For older professionals, do you value money, or intellectual stimulation?

[httpvalid]

I want to ask a non-technical career question, and I would like to be respondent by people with 10+, or 20+(ideally) years of working experience in professional high earning fields( professors, lawyers, doctors, bankers, engineers).

I am facing a dilemma. One the one hand, i am not making enough money, and working in a office job that i don ` t really like( actuary, programmer, accountant). I am thinking about going back to school, and amassing more credentials, but i don ` t really see that much careers with high earning potentials, and high earning potentials is really important to me. This leave me with two careers options, and they are doctors, and lawyers. I am seriously pondering a career in law, and i feel pretty confident of getting into a top 5 law school( by lsat score, strong soft, and school reputation), but the prospects, and account of lawyers in practice seems intellectually null to me. I entertain of wanting to be a doctor, but the prospect of being years in school scary to me, and what is more scary is the prospect that i might not make enough money, or having very little intellectual stimulation. Now, my parents are telling me that they can give me the family restaurant business, and it has the potential of earning at least 20, 000+ tax free per month, but i feel i "bore" about this profession. I am the kind of person that desperately "need" intellectual stimulation. I don ` t really see that much intellectual stimulation from working in a restaurant. If i do opt for a restaurant business, i think i can reach a million+ in saving in 5 or 6 years. I don ` t think I care for most jobs, but if i had to made up an ideal job for me, then it would be a philosopher+ theoretical physicists with potentially of earning 1+ million dollars every 5 years.

When I was young, I wanted to be a philosopher at a ivy, but give up this dream, because i reading of the poor job prospect in the field. On the other hand, i feel i can reach the top of any field, because i am persistent, and resourceful. I have doubts that i would not be making enough money, and have intellectual stimulation when i turn 40( i am 25 right now). For older professionals, would you go work in a restaurant, and earning at least 1+ million every 5 years, or stay in your profession. How important is intellectual stimulation for you?

 

[Locrian]

You're working as an actuary and not making enough money? Are you student, associate or fellow?

You keep talking about making enough money, but you don't define how much is enough. That's really critical.

 

[httpvalid]

You're working as an actuary and not making enough money? Are you student, associate or fellow?

You keep talking about making enough money, but you don't define how much is enough. That's really critical.

Ideally, i want to be making 200,000+ tax free when i am 30. Also, that would be the minimum if i go work with my parents. I think you misunderstand my dilemma. If I only care for money, i would be working for my parents. I don ` t need to think about it. Even if i pass every single actuary exams, i still not reach my ideal salary. It is also intellectual dead for me. I don ` t want to be old, and miserable when i turn 40.

 

[fss]

You won't be making $200k USD at 30 as a lawyer or a doctor if you haven't even started Med/Law school at 25. Sorry.

Edit: Unless you either get really lucky, or you have rich friends that can get you a job at a prestigious law firm.

 

[Shackleford]

You really want to make roughly $4K per week?

Arbitrary numbers FTW!1

 

[SW VandeCarr]

This leave me with two careers options, and they are doctors, and lawyers. I am seriously pondering a career in law, and i feel pretty confident of getting into a top 5 law school( by lsat score, strong soft, and school reputation), but the prospects, and account of lawyers in practice seems intellectually null to me. I entertain of wanting to be a doctor, but the prospect of being years in school scary to me, and what is more scary is the prospect that i might not make enough money, or having very little intellectual stimulation. Now, my parents are telling me that they can give me the family restaurant business.

Hmmm. How old are you? Married with children? If you're under 25 and single, law and medicine are realistic, but if you go into one of these just for the money, I can almost guarantee you won't succeed. If you don't like the study or the work, you'll almost surely fail at it. The best lawyers and physicians are consumed by their work and the work is consuming. They can do it because it energizes them. They also make a good incomes for their families to enjoy in lieu of having a full time spouse, father or mother.

If you just want to make money, go into the money business and be intellectually stimulated by selling short or timing pork belly futures. Then, if you're lucky, you can retire at 40 with a golden parachute after running some company into the ground. After that, cruise the world and read Spinoza.

For older professionals, would you go work in a restaurant, and earning at least 1+ million every 5 years, or stay in your profession. How important is intellectual stimulation for you?

