Music, too. The reason is because life experience is not needed for those majors the way it is for other things.
That’s assuming anyone will hire a 17-year-old lawyer, no matter how smart he may be.
First of all, retiring at 35 isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. By way of an example, I have a close connection with someone who retired at 35, spent a year doing not much of anything, and then decided to go to law school.
Second, I know of at least one law school that requires six semesters, not just x amount of credits (no shortcuts/overloading to graduate sooner). If that holds true elsewhere, he’ll be 18 at least.
Anyway, I would imagine plenty of firms would have no qualms about hiring an 18-year-old attorney, provided the attorney in question possessed an otherwise adequate pedigree (for the big law firms, that would be some combination of top tier law school, Latin honors, law review, suitable internships, etc).
Seems to me that “K thru JD” (that is, being one whose schooling from kindergarten to law school graduation comes in an unbroken chain, with no breaks to represent periods of full-time employment or pursuit of other non-school life events like parenthood or even just independent self-exploration) is K thru JD whether the JD comes at 25 or 18. Unless you think seven more years spent as a full-time student somehow prepares someone for joining the workforce in ways that just getting the schooling knocked out sooner doesn’t?
I also imagine it would depend on what form of law he chose to go into (criminal, civil, corporate, etc.)