The Back to School Thread

Be a plumber.

Picasso_sl said:

Be a plumber.

Click to expand...

Your Princess is in a different castle.

Probably could post in job thread but felt it right to be more specific. I wanna go back to school, but a little unsure of what under grad program to get into. I wanna be a network engineer. Or whatever title you wanna give that. Please don't get salty over the engineer title. Lol. I have my CCNA r&s and wanna pursue my ccnp r&s not too long from now and go up that Cisco path.

My problem seems to be, the only degree that comes close to that is a network administrator degree and I don't really wanna do that, right? My confusion admittedly comes from looking at just one schools programs, WGU. Their network administrator degree doesn't give you any of your ccna's. Where as the network security degree gives you ccna and ccna security. What gives? Network admins don't need a ccna?

What I'll probably do is just go for the degree in network security, WGU will give me credit for my CCNA and I can get an undergrad faster than going a different route. It'll be good to have that security background even if I don't go that route in my career.

Another back to school decision point here. Comments, questions, criticism please?

tl;dr
To summarise: it looks to me most of the advantages of staying in Finland are different forms of convenience. I wouldn't be stretching myself as much, meaning I'd have more energy to do stuff. In the long run, though, the Swedish option looks to offer more in terms of personal growth and career options. My dad is against going back to school, and is insistent I should get out from academia into The Real World. I ran the numbers, and taking care of the fixed costs of our summer place & other pieces of leisure property are so high that my own legal practise would have to hit it out of the park to be able to afford the maintenance & save something for retirement. As a physician my earnings would be higher so I could afford it fairly easily.

Background: so they are squeezing research funding in Finland. Hard. And the new rules for funding research really hate on research that doesn't promise great financial gains, preferably from smokestack industry exports, in under 3 years. My research is in procurement of public health care ICT, and what I propose would save livesandmoney. But one of the conditions is that public officials and politicians stop buying Great Works and instead accept that maybe, just maybe, people who study information systems for a living or people who study buying stuff for a living, know more about buying big systems than they do. So I'm pretty much going nowhere fast, because if there's one thing people in power hate it is giving up any of it. (It makes me hopping mad the political and business elite jointly produced a manual titled 'Successful Public IS Procurement' which uses the waterfall model which, as we know, does not work too well)

Now, my dad is a baby boomer and he thinks it would be best for me to
A)open my own legal practise in a small town where we live currently, an hour from the uni I research at. I've run the numbers in excel and it looks pretty good in that I would likely not starve and probably have a yearly income on par with agreedynurse. I have aburninghate for working in business or legal services, though. But if I combo this with the Finnish medical school, it would only be for 4 years.

Another option is to try to
B)pursue a PhD spot in Sweden or Norway and ditch Information Systems Science for my tru wuv, theory of criminal law. That's a risky option, and the competition is very stiff. Still, I get very positive feedback on my work from people in jurisprudence or theory of criminal law.

The third option is to go back to school for 5,5 or 6 years to
C)become a medical doctor. Excel says the net present value for dropping work altogether and just being the best med student I can ispositivecompared to the legal practise. I would, in fact, be able to work on the side. (Ex-wife was still a medical student when we met, I saw her study for exams) Later on, I would be pursuing specialisation in psychiatry because it's damned interesting (as is medicine in general, really) and there's a fair chance it combos well with my background in law.

Having BBA, MBA (Business law, accounting, economics, and finance), LLB & LLM & a doctorate in procurement of health care information systems would give me a fair advantage over most physicians in applying for positions with administrative clout. Although I know I would miss the clinical work. But then, it seems like people in charge of mental institutions for the criminally insane have a mix of administrative and clinical duties (and some research and lecturing on the side, perfect storm!)

I have papers good enough to get me intohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karolinska_Institutetorhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uppsala_Universityand I'm studying for selection exams at the Finnish university where I conduct my research. Also, KI and UU have a phd program in psychiatry. (Yes, I could see myself going for double doctorate, because why the fuck not? No kids, no wife, love to research, can get paid for it, can improve human lives - psychiatrists in Nordic countries are fairly good at following current research.)