No, but I'd love to be a restaurant crtic in retirement. You know, the people that go into restaurants where they're not supposed to be recognized but always are, and are treated like royalty. Then they go and write their column or blog knowing they have these businesses by the ----, I mean at their mercy.

As for intellectual stimulation, Spinoza is a good read. I can take the book into the restaurant with me and read while I'm waiting to be served.

 

[httpvalid]

You really want to make roughly $4K per week?

Arbitrary numbers FTW!1

Well, i know that my parents are making 10K+ per month in a slow week. 4K is a bit much, but the business is expending.

 

[httpvalid]

Hmmm. How old are you? Married with children? If you're under 25 and single, law and medicine are realistic, but if you go into one of these just for the money, I can almost guarantee you won't succeed. If you don't like the study or the work, you'll almost surely fail at it. The best lawyers and physicians are consumed by their work and the work is consuming. They can do it because it energizes them. They also make a good incomes for their families to enjoy in lieu of having a full time spouse, father or mother.

If you just want make money, go into the money business and be intellectually stimulated by selling short or timing pork belly futures. Then, if you're lucky, you can retire at 40 with a golden parachute after running some company into the ground. After that, cruise the world and read Spinoza.
No, but I'd love to be a restaurant crtic in retirement. You know, the people that go into restaurants where they're not supposed to be recognized but a always are, and are treated like royalty. Then they go and write their column or blog knowing they have these businesses by the ----, I mean at their mercy.

As for intellectual stimulation, Spinoza is a good read. I can take the book into the restaurant with me and read while I'm waiting to be served.

You said "if you go into one of these just for the money" as if to imply i only care for money, but that is not true. I said money is important, but not a sufficient reason for me to pursuit law, or medical field. There would not be a "dilemma" if i only care for money.

You said "The best lawyers and physicians are consumed by their work and the work is consuming. They can do it because it energizes them.". I grant you that the work done by lawyers, and doctors are all "consuming". However, it is not clear all to me that they need to be "energizes" by it. Why? One reason might be that most people don` t know what it is like to be a doctor, or a lawyer, until they become lawyers, and doctors. Also, it is not clear to me that people need to like what they do for them to be good at it. I can find many examples.

You said " if you're lucky, you can retire at 40 with a golden parachute after running some company into the ground." I could also retire at 40, without running a company to the ground, but i suppose you write what write because you want to to be cute, or an *******. I don ` t know which one.

You said "No, but I'd love to be a restaurant crtic in retirement. You know, the people that go into restaurants where they're not supposed to be recognized but a always are, and are treated like royalty. Then they go and write their column or blog knowing they have these businesses by the ----, I mean at their mercy." Are you trying to insult me, or are you trying to be incoherent? I am not at the "mercy" of anything. I can leave what i do, and start a new career anytime i want.

 

[httpvalid]

You won't be making $200k USD at 30 as a lawyer or a doctor if you haven't even started Med/Law school at 25. Sorry.

Edit: Unless you either get really lucky, or you have rich friends that can get you a job at a prestigious law firm.

Are you sure about that? I am thinking about going to law school at 27. My lsat score is 175+, and i have good soft. I think i can score a 189-180 in the next lsat exam. I have good interview skills, and outgoing, so i think i can get into a top law firm when i get out. I imagine, i would still hate working at a top law firm.

 

[fss]

Are you sure about that? I am thinking about going to law school at 27. My lsat score is 175+, and i have good soft. I think i can score a 189-180 in the next lsat exam. I have good interview skills, and outgoing, so i think i can get into a top law firm when i get out. I imagine, i would still hate working at a top law firm.

Shrug. The high-end average salary for a Harvard Law graduate lawyer is around $170k.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/School=Harvard_Law_School/Salary

For doctors there are higher-paying positions, none of which can be obtained in 3 years.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Degree=Doctor_of_Medicine_(MD)/Salary

 

[httpvalid]

^

I am not impressed by the numbers. What the numbers don` t tell us is the trade-off. I read that a lot of corporate lawyers actually don` t want to be corporate lawyers, and something like half of the doctors want to leave the profession in the next 5 years according to one study.

