<p>I'm a sophmore in college and still don't know what I want to do... Basically what are the intelligence differences between med/pharmacy students and lawyers? And also their differences in interests?</p>
<p>I've taken a remedial Chem course and got a 4.0, and I loved biology and algebra 1+2 in high school.</p>
<p>However due to depression I feel like I've just been taking the easiest courses I could think of (accounting courses) which typically involve total isolation in terms of the learning process (no labs / group problems typically). </p>
<p>Well here may be my main question. Is there an aptitude test I could take to see which I'm better suited for (please don't mention SAT as the math section is largely based on knowledge). And what personal interests do lawyers typically have as apposed to med students? </p>
<p>Like med students would strike me more as nature loving, animal and tree hugging people with a do-it-yourself, fix-it-yourself, and very practical attitude. While lawyers may be more ********ty with the ability to sit for long periods of time and love of reading (esp gay novels).</p>
<p>I just don't know what path to take... Should I just take some CHEM/BIO courses and see how I do? What if I take the courses do well, and am still now sure?</p>
<p>… it’s not remotely true. I don’t know any doctors who are jacks of all trades. They tend to be extremely narrowly focused people. And they’re certainly not a particularly hippie bunch; docs are screened and trained for hyperorthodoxy.</p>
<p>And I don’t even know what you’re saying re: lawyers.</p>
<p>I didn’t say they are (doctors) jack of all trades. Just that they have that practical fix-it-yourself attitude when something breaks (i.e. a heart)</p>
<p>I’m saying lawyers are emotional people (hence gay novels) and that they like to read, (your response will be lawyers are trained not to be emotional - but then I will ask if you’ve seen Judge Judy and this case will be closed.)</p>
<p>Your right! Just the other day I watched the oncologist I was on clerkship with go in and fix the heart of one of his patients so he wouldn’t need to refer him.</p>
<p>I love to read and I suggest we drop this thread. The fact that you are using Judge Judy as your example of a normal lawyer is infinitely lolable. While she is indeed a real judge/lawyer, “Judge Judy” is a TV personality and her “court” is not an actual legal court of law. It’s an arbritration court. Stop ■■■■■■■■.</p>
<p>Judge Judy’s court IS an ACTUAL court of law. Arbitration is utilizing a neutral third-party to settle the dispute out of court. I think you need should stop trying to pretend your an adult here (or at least have the IQ of an adult) and go play with your star wars toys. </p>
<p>Till next time, Dick. (I’m assuming that is your name?)</p>
<p>She is not a small claims court, whether or not civil cases utilize arbitration as well does not necessarily make small claims CASES done by arbitration done by an arbitrator hearing a court of the law. By its very definition arbitration is a technique of settling desputes outside of a court of law, instead using an impartial person or group. Judge Judy in her show is acting as an arbitrator, not as a judge. It is not a judicial proceding, despite being equivalent to it in most ways (in certain conditions).The fact that she even has a plaque calling herself Judge and wears a robe has been denounced by the Bar association as being dishonest, despite the fact that it is technically true.</p>
<p>You edited out what I referring to, and basically copied and pasted part of my post, but oh well.</p>
<p>Your first sentence is a bit unclear, can you elaborate on what the hell you are saying? Her court is a small claims court, you say she is not a small claims court Is that technical word play or are you saying her court is not a small claims court? </p>
<p>Judge Judys court cases are considered trials. And it most certainly is a judicial proceeding. As would be considered any petty, civil or criminal court case.</p>
<p>While it is true the rules are much simpler I think no less of her as a Judge, or of her judicial proceedings. If you can provide me with a link where you can show me where the American Bar Association states or even just clearly implies that by Judge Judy having a [again or even just any small claims Judge] plaque calling herself Judge and wear[ing] a robe is dishonest then I WILL ADMIT IM AN IDIOT! </p>
<p>If not then not only are you an idiot, but your also a liar. </p>
<p>The American Bar would not state that. Don’t make up lies, it makes you look stupid.</p>
<p>So, it seems as if according to the American Bar Association, Judge Judy’s court is not a court of law, so her cases are not judicial proceedings. Furthermore, there is the possibility that her show is presented in such a way that might fool watchers into believing that they are witnessing court proceedings when they are, in fact, not, and this might be considered dishonest or misleading.</p>
<p>I await your apology, or more likely your response arguing that since the above post does not explicitly say what imagery contributes to the idea that it is a courtroom (which I would suggest includes judicial robes and a plaque that says judge), and that causing detriment to the judicial system by implying that the show is a courtroom is not dishonest, I am still a liar.</p>
<p>OK, so Double J’s court is not a real court. But please, don’t disregard her work in the family court before she began her TV show. She is a very, very smart woman and very accomplished.</p>