The pros of the Finnish med school are:
* am qualified to practice law while I study towards my MD in my first language (but what about those months when you get no clients?)
* can easily complete the business English and business German courses still missing from my BA degrees
* can live in the house I currently live in, which is a house my granpa built -- a higher standard of living
* have my social support networks very accessible
* very easy to get into research

The pros of moving to Sweden, as I see them, are:
* KI is, depending on the rankings, in the global top 10 or top 30 of medical schools. (And it's a $10-$20, 12 hour, boat trip away from my home town anyway)
* I would learn a third language up to a level where I can publish academic work in it. (and later on, excellent Swedish is a huge leg up in Finland if I want to return)
* 11 semesters v. 12 semesters in FI.
* No selection exam, so a huge mental pressure off me for the next 5 weeks, as well as having the certainty of a spot (altho in KI I'd be starting in January, so graduation in May 2022 either way).
* Could try to combo doctorate in law with med school, as there's a professor in Stockholm University interested in supervising me
* Can work in Norway during summers due to having better grasp of Swedish --> big bucks
* Can get into health care part-time work easily (In Finland, they are using the unemployed as unpaid labour in homes for the elderly, so harder to get paid work as a student)
* Exposing myself to new experiences: I've never lived outside a thin, 40 mile long, belt between the town where I went to high school and my uni town
* If I do get a spot in researcher training, I'd be getting one of the best opportunities to learn and publish anywhere on the planet

I'm a little confused, and maybe this stems from the differences between the US and Finland.

You're currently a lawyer, performing academic research on information systems (with a doctorate? As a professor?), but your true passion is theory of criminal law? But you are considering med school because you want to min/max your income? But you also might want to get a PhD in psychology? Or you might get an dual degree in medicine and doctorate in law?

If you want to make as much money as possible, then you probably don't need any input here... just go for whatever path pays off the most based on your calculations.

You said you hate practicing law, so why even consider option A, especially if other career paths make more money overall and are more appealing to you? As for option B vs C, you are comparing apples and oranges, but you asked for opinions, so here's mine: you've said that your true passion is the theory of criminal law, so why not go for the PhD there, especially since your law degree will complement it? It sounds like the med school options will essentially be starting your career over from scratch. I assume you are in your late 20s or early 30s? If you are serious about doing an MD/PhD, you're going to be in your forties before you actually begin your independent career.

nobody's prefect_sl said:

yearly income on par with agreedynurse.

Click to expand...

I'm a little intrigued by this comment. What makes a nurse greedy?

Maybe Finnish nurses get paid by productivity and a greedy one will increase their patient load to 8 neurotrauma ICU patients.

I got into psychiatry because it's a fascinating field. Now I spend my days arguing with methamphetamine addicts over Xanax and my unwillingness to prescribe it.

Edit:

thanks mates, different perspectives indeed. Just what I hoped for!

Vanderhoof: so you're saying you shoulda gone for melee DPS instead of ranged psi-CC? I'm thinking forensic psychiatry. (Here, it means your patients are prisoners and those whose mental state precludes culpability for their otherwise criminal action and are thus committed indefinitely. Would think it'd combo well with a law degree and if the patients aren't co-operating, well, they are free to sue the State.)

I'd typed out a proper reply but a 500 error ate it.

The model Nordic health care is that it's financed by taxes. If you feel doctor Koskinen is more skilled after 5 pm, when he works extra hours in a private health care provider (after having worked 8 hours at the public health care), you can pay EQT LLC for the exact same treatment you'd have gotten from doc Koskinen for your tax money during the 8-4 hours. (Employers are obligated to allow employees to see a doctor. But some people put a high value on the extra smile they sometimes get.)

If you're a greedy person, you hog private sector work and shirk or outright leave your job in the public sector. For nurses, the pay goes way up this way. But you have to smile.

The reason I'm currently somewhat meh about going for a doctorate in philosophy of law is the begging for grants. I really, reallyreallyreally, like knowing how much and when I'll have money coming in. (yep, a flawless victory for working in public sector health care, again.)

