<p>I'm planning on becoming a patent lawyer. What would be the best field of eng to do my BSc in?</p>
<p>OK, that was going to be my first question... Patent law? =)</p>
<p>I'd say electrical engineering or comp sci/eng. You could do mechanical engineering, but I think elec or comp would be more beneficial these days. One of my buddies is a very successful law student at Stanford after having gotten his BS in comp sci.</p>
<p>Electrical Engineering is by far the preferred major for patent law.</p>
<p>All right, thanks a lot. I was leaning toward EE anyway.</p>
<p>Does it really matter? You can sit for the patent bar with majors in the natural sciences, too.</p>
<p>It matters a lot because patent firms often want to hire those with EE degrees. Technically, you can sit for the patent bar with just 30 science credits, but you'll have a hard time finding a job with that minimal background.</p>
<p>I know two patent lawyers. One tells me that Mechanical Engineering was an excellent major for him. The other one told me that it really doesn't matter much, he was a bio major. His practice is bio related though.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Technically, you can sit for the patent bar with just 30 science credits, but you'll have a hard time finding a job with that minimal background.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that's a bit too strong. I agree that having a technical degree may put you at an advantage in terms of getting a patent law job. However, from what I've seen, that advantage is by no means decisive, and may be outweighed by the worse graes you'll probably get in engineering/science, which may translate into getting into a worse law school.</p>
<p>For example, I was poking around some of the major intellectual property law firms in the Bay Area, and I've noticed that quite a few of the IP lawyers do not have science backgrounds.</p>
<p>For example, consider some of the bio's of the IP lawyers at Fenwick & West. I only had time to go through a few of them, but I noticed that Connie Ellerbach, who is a full partner in the IP group, does not hold a technical degree. Instead, she has a BA in political science. Or how about Stephen Gillespie, partner in the Intellectual Property group specializing in Intellectual Property Transactions, who has a BA in Rhetoric. Or Michael Egger, senior counsel in the intellectual property group specializing intellectual property transactions and licensing, whose BA and MA are in Music.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.fenwick.com/attorneys/4.2.0.asp%5B/url%5D">http://www.fenwick.com/attorneys/4.2.0.asp</a></p>
<p>I've also poked around the bios of Kirkland & Ellis, another prominent IP law firm in the Bay Area. I notice that James Shannon, Partner specializing in IP and Litigation, has a BA in PoliSci. There is Benjamin Ostapuk, Partner in IP, Litigation, and Patent Infringement, who got a BA in Philosophy. Hs apparently studied physics at Cornell, but did not graduate. Zack Higgins, Partner and specialist in IP, Litigation and Patent Infringement, has bachelor's degrees in History and International Studies.</p>
<p>Now don't get me wrong. It is true that many of those IP/patent lawyers do have technical bachelor's degrees. However, it seems quite clear that you don't really need it. A decent number of lawyers at these highly regarded IP firms make partner, despite not having a technical degree.</p>
<p>Sakky, intellectual property law is a very broad field which encompasses things like trade secrets, trademarks, copyrights, and patents. Patent law is merely a subset of intellectual property law. I'll bet you a donut that Michael Egger is a specialist in copyright law. I've heard my composer/conductor doctoral candidate boyfriend rant and rave about music law enough to know that if a musician goes into law, it's gonna be to specialize in copyright issues.</p>
<p>Sure, there are exceptions to every rule. Patent lawyers who deal in patents specifically are going to be much more <em>likely</em> to have technical backgrounds. That's not to say that it can't be done, like you say, but intellectual property law is much larger than merely patent law, and though there are a few exceptions in the list of people you mention, there are a lot fewer than you think, since I'm willing to hazard a guess that most of the people you cite don't make most of their bucks looking at patents all day.</p>
<p>In fact, looking over your specific examples, Higgins is the only real exception, and <em>he</em> claims to enjoy writing Visual Basic programs in his spare time. Obviously not the kind of guy who fits a mold. (Ostapuk's big coup in the patent infringement sector had to do with a case involving bicycle pedals, and another one involving poker software. Anyone who's taken Comp Sci 101 could parse through the code for a poker program.)</p>
<p>"However, from what I've seen, that advantage is by no means decisive, and may be outweighed by the worse graes you'll probably get in engineering/science, which may translate into getting into a worse law school."</p>
<p>Ok, I've been wondering about this. I have about a 3.8 GPA in first year general engineering (and I'm by no means trying my hardest). We don't specialize here at UAlberta until second year. Is it a lot harder to get a good GPA in 2nd, 3rd, 4th year? Or will I see my GPA drop drastically? If I was trying my absolute hardest, I think I could have a 4.0. I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't worried about maintaining a 3.7+ GPA that I need over my 4 years of school for a good Law school (I'm in Canada).</p>