 

[D H]

Are you sure about that? I am thinking about going to law school at 27. My lsat score is 175+, and i have good soft. I think i can score a 189-180 in the next lsat exam. I have good interview skills, and outgoing, so i think i can get into a top law firm when i get out. I imagine, i would still hate working at a top law firm.

You might want to rethink this plan. Given that a picture is worth a thousand words, here is the salary distribution for freshout lawyers in 2006:

http://blogs.payscale.com/.a/6a00d8341bf85853ef0134821750c1970c-pi

 

[httpvalid]

You might want to rethink this plan. Given that a picture is worth a thousand words, here is the salary distribution for freshout lawyers in 2006:

http://blogs.payscale.com/.a/6a00d8341bf85853ef0134821750c1970c-pi

The graph actually makes no indication of " fresh out lawyers in 2006".
Even if the graph represent "fresh out lawyers in 2006", it does not at all determined the "expected value" of my income. Here is why: There are many low-level law schools, and many more people that are not at the top 10% of their graduating class. Their start out income would be pretty low, but if i go to yale or harvard, and graduate at the top 5% of my graduating class. I would have good chance of working in a top law firm( that is, if i want to), and making 200,000. It is still a bit low for me. We have to consider taxes, and the crappy conditions even in top law firms. What good is a high income if you don` t like it?

 

[fss]

I am not impressed by the numbers. What the numbers don` t tell us is the trade-off. I read that a lot of corporate lawyers actually don` t want to be corporate lawyers, and something like half of the doctors want to leave the profession in the next 5 years according to one study.

Wow, one study! :-\

How do you propose to quantify "trade off" ? It seems to me that you don't want to make up your mind and just want to poke holes in any attempt at reasoning. What exactly do you expect out of this discussion?

 

[Choppy]

The graph actually makes no indication of " fresh out lawyers in 2006".
Even if the graph represent "fresh out lawyers in 2006", it does not at all determined the "expected value" of my income. Here is why: There are many low-level law schools, and many more people that are not at the top 10% of their graduating class. Their start out income would be pretty low, but if i go to yale or harvard, and graduate at the top 5% of my graduating class. I would have good chance of working in a top law firm( that is, if i want to), and making 200,000. It is still a bit low for me. We have to consider taxes, and the crappy conditions even in top law firms. What good is a high income if you don` t like it?

Seriously?

No. Seriously?

Your argument is that the posted distribution does not adequately reflect *your* potential salary range because you are going to graduate in the top 10% from an Ivy League school.

I've been trying to figure this thread out, but I'm not sure I understand what you really want to know. Your parents run a business that you stand to inherit. Currently the business results in an income of $100k annually. Without any experience in the industry, you're assuming that once you take it over, you will be making double that. Then your concern is that this may not be stimulating enough for you, so you're considering other careers, but only ones that you believe would make an equal or greater amount of money. In these cases there is not really a choice, is there, because rather than chosing, you're trying to define a path that satisfies both criteria - both financially rewarding and intellectually stimulating.

I would advise a few things.

First, there are no absolutes within either camp. As people have pointed out, lawyers don't always do so great financially. Doctors tend to do okay, but the profession may not provide the intellectual stimulation you're looking for - after prescribing amoxicillian for the thousandth time, a relaxing restaraunt manager position might seem not so bad.

Second, define what intellectual stimulation means to you - if not for the readers of this thread, then for yourself. What a doctor does and what a lawyer does are generally quite different than what physicists do. Further, within any profession, there are tedious mundane jobs and more stimulating ones. A factory worker can find intellectual stimulation through a hobby - look at the contributions of amateur astronomers to their field for example.

Third, you don't need a space after an apostrophe.

 

[twofish-quant]

When I was young, I wanted to be a philosopher at a ivy, but give up this dream, because i reading of the poor job prospect in the field. On the other hand, i feel i can reach the top of any field, because i am persistent, and resourceful. I have doubts that i would not be making enough money, and have intellectual stimulation when i turn 40( i am 25 right now).

From what I've read and seen, managing a restaurant is one of the toughest most intellectually stimulating jobs out there. There are a million things that can go wrong, and all you have to do is to make one serious mistake (i.e. food poisoning) and you are out of business.

