Why is it made easier to become a lawyer than a doctor?

[tetrishead]

<p>

Law is an undergraduate field of study: NYU Law & Society

That’s an undergraduate minor that’s a bunch of history of law + cj courses.

Actually, it can.

Experienced neuroscientists would disagree, as our understanding of brain development is still in its infancy.

In particular 3 years in the early 20’s. What we might refer to generally as “judgment” or “maturity” is an intellectual function which is largely a function of the operation of the prefrontal cortex - which is the last part of the brain to develop, and typically is still physiologically unmatured into the mid-20’s. This is not a phenomenon which is novel; recent research simply confirms long time observations. Why do you suppose the Constitution requires a Congressman to be 25, a Senator 30, President 35?

Oh, boy. Is this going to be the equivalent of that thing people sometimes use where they say “well, you’re not technically done developing until your late 20s, therefore you’re not an adult until then”? Forgetting, of course, that synapses growth never really ends, and it’s just the creation of new neurons that are limited.</p>

<p>Immature brain structure does not preclude sophisticated behavior. It’s not as easy as counting synapses, and this is a danger of looking to neuroscience, especially cognitive neuroscience, which while fascinating is not a field that has been well-explored (and is almost entirely reliant on technological advances made in the last 50 years). There’s a reason some people you work with are idiots, and there is a reason some 22 year olds are idiots. I wouldn’t look to brain structure to try and solve the riddles of human behavior if I were you.</p>

<p>Using the Constitution is a pretty significantly flawed example as well, as somehow I find it unlikely they were doing neuroimaging on brains in the late 18th century. The fact that the age requirements go by 5 makes it pretty blatant that scientific thought wasn’t at the forefront of the decision made and it is an entirely human designation. Running for office presupposes you already have a resume to support you, which means someone would have had to done something of significance prior to 25 to run successfully for office.</p>

<p>

Younger people excel at learning facts and concepts - that’s a brain function which declines with age. But “the so-called “executive” functions—planning, setting priorities, organizing thoughts, suppressing impulses and weighing the consequences of one’s actions” are things which are generally not fully developed until one is - well, roughly the minimum age at which most people complete law school.

Final myelination does not complete until the mid-30s, but grey matter reaches adult levels prior to the end of adolescence (10-19). So called “executive functions” peak in the mid-20s (and apparently continue at that level for a decade), not “fully develop.” There is a difference. Beyond the 30s executive functions decline, so using your train of logic people should only be allowed to practice law from the ages of 25 to 45, at which case forced retirement and removal of accreditation ought to be the norm.</p>

<p>You agree, of course?

As for how it’s done in other countries, I suspect that in most developed nations an individual is not certified to perform all of the functions a licensed US attorney is licensed to perform at an earlier age than is true here. The mechanism may be apprenticeship, tiered qualifications, etc. - but I suspect that full qualification along the lines of bar admission here does not occur until the mid-20’s elsewhere as well.

Not really? I’m not aware of any massive qualification barriers (there are the specialist kind of things and continuing education, but that exists in every profession everywhere) in most “first world” countries.</p>