I said being a good lawyer is a multifactorial trait. That means it relies on multiple genes and the environment. It's related to the topic of this discussion, nature vs nurture in the legal profession.
I love the lawyers in here thinking their profession is the highest level of intellectual ability. Congrats, guys, you can read English quick, use a bit of deduction, apply the law to fact patterns. Consider looking up any topic in theoretical physics. Let me do it...
Electric potential in electrostatics:
Electric potential - Wikipedia
Now compare to an equivalently basic topic in law - torts:
"A tort, in common law jurisdiction, is a civil wrong (other than breach of contract) that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. It can include intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, financial losses, injuries, invasion of privacy, and many other things.
There's no comparison. I deleted what I had written before and never said anything much about biochemistry, but it requires a vast array of information beyond simply the genetic code that was posted. You need to be able to know organic chemistry, stereochemistry, biology, math, and finally their applications to cells. It's much harder than understanding "reasonably forthcoming"
You need like an 83% high school average to get into an aerospace engineering programs in Canada. It's amusing that you're making a subsequent qualifier with " or NASA engineer". I mean that's the equivalent of saying anyone can be a lawyer, but not everyone can work for Morgans. Which is absolutely true, and the sentiment applies to basically every job.
Thankfully I did get in!
I actually did start one for this year. However, it is admittedly a mess as I lost interest after realizing they were clearly deviating from the suspected index formula. I now do not have the time to fix/continue with it. Hopefully someone will do it for next year's applicants.