Linearity of time as experienced from life
Thinking more about this "choice" of diplomacy or veterinarianism, timing becomes an issue. Time is linear as we experience it through a lifetime--only one 20s, one 30s, one 40s, etc.
Becoming a diplomat could take, from first written test to first day at first post, if all goes well, 1.5-3.5 years in the faster lane, 7-10 in the slower.
Becoming a veterinarian, if I am able, from day 1 of intensive German to graduation, would take 7 years. And day 1 is about a year (19 months) off, if all goes well.
As a diplomat, under current rules, I would be forced to retire at 65 years old--on the shorter path, that would be around 27 years of service; on the longer, closer to 20.
As a veterinarian, I could work as long as I can and care to.
If I were to do one and then the other, current studies in neuroplasticity would suggest that I should learn to be a veterinarian first, as that is more taxing and plasticity is supposed to decline with age. Learn the trade, practice for a year or two and spend 3 years becoming a diplomat to gain the certification and spend as many years as possible in the Foreign Service (again, as if one could choose such a thing), still leaves 17 years of service, then... back to being a vet?
What if I only do either or both careers not for decades, but for a decade apiece (vet: 17 years, training plus practice; dip: 13 years, training plus practice--as if you could designate a timeline for getting a diplomatic post)? Assuming a productive life expectancy of around 85 years, I'll still have 20 years to fill at age 65...
Learning to be a vet at 49 may not be all that different from doing it at 36? Becoming a diplomat probably isn't any specifically more or less difficult at 53 than it is at 36
You see my problem...
Becoming a diplomat could take, from first written test to first day at first post, if all goes well, 1.5-3.5 years in the faster lane, 7-10 in the slower.
Becoming a veterinarian, if I am able, from day 1 of intensive German to graduation, would take 7 years. And day 1 is about a year (19 months) off, if all goes well.
As a diplomat, under current rules, I would be forced to retire at 65 years old--on the shorter path, that would be around 27 years of service; on the longer, closer to 20.
As a veterinarian, I could work as long as I can and care to.
If I were to do one and then the other, current studies in neuroplasticity would suggest that I should learn to be a veterinarian first, as that is more taxing and plasticity is supposed to decline with age. Learn the trade, practice for a year or two and spend 3 years becoming a diplomat to gain the certification and spend as many years as possible in the Foreign Service (again, as if one could choose such a thing), still leaves 17 years of service, then... back to being a vet?
What if I only do either or both careers not for decades, but for a decade apiece (vet: 17 years, training plus practice; dip: 13 years, training plus practice--as if you could designate a timeline for getting a diplomatic post)? Assuming a productive life expectancy of around 85 years, I'll still have 20 years to fill at age 65...
Learning to be a vet at 49 may not be all that different from doing it at 36? Becoming a diplomat probably isn't any specifically more or less difficult at 53 than it is at 36
You see my problem...