Now you might not enjoy that *type* of intellectual stimulation, but if you don't then I don't see you getting very far in many other fields.

For older professionals, would you go work in a restaurant, and earning at least 1+ million every 5 years, or stay in your profession. How important is intellectual stimulation for you?

It's extremely important, but I tend to find things interesting which other people find boring.

Also, I think you are seriously overestimating the amount of money you are likely to make with law and medicine.

 

[twofish-quant]

If you just want to make money, go into the money business and be intellectually stimulated by selling short or timing pork belly futures.

Some of us do that sort of thing. It's a lot harder than it sounds.

Then, if you're lucky, you can retire at 40 with a golden parachute after running some company into the ground. After that, cruise the world and read Spinoza.

This tends not to happen. The traders that are good, really, really good, get addicted to the game, and just keep playing after they reach 40, 50 and 60. The people that don't love the game tend to burn out after two to three years.

Also, don't think that you can cash out. Having large amounts of money brings with it it's own headaches, and you may be surprised how many people that make totally insane amounts of money are either broke or miserable.

 

[TMFKAN64]

The graph actually makes no indication of " fresh out lawyers in 2006".

If you are incapable of reading a graph, you should probably stick with Mommy and Daddy's restaurant.

This graph is clearly titled "Distribution of Full Time Salaries - Class of 2006", and the copyright notice is from 2007 from www.nalp.org, the National Association of Legal Professionals.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Some of us do that sort of thing. It's a lot harder than it sounds.
This tends not to happen. The traders that are good, really, really good, get addicted to the game, and just keep playing after they reach 40, 50 and 60. The people that don't love the game tend to burn out after two to three years.

Also, don't think that you can cash out. Having large amounts of money brings with it it's own headaches, and you may be surprised how many people that make totally insane amounts of money are either broke or miserable.

Frankly, I didn't think much of the OPs seriousness or attitude, hence my response was a bit sarcastic. He stands to inherit his parent's business but he thinks he can do better. He's narrowed his search to medicine or law but wants be making 200K/yr by age 30. I think he said he was 27. He's sure he can graduate in the top 10% of his class at Harvard Law and be making this kind of money right out of school. Fine. I hope he does get into law school. I wouldn't want to see him in medicine. I'm a retired MD.

 

[twofish-quant]

I have good interview skills, and outgoing, so i think i can get into a top law firm when i get out. I imagine, i would still hate working at a top law firm.

I wonder what it is about our social and educational system that gives young people seriously, seriously warped views about their chances are for success.

Something that you need to know now, since if you know it, you can change it, but you are coming across really badly in this discussion, so I don't think that your interview skills are nearly as good as you think they are.

Also, there's a matter that it is tough to fake your feelings in an interview. If you are interviewing for a top law firm and what you are really thinking is "this is a boring annoying job, I'm just doing it for the money, and I have no real interest in the law." That's going to come through and pretty much doom your chances for a job.

 

[twofish-quant]

Fine. I hope he does get into law school. I wouldn't want to see him in medicine, I'm a retired MD.

I'm in finance, and unless he changes his attitude I wouldn't want to see him in either law or finance. Bad lawyers and bad bankers can do ***much*** more damage than bad doctors.

Part of the reason, that finance is intellectually stimulating is that if you mess up in a really bad way, not only can you blow yourself up, you can seriously screw up the lives of innocent bystanders. Just look around you...

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I'm in finance, and unless he changes his attitude I wouldn't want to see him in either law or finance. Bad lawyers and bad bankers can do ***much*** more damage than bad doctors.

Part of the reason, that finance is intellectually stimulating is that if you mess up in a really bad way, not only can you blow yourself up, you can seriously screw up the lives of innocent bystanders. Just look around you...

'
You're right. Better he stay in the restaurant business, but I'd pass on eating there (if I knew where it was.)

 

[httpvalid]

I wonder what it is about our social and educational system that gives young people seriously, seriously warped views about their chances are for success.

Something that you need to know now, since if you know it, you can change it, but you are coming across really badly in this discussion, so I don't think that your interview skills are nearly as good as you think they are.

Also, there's a matter that it is tough to fake your feelings in an interview. If you are interviewing for a top law firm and what you are really thinking is "this is a boring annoying job, I'm just doing it for the money, and I have no real interest in the law." That's going to come through and pretty much doom your chances for a job.

