Peter (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} dolemiteq) wrote,@ 2008-03-10 09:28:00 |
|
"The original purpose of medicine is to heal the sick, not turn healthy people into gods."
The two New York Times articles below (courtesy of Amanda) are about performance enhancing drugs in academics. If you've never heard of this before, it's very, very real.
Brain Enhancement is Wrong, Right? (March 09, 2008)
The Adderall Advantage (July 31, 2005)
This is an ongoing fight, particularly in the competitive environment of law school.
There are really only two arguments in the two articles that downplay the use of these drugs. The first article talks about how you shouldn't compare adderall usage to steroids in sports, because the competitive nature of academia is secondary to the learning. That is complete bullshit.
Law school, at least in the tier 2 schools, is not about learning, it's about getting the best grades to get you the best jobs. In tier 1, everyone gets the good jobs, in tier's 3 and 4, you're either a regional school who is going to get the best jobs in the region anyway, or you're not even trying for the big firms. Tier 2 (and maybe the tail end of tier 1) is arguably the most competitive. Only the top 15-20% get the big firm jobs, so the grades you get in your first year mean the difference between starting at $160,000 + bonus, or somewhere in the $40,000-80,000 range. That may still seem like a lot of money, but when you have close to $200,000 in loans accruing interest, with nothing to show for it but your earning potential, it's really not.
I would argue that performance enhancing drugs are exactly the same in law school as in professional sports. The payout isn't quite as big, but there's a lot more lawyers than professional athletes.
The second article talks about the actual effects of the drugs, and how they "don't make you smarter" they just allow you to work harder. So, what... that makes it better? The only thing I have to say in response to that is: Could the people taking adderall perform just as well without it? And if so, why are they taking it?
The two New York Times articles below (courtesy of Amanda) are about performance enhancing drugs in academics. If you've never heard of this before, it's very, very real.
Brain Enhancement is Wrong, Right? (March 09, 2008)
The Adderall Advantage (July 31, 2005)
This is an ongoing fight, particularly in the competitive environment of law school.
There are really only two arguments in the two articles that downplay the use of these drugs. The first article talks about how you shouldn't compare adderall usage to steroids in sports, because the competitive nature of academia is secondary to the learning. That is complete bullshit.
Law school, at least in the tier 2 schools, is not about learning, it's about getting the best grades to get you the best jobs. In tier 1, everyone gets the good jobs, in tier's 3 and 4, you're either a regional school who is going to get the best jobs in the region anyway, or you're not even trying for the big firms. Tier 2 (and maybe the tail end of tier 1) is arguably the most competitive. Only the top 15-20% get the big firm jobs, so the grades you get in your first year mean the difference between starting at $160,000 + bonus, or somewhere in the $40,000-80,000 range. That may still seem like a lot of money, but when you have close to $200,000 in loans accruing interest, with nothing to show for it but your earning potential, it's really not.
I would argue that performance enhancing drugs are exactly the same in law school as in professional sports. The payout isn't quite as big, but there's a lot more lawyers than professional athletes.
The second article talks about the actual effects of the drugs, and how they "don't make you smarter" they just allow you to work harder. So, what... that makes it better? The only thing I have to say in response to that is: Could the people taking adderall perform just as well without it? And if so, why are they taking it?