<p>The core courses of the first and second years were typically the ones I got the lowest grades in, but I think that was primarily because once I really got into civ, I was really interested in the material. It probably varies from school to school, though, so I recommend talking to a couple of seniors at UAlberta to see what they think. Still, if you're getting a 3.8, I wouldn't go nuts worrying quite yet...</p>
<p>Boo Oilers! Yay Stars! ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sure, there are exceptions to every rule. Patent lawyers who deal in patents specifically are going to be much more <em>likely</em> to have technical backgrounds. That's not to say that it can't be done, like you say, but intellectual property law is much larger than merely patent law, and though there are a few exceptions in the list of people you mention, there are a lot fewer than you think, since I'm willing to hazard a guess that most of the people you cite don't make most of their bucks looking at patents all day.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm simply pointing out that nobody "needs" a technical degree in order to become an intellectual property/patent lawyer, a notion that used to be flung around here on this board with wild abandon. Is it useful to have such a degree? Yes. Do you need it? No.</p>
<p>I suppose you're going to tell us next that's it's easy to be accepted to top engineering graduate programs without an engineering background. I also find it odd that you're of the opinion, which I share, that engineering is a bad idea for pre-med and pre-law because GPAs are generally lower, yet you cite isolated incidents in this case. I could probably tell you about people who got 4.0s in biomedical engineering and got into top medical schools, but that certainly doesn't mean I would advise an average pre-med to do the same.</p>
<p>EE or GE (electrical or general, which has patent law courses and business like courses for engineering). You can be engineering and pre-law just don't be expecting a top school (as long as you're above a 3.0 you'll probably get in somewhere). Whereas med school, don't be expecting much at all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I suppose you're going to tell us next that's it's easy to be accepted to top engineering graduate programs without an engineering background. I also find it odd that you're of the opinion, which I share, that engineering is a bad idea for pre-med and pre-law because GPAs are generally lower, yet you cite isolated incidents in this case. I could probably tell you about people who got 4.0s in biomedical engineering and got into top medical schools, but that certainly doesn't mean I would advise an average pre-med to do the same.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In general, I think people should avoid words like 'must' or 'need', such as ' you must do things this way' ,or you 'need' to have this and that. People should understand that there are no hard and fast rules to anything, there are only tendencies and preferences.</p>
<p>People should also understand that life is far less mechanistic that is sometimes made out on this board. Some major news site (I think CNN) estimated that the average person changes careers about 5-7 times in his lifetime. Just because you get a degree in something does not by any means dictate that you must pursue a career in that subject. Education by its nature is an extremely flexible tool that can be for a wide variety of things. </p>
<p>As far as the law and med-school things go, both extremes are wrong. It is true that it is harder to get into law and med-school from engineering. On the other hand, it is certainly not impossible, and certainly the law/med-school adcoms do not simply toss away your app jus because you're an engineer, a vicious lie that certain people here on this board have attempted to shill. On the other hand, it isn't exactly easy for a non-engineer to get into med/law school either (especially med-school), and so with an engineering degree, you at least get a decent backup career. Most bachelor's degree recipients don't even get that. </p>
<p>Furthermore, as far as the med-school thing is concerned, I strongly suspect that many engineers who don't get into med-school probably could have gotten in somewhere, but simply don't want to. After all, there are about 150 schools you can go to (including OD schools), and some of them really aren't that hard to get into. Still hard, but certainly not like Harvard Med. But with an engineering degree (and thus an engineering career), they figure, rationally, that they don't want to go to just some no-name OD school, they want to go to a top school. If they can't do that, they'll take an engineering job. So it's a matter of rational choice. But if you have a degree in Leisure Studies from a no-name low-tier undergrad program, then getting into any medical program, even a no-name OD program, is a huge improvement over what you currently have. </p>
<p>Finally,I think it is time for serious admissions reform with med/law school admissions. The parties that should be reforming themselves are the med/law schools to de-emphasize grades. In fact, ideally, I think they shouldn't be using grades at all, but just rather running their own admissions exams. After all, if you can prove that you know the material, then who cares about your grades? However, since the adcoms seem to be