I think you capture my feelings regarding top law firms with "boring annoying job". I actually love the law, or rather, the use of critical reasoning, and textual analysis in analyzing passages. I love reading debates in the talmud, and one of the reasons i want to go to law is because it is sort of like talmudic discussions. Talmudic debates, and interpretations of the laws are very stimulating for me, but is this the case at top law firms? Probable not. I read stories of "burn out" from corporate lawyers.

 

[fss]

I am asking if older professionals value money, or intellectual stimulation in their field.

And why would anyone else's answers even matter? What other people say clearly have no bearing on your decisions, as evinced by your refusal to understand numerical evidence that you won't be making $200k as a lawyer or doctor right out of medical school.

Did i ask for numbers? No!

You implied that the numerical evidence provided was, for whatever reason, invalid. Curiously, you only seem to poke holes in numerical evidence when they contradict what you want to hear. For example,

You said "Seriously? No. Seriously?" as if to imply i am not serious. Why do you think i am not serious? I am very serious about myself. Regarding the graph, one way to interpret H D `s remark is to suggest the graph actually "inform" any particular person `s income. This is stupid reasoning. It is similar to drawing the conclusion that the next coin flip is a head, with the probability that head occur probability .5. There are so many factors that need to be taken into consideration when we want to stat to inform decision about any particular individual. Do you not see this?

Or you just discount it, as you did here:

I am not impressed by the numbers. What the numbers don` t tell us is the trade-off. I read that a lot of corporate lawyers actually don` t want to be corporate lawyers, and something like half of the doctors want to leave the profession in the next 5 years according to one study.

Perhaps you should understand that just because evidence doesn't fit the particular narrative you want to believe doesn't make it invalid. Good luck finding your $200k job when you haven't even applied for law or medical school. Heh.

 

[twofish-quant]

I think you capture my feelings regarding top law firms with "boring annoying job". I actually love the law, or rather, the use of critical reasoning, and textual analysis in analyzing passages.

In corporate law, it usually works the other way. You have an extremely vaguely worded passage and someone willing to pay you large amounts of money if you can find a way of having the passage read a certain way.

The other thing that happens a lot in corporate law is that you have to draft a document that does something pretty standard. It's like the thousands of other documents you've drafted. Because seriously bad thing happens if it is mis-drafted, so they give it to you to draft. It's the type of boring mind-numbing work that most associates end up doing.

I love reading debates in the talmud, and one of the reasons i want to go to law is because it is sort of like talmudic discussions.

The trouble is that the people that pay you generally *hate* long winded Talmudic discussions. They want the answer to be X, and they are paying to see how you can get the answer to be X.

 

[JDStupi]

I don't really have much to add to the discussion other than, in areas of life wisdom, business and finance, twofish should be listened to closely. Maybe it is too late for this, but why do you want to (or seemingly have some sort of need to) make 200K/yr? What made you come to that conclusion? Why do you value money so much? You can make 80K a year and live completely comfortable, that isn't even to say that you will simply sustain and live frugally, you can have a decent amount of options with 80K, especially if you are single. Beyond that, there is always room (well not necessarily always) for improvement, but to insist that you need to and will be making 200K/yr by 30 despite what people tell you is stupid. If you don't like what people are saying, all the worse for you. Not to mention your "counting your eggs before they hatch" by making the assumption that simply because your test scores are good, you'll be accepted to some top 10 school. There are many many many people with good scores, and the top 10 acceptance process isn't completely lineal "If you get good grades and test scores then you get accepted to top 10" This isn't the case, it is a matter of many other factors included, this is due to simple economic considerations of supply/demand among other things. Life requires sacrifice, either sacrifice your notion of 200K or sacrifice your notion of stimulating. That isn't to say the two are simply incompatible, but assuming these notions are immediatley compatible is wrong. Especially considering the only options you have presented and have been presented for good salary i.e. law&medicine you have stated that you do not like and do not find stimulating. Your restaraunt also falls under that category, so maybe business? Probably falls under that category also Ahhhh well of course stimulating, how about an engineer or a physicist? Nope, you can forget that 200K, so where are you now?

