and have very reasonable hours. Bankers don't have anything to do with the price of tea in China.

Every single person I've known who went into a big law firm absolutely despised it, even the better 'lifestyle' firms. My friend at the lifestyle firm was enticed with 10 weeks of vacation and a fat signing bonus. You know how much of that vacation she got to use? Zero. You can't bill 2100 hours a year when you are at the beach for 2 weeks and live a sane life the other 50 weeks. They stay there on average 3 years, and in many cases they move on to different careers. Keep in mind that it is mind-numbingly difficult to get into one of these firms. Of course, this is anecdotal evidence, which apparently doesn't count, so whatever. The point is that I wouldn't recommend this career to my most hated enemy.

Required reading for anyone thinking about this as a career path: http://www.averyindex.com/happy_healthy_ethical.php

"First, that half million dollar take-home is available to pretty much any doctor who wants to chase it"

This is a bit of an exaggeration. This is simply the equal of me saying, "A million dollar a year annual income is available to any lawyer who wants to chase it - just gun hard for partner or start your own practice." In the abstract, the statement is valid, but functionally we know it's not true. There are many, many doctors who wouldn't be able to get to the $500K mark for a number of reasons. I don't know why you guys feel the need to quibble on the upper averages - I think once you're earning around a quarter million dollars a year, you're comfortably upper middle class. Your lifestyle is comparable to your neighbor making $325K/year or whatever. At this point, the discussion descends from practicality and ease of attainment into sheer greed concerning who can simply always make more. Each case is individual anyway, so to typify as "doctors can always do this" or "lawyers can always do that" is fairly ridiculous.

"Most are satisfied with their pay and instead focus on what they like doing rather than trying to make the most money in the business"

*sigh* Thanks so much for sharing your opinion. Unfortunately, as such, it doesn't mean much. Let's it least keep it to quasi-factual statements, if you don't mind.

"This is not true in law"

As I previously mentioned, most of the wealthiest attorneys in the country are not partners - they're either solo practitioners, guys who started boutique firms with a few others, or attorneys that have won mass tort cases and collect paydays in the tens of millions. Biglaw partner is not the only - and really not even the preferred - road to wealth for lawyers, if that's what they're after. Odds of becoming a multi-millionaire in law are much greater if you strike it out on your own rather than working towards partner where you have little control over what may happen past a certain point.

"The difference here is that Law schools are only 3 years"

Exactly. Cheaper and shorter than med school. About fifteen law schools (IIRC) have tuition approaching $40K and will end up costing around $200k to attend for most people. These are schools like Yale, CLS, Harvard, Chicago, Penn, etc - a good return on the investment for most. The majority of the rest of the private schools are around $28-34K a year. As I also said before, many publics have in-state tuition in the low 20s and teens, though this ranges by regions and quality. For instance, UVA still gouges like a private school for in-staters; by comparison, U. of Florida, which is a very strong regional, is something like $9K a year for residents. That's less than $30K in tuition for in-staters to attend the single best law school in their state - not too shabby. High-end law school debt for most is $150K. I think that's probably closer to average for med students, but anybody please feel free to correct me.

"The difference here is that Law schools are only 3 years, and there exist numerous 'for-profit' law schools. Most all medical schools I know of run at a loss and require subsidies in addition to tuition to operate, so the student only pays a small amount of the actual cost"

LOL - are you actually trying to move this over to operating cost? We're talking about the cost to the individual - what are you talking about?

"but law school cost much more to the student in terms of what he or she actually gets out of it."

You'll need to explain this one in a little more detail for there to be any cogency here. Are you taking this into further abstraction by saying that lifetime returns might not be as great for some? You're really stretching to the outer limits of credulity to try and make the case that law school isn't actually cheaper. Facts are facts - law school is shorter and usually costs less, therefore it is generally cheaper. Case closed friend, but please, I'd be curious to see if you can present an even more tortured scenario than the ones you contrived in the above quotes.

"You're wrong about biglaw"

No, I'm not - heck, it's even possible that I speak from some experience *big wink*

"70 hour weeks are the norm and are expected"

Nope. Let's take a moment and ask why.

Let's say our hypothetical large firm associate is actually kind of lazy and takes his two weeks vacation (according to you this can never happen, but this is hypothetical), and that he also tends to slack off around the office and only bills for about 50 hours of every 70 hour work week, meaning he spends at least a few hours a day doing absolutely nothing work related. 50h X 50weeks = 2,500 billables a year. Now, I can tell you that even the most notoriously grindhouse firms like SullCrom, Cravath, Watchell, and the rest of the v10 bad boys don't expect associates to ever bill more than 2300 hours a year, and in fact it's the norm and perfectly acceptable that associates don't meet this bar.

If we expanded this a little and took a hard-working associate who didn't vacation and bills 60 of his 70 hours a week, we'd clear 3000 hours a year - this would be the most legendary associate in all of law and he would probably have some ridiculous nickname like "The Machine" or "Marathon Man" or something (not to mention he'd die from being overworked before he hit 30).

