3 ms·
The difference is that law and medicine are both highly proceduralized, regulated, and standardized careers, and they both require far more training, at a far d
by skywhopper 12y ago
The difference is that law and medicine are both highly proceduralized, regulated, and standardized careers, and they both require far more training, at a far deeper level.
Ultimately, though, what matters is experience and skills. Again, in law and medicine, the only way into the profession to gain the experience is to have the degree. That's not the case in the tech world.
- asdkl234890 12y agoMore legally regulated is the only real difference.
- xiaoma 12y agoActually it's possible to enter the legal profession without a law degree, apprentice under a practicing lawyer and then take the bar and become a lawyer. It's the path President Lincoln took. While it's not as common now as it was in his day, it's still a well-trodden path in many states. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/education/edlife/how-to-learn-the-law-without-law-school.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/education/edlife/how-to-le...
- geebee 12y agoRight - but then why are STEM degrees so important? Then why is Obama encouraging young people to pursue them? Even he didn't choose someone with a STEM degree to hold the highest technical office in his administration. I also have a different perspective from you on STEM degrees. It's true that tech has a "lower barrier to entry" if all you look at is official, legal, licensed barriers. But majoring in STEM fields is vastly more difficult than a major typical of a law school graduate, and elite STEM graduate programs have vastly higher attrition rates than elite law or medical schools (like, 50-100 times higher). The coursework is exceptionally rigorous and difficult. The difference is that you don't strictly have to do this to go into high tech - lots of people don't. And that's great. But then, again - why is Obama pushing STEM?