 

[DrummingAtom]

I don't think you'll make it by the time you're thirty but the only salary I could find that the average is over 200k are various types of surgeons. Then you can tell everyone if what happens on Grey's Anatomy is real.

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes291067.htm

 

[kramer733]

I don't even know what to say about TC's attitude to this.. If i ever find you on the streets, I'm slapping you hard enough so you can come back to reality. Listen to what your elders and the wise people here have to say. They aren't stupid and have experience.

 

[Ben Espen]

That Payscale graph is pretty interesting, but there are some important caveats to be borne in mind about the difference between starting pay and career pay for lawyers. A friend of mine who moved from software engineering into law passed this along.

His comments:

This may be true, but don't let that confuse you into believing that law grads are either bound for success or not. In fact, many highly successful students will intentionally end up on the lower side of the graph and shortly thereafter move up.

For example:

(1) Many new grads get low paying clerk jobs. Clerking for a Supreme Court Justice puts you in the lower distribution. But nearly every law student would take that position for two years and then move on to the far right hand side of the graph.

(2) Many new lawyers start their own law firms. Lawyers are self employed more often than most other professions. These people will be in the lower parts of your graph too. They will also make more than those working at the big firms in just a few years.

(3) Many public interest positions pay very low salaries, but offer loan forgiveness after N years. So a person with 200K in debt might gladly work for 40k/year in a public interest position, and in 5 years get that loan paid off and move on.​

 

[httpvalid]

And why would anyone else's answers even matter? What other people say clearly have no bearing on your decisions, as evinced by your refusal to understand numerical evidence that you won't be making $200k as a lawyer or doctor right out of medical school.
You implied that the numerical evidence provided was, for whatever reason, invalid. Curiously, you only seem to poke holes in numerical evidence when they contradict what you want to hear. For example,
Or you just discount it, as you did here:
Perhaps you should understand that just because evidence doesn't fit the particular narrative you want to believe doesn't make it invalid. Good luck finding your $200k job when you haven't even applied for law or medical school. Heh.

You are so bad in absorbing details is amazing, and not to mention a complete in inability to spot the main point.You said "What other people say clearly have no bearing on your decisions, as evinced by your refusal to understand numerical evidence that you won't be making $200k as a lawyer or doctor right out of medical school."

Ok, the op states a dilemma of whether high-earning professional prefer passion, or money. This does not address the main question in the op, and thus, must be consider, a divergence.

My commentary in regard to this statistic is in reply to an assertion that " this graph inform the outcome of income of fresh out grad for law school". This is not related to the main question, and i address it only as a matter of a technical point. The fallacy is similar to:

1. There is a probability of .5 that a coin flip is head.

Base on 1, it is wrong to say "the next coin flip is a head". The graph is not sufficient to "inform". Being in a physics, math forum, you sure have difficulty understanding basic probability.

 

[httpvalid]

The trouble is that the people that pay you generally *hate* long winded Talmudic discussions. They want the answer to be X, and they are paying to see how you can get the answer to be X.

I have no problem with dissecting complicate passages, or drafting highly detailed documents. Those are fun things i normally like to do. This is the chief reason i would excel at law schools if i ever want to go.

I don ` t like top law firms precisely because people needing the "right" answer for every complicated question. They probably would distort the interpretation to fit the benefit of their firm. This really kills it at an intellectual level for me.

There is another point i didn `t bring up, but it is just as, if not more important to me. It is need to do "no harm". I care for money, but don ` t think i can take money if it comes from doing harm. It does seem like stupidity, and "not caring for anyone" comes hand in hand. I am not good around these peoples.