Yet, you claim that this is the "expected average." It's patently ridiculous and you clearly pulled it from thin air to suit your arguments. I'll try to keep this in mind as I go over the rest of your comments.

"You flat out will be fired at the end of the year if you don't meet the minimum billable hours requirement, and there is no way in hell you can do that working 55 hour weeks"

Please see above - you're making she*t up with impunity now.

"(55 hours! that's already a lot!)"

LOL - are you saying residents and many doctors don't regularly pull 55 hour weeks? 50 hours is already standard for most any white collar job and certainly for people making over $100K/year. You're flailing to make a point, and in doing so you're failing to consider anything relative to your argument.

"You are right about feast or famine. Sometimes your 60-hour famine work week will be pushed to 100"

No, again, this couldn't be more wrong. A truly abysmal and high week could go as high as 70 in some rare cases. Usually when this happens, the associate and partners will immediately take some time off after the deal closes - this is industry standard. And also, since these situations are deal based, when there isn't anything on the table, many associates bill as low as 20 hours in a week. This is happening all over the country right now due to the economy, and it's not preferable, believe me. Also, note that the sort of lawyer you're talking about is just one kind. For tax groups, BK groups, and some litigators, this sort of fluctuation rarely happens as they have much more consistent deadlines. The hourly variation really hits the corporate and M&A guys, and their practice groups are all dying out at the moment.

"There is a reason that bigLaw offices have employee showers and beds"

Hospitals don't?

"You mentioned ER doctors and bankers. ER doctors do shifts, have no call, and have very reasonable hours. Bankers don't have anything to do with the price of tea in China."

It's my understanding that ER doctors work long and stressful shifts, and many doctors are in fact "on call," just as many attorneys are. And bankers are relevant - it was comparable profession (though IB is gone) to law and medicine, and they worked insane hours for the money (superior to both law and medicine). Everything in IB was deal-based, and as I noted this generates the most demanding schedules. I think that since you feel free to simply make up numbers, I can draw comparison to a third profession for the purposes of pointing out that most high-income professions demand a lot of time and effort.

"Every single person I've known who went into a big law firm absolutely despised it, even the better 'lifestyle' firms"

Interesting bit of anecdotal evidence, since 'lifestyle firms' aren't really Biglaw by definition.

"My friend at the lifestyle firm was enticed with 10 weeks of vacation and a fat signing bonus"

10 weeks? He was supposed to take two months off a year? What firm is this? Are they hiring? And signing bonuses, if they ever happen (rarely for anyone less than a laterlaing up to partner) are usually minimal. The real nature of bonuses are profit related and are doled at the end of the year as a feature of the firm's success and profit sharing. I've never heard of "fat" signing bonuses being used to entice lawyers, just marginal relocation and convenience sums.

"You know how much of that vacation she got to use? Zero"

So he banked an additional $40K for his unused vacation or what? I remind you, we're talking about over two months of work at what you claim is Biglaw for an experienced guy, so $40K would be a lowball figure. Just to make a relative statement once more - a lot of working people don't get to take a vacation every year, but not too many are compensated with a sum approaching the average national household income because they couldn't. You make it sound like hell on earth, but I bet there are more than a few people who would be pretty pleased with that, overall. I'm guessing you've never worked too much in your life at this point juding by how dismissive you are of that kind of income.

"You can't bill 2100 hours a year when you are at the beach for 2 weeks and live a sane life the other 50 weeks"

Whoa buddy - see above. 2100 hours isn't anything to sneeze at, but it's more than doable with two weeks vacation. That's only billing about 40 hours a week - what happened to seven days a week of twelve hour days? 40 hours can easily be billed by five days of 9-10 hour days, or eight hour days and a stop-in over the weekend. Considering that most Biglaw associates are able to command salaries nearing $230K in their mid 20s for those hours, does this seem totally unreasonable? Are those hours so much worse than what a young resident goes through?

"Keep in mind that it is mind-numbingly difficult to get into one of these firms"

It's not easy - only the top 10% of attorneys will work in something resembling Biglaw. So far as being so difficult, that's really just a matter of performance. Despite conventional wisdom, many do start at smaller regional firms and then lateral to huge firms as younger associates drop out, and likewise the law school race for these firms is very dependent on school. For the top 20 or so schools, anybody in the top half of the class has a shot at these jobs. Moving back to the next 30 or so, it's more like top quarter trending towards top 15%. After that, good luck - only a handful of people from most Tier 2 and beyond schools ever go this route. But this assumes everybody wants Biglaw, which is certainly not the case.

"Of course, this is anecdotal evidence, which apparently doesn't count, so whatever. The point is that I wouldn't recommend this career to my most hated enemy."

You anecodtal accounts are poor, but your numerical and 'factual' proclamations appear to be haphazardly fabricated, so I suppose I prefer the anecdotal.

Law and medicine are apples and oranges - I'm not sure where your grudge comes from or why it's so compelling that you feel the need to basically make things up to support your sentiments, but that's not the issue here. I'm just correcting bad information, and that's something you're trading pretty heavily in at the moment.