And it's not like there's a ginormous difference in time to completion in going for Doctor of Medical Science + Licentiate of Medicine (that's European for MD). My papers WILL get me into Karolinska, both doctorates will require a fair bit of work to get into. If you put in the work, it's5,5 yearsto complete the doctorate and the licentiate, and you'll get paid nicely for the research bit of the doctorate. Doctorate in (philo of) law is4 years, and the research money is just not there, compared to medical and pharmaceutical research funding.

Than you add on stuff like: specialisation in forensic psychiatry + master's in law.Helping people get betterinstead of getting even, getting back, getting ahead, or getting off (scot-free).

Kuriin_sl said:

I'm a little intrigued by this comment. What makes a nurse greedy?

Click to expand...

I'll reply to this in a little more depth. The flippant answer is, of course, routinely acting out of greed, same as any other person.

More specifically to nursing and Finland, though: absolute majority of all (health) care given in Finland is paid for by the taxpayer. All nurses have been trained at the taxpayer's expense. As an aside, it's the same with doctors. It costs the student the same to train as a doctor as, say, a librarian, and both are very likely to work on taxpayer's penny all their life.

It's a cultural thing. Since we the people spend a good bit of money on training health care professionals and their salaries in public sector jobs are good, even amazeballs good compared to other professions which require similar levels of academic achievement (a private sector manager in charge of e.g. a chemical plant with 300 workers will take home about the same as the most foolhardy of just graduated physicians at age 24, but the manager will obviously work more than 42,5 hours per week... and on weekends, too! Note also that suing doctors is not a thing here, we've got a law for stopping that nonsense) we kind of think these guys should keep on working for the public health care providers, since private sector health care is really expensive, and the idea was to provide health care for everyone.

Anyway, nurses can make very nice bank by picking the right shifts at a private institution for young psychiatric patients or a nice private nursing home or a nice private imagining service provider. Mostly these private providers aim to offer a standard of care that (far) exceeds what is medically necessary in order to generate profit. I know it's the management that sets the strategies, but everyone here who works in the health care professions knows it's the greedy fucks of their class who go private sector. Working 100% private sector itnoteven close to neutral here.

It bugs my wife that I get phone calls, emails and letters in the mail begging me to move to their shit hole hospital and work for them. She has a degree in psychology and has a hard time finding a job, let alone a well paying one. If someone goes to school and chooses to earn a high demand degree, they deserve what ever the free market is willing to pay them. And in Finland these greedy nurses are probably paying a high rate of taxes which pay for some other dipshit to get a degree in Underwater Eastern Asian Women's Studies.

The vast majority of nurses (83%) DO work in the public sector. Maybe I should've called the few who work private sector 'normal people' and the vast majority who do not 'morally exceptional, altruistic and admirable' because they damn straight are. Nurses rock. (Brad image here)

I don't know what you call choosing to not do the virtuous, ethical, thing and going for more money instead. I call it greed.

I'm not very interested in turning this into into a US vs. THEM and by them I mean the Nordics. If you want to believe in spending more in order to get less, that's fine. No-one's forcing anyone to live anywhere. (Well, the poor are not able to vote with their feet, actually) But just to address the following:

ZyyzYzzy_sl said:

privately owned businesses that provide better care and diagnoses than state run ones?

Click to expand...

Can you find a single instance of this being true in Finland? I wrote that they try to provide more care than is medically necessary. The private sector actors skim the cream by overtreating (subsidized by taxpayer) of simple conditions and abuse the public sector for the heavy lifting. You can't approach Nordic countries with an American understanding and expect your intuitions to work out. I would certainly not equate the fact that US health care is mostly (56%) private sector with EVIL. The numbers show that our way is more efficient and saves taxpayer money.

We spend only ~36% of what US spends on health care per capita. In Finland, ~75% is public spending, in USA, ~44% is. This means that you guys spend $2500 of taxpayer money per person per year on public health care, we spend $1600. Public actors are just plain better in certain areas than private actors. And, yes, Finns and Nordics in general get better health care than Americans --as a whole. Sure, the most difficult surgical operations are, in general. carried out in the USA, but when you look at the entirety of the population, the picture is different.

At the Finnish Statistics Centre sitehttp://www.stat.fi/artikkelit/2011/a...0_006.html?s=0a report discusses the use of health care services. You can see in the report that being poor leads to underuse of health care and being well off leads to overuse. This is an ethical problem. If you don't know think it is, go read a book on medical ethics or political philosophy or something.

Vanderhoof_sl said:

deserve what ever the free market is willing to pay them.

Click to expand...

1) the free market only exists as an idea.
2) even if it did, that's nonsense. Look at the discussion of dessert.

Just as a really, really, short overview of Rawls' objection to dessert:
1) we see that people who prosper generally share characteristics, right? Able to put off satisfaction, hard-working, smart etc. Or just plain lucky.
2) Luck is by definition not earned.
3) One's character depends mostly on one's in-born temperament and upbringing. By the time one is an independent adult, changing one's character is exceedingly difficult, and if you didn't get a temperament suitable for this at birth, you're shit outta luck.
4) since we cannot choose our innate qualities or our parents, the most important factors that play into forming our character are not within our control.
5) we, therefore, do notmorallydeserve either the rewards or the punishments society directs our way inasmuch as they are the outcome of our character.

Vanderhoof_sl said:

It bugs my wife that I get phone calls, emails and letters in the mail begging me to move to their shit hole hospital and work for them. She has a degree in psychology and has a hard time finding a job, let alone a well paying one. If someone goes to school and chooses to earn a high demand degree, they deserve what ever the free market is willing to pay them. And in Finland these greedy nurses are probably paying a high rate of taxes which pay for some other dipshit to get a degree in Underwater Eastern Asian Women's Studies.

Click to expand...

So there's a physician deficit in the US as well? Guess that's what is to be expected what with the advances in diagnosing and treatments, eh? Sorry to hear about your wife's difficulties in job seeking. I'm remembering that money spent in therapy and counseling is money saved several times over the lifetime of the patient, so if the politia was smart with it's money, it'd really focus on early treatment. Not to think of the human suffering involved. Although you didn't say whether she specialises in counseling/therapy.

We all pay a high tax rate here but it's worth it. And, yes, there are bound to be people who turn free riders in a system such as ours, and certainly Finland ought to model Sweden and Norway more closely, but our conservative politicians are hell-bent on wrecking the country. The leftist ones are totally opposed to any reform that would, temporarily, mean less benefits to the people now employed. The centrists are an agri party.

nobody's prefect_sl said:

Mostly these private providers aim to offer a standard of care that (far) exceeds what is medically necessary in order to generate profit.

Click to expand...

ZyyzYzzy_sl said:

You stated privately owned healthcare facilities offer better care in your own previous post, dipshit

Click to expand...

English, motherfucker. Do you read it? Do you have any idea how diagnosing and treatment works? If I sprain my wrist while playing golf, I do not, medically speaking, need a MRI or CT scan. Yet you can bet that any private provider would be extremely happy to slap on X-Rays and ultrasound, too. And the taxpayers subsidies flow.

edit: in case you don't know. Those methods of diagnosis are fucking expensive. What a wrist would, in an extremely great majority of cases, need after playing too much golf is fucking let the hand rest, don't play any more. Don't strain it. If it doesn't get better in a week, come in again. That's what it needs, not expensive diagnosis from all the latest rides (which the taxpayer subsidies help pay). The medically necessary and justifiable diagnosis and treatment in this case is to palpate the hand and tell the patient to play less golf. What private actors will try to push is not justified in even cost/benefit analysis.

This is like talking about used cars. There's an information asymmetry. The client/layperson doesn't know and thus can be milked or fleeced any which way. And so they are. It's not fucking rocket science: if you need to generate profit, you will pitch trendy, techny, and complicated extra services even if it can't benefit the patient. Game theory 101, motherfucker.