 

[httpvalid]

I don't really have much to add to the discussion other than, in areas of life wisdom, business and finance, twofish should be listened to closely. Maybe it is too late for this, but why do you want to (or seemingly have some sort of need to) make 200K/yr? What made you come to that conclusion? Why do you value money so much? You can make 80K a year and live completely comfortable, that isn't even to say that you will simply sustain and live frugally, you can have a decent amount of options with 80K, especially if you are single. Beyond that, there is always room (well not necessarily always) for improvement, but to insist that you need to and will be making 200K/yr by 30 despite what people tell you is stupid. If you don't like what people are saying, all the worse for you. Not to mention your "counting your eggs before they hatch" by making the assumption that simply because your test scores are good, you'll be accepted to some top 10 school. There are many many many people with good scores, and the top 10 acceptance process isn't completely lineal "If you get good grades and test scores then you get accepted to top 10" This isn't the case, it is a matter of many other factors included, this is due to simple economic considerations of supply/demand among other things. Life requires sacrifice, either sacrifice your notion of 200K or sacrifice your notion of stimulating. That isn't to say the two are simply incompatible, but assuming these notions are immediatley compatible is wrong. Especially considering the only options you have presented and have been presented for good salary i.e. law&medicine you have stated that you do not like and do not find stimulating. Your restaraunt also falls under that category, so maybe business? Probably falls under that category also Ahhhh well of course stimulating, how about an engineer or a physicist? Nope, you can forget that 200K, so where are you now?

I think your chief concern is about my "motivation" of wanting to earning 20K per year( tax free?). One reason is that "i can". My parents are making that kind of money, and they say, they want to give the business to me. In the long term, I can probable increase the profit margin, and expand the business. I will never be able to work as a doctor, or lawyer making that much money. If my only interest is money, i would take my parents offer, but i am seriously interested in the life of the mind. I love solving puzzles, math problems, philosophy and reading Talmudic discussion. I am not smart, but i have confidence of reaching the top of any field i choose. If my parents were poor, i would not have any dilemma.

 

[Ryker]

I have no problem with dissecting complicate passages, or drafting highly detailed documents. Those are fun things i normally like to do. This is the chief reason i would excel at law schools if i ever want to go.

Law isn't only about dissecting complicate passages or drafting highly detailed documents, a lot of times what makes a great lawyer great is the ability to look at the bigger picture. Any lay person is able to dissect passages, but you study law to go beyond that.

I don`t like top law firms precisely because people needing the "right" answer for every complicated question. They probably would distort the interpretation to fit the benefit of their firm. This really kills it at an intellectual level for me.

This isn't the case with only top law firms. From my personal experience of working in a law firm I found this to be even more true in smaller ones, because they cannot afford to lose clients, so they must cater even more to their whims. On the other hand, top law firms can usually afford to stick to their morals (not that lawyers have any, but for argument's sake :D), and need only to give in when it comes to really large companies that make offers they just can't refuse. And even then it's basically a choice between making heaps and heaps of money versus making heaps and heaps and heaps of money.

In any case, don't think it's all fun and games when it comes to law, and I can tell you it will suck big time if you don't love it.

 

[JDStupi]

Wait, I don't get the point of this whole thread. If you just told me that you want to make more money because you can, but at the same time, it isn't just about the money and that you don't care because you like thinking and so you want to do that. So what's the question? What's the topic? If you don't care and want to do something involving thinking, then go do something involving thinking. Because if you really like thinking, you won't worry about making $x. I don't see that this is after all a question that warrants a thread, this seems to be a personal question that you need to sort out completely on your own and nothing we say is going to do anything. We can say "Oh well your misinformed about law or field x" But that doesn't matter. I just don't see the point in all of this, if you came here asking for advice , that is great. But if you argue with advice, and refuse to take any of it, then what is the point? "I want to be stimulated and make 200K/yr", ok that is a statement. "How do I do this?". Answers were given, you don't like them. And regarding my asking you why you want to make that money, forget it I suppose because your motivations are set, but why did you say, "BEcause I can?" Because the point is, is that you can if you go to your parents business, but if you don't it means that you might not be able to. So is the whole question "Should I inherit my parents business and work hard to increase the profit margin and make at least 200K/yr, or since I like thinking should I go into another field without the guarantee that I will make that much money?" Because people tried to tell you that second part, and you argued saying that you'll be able to have your cake and eat it too, not necesarrily. The question is personal, see if you'll be satisfied making money and being intellectually stimulated in your spare time, and if you are 100% dedicated towards doing something intellectual and making lots of money, then go gather your interests and create your own niche.

 

[Locrian]

I just don't see the point in all of this, if you came here asking for advice , that is great. But if you argue with advice, and refuse to take any of it, then what is the point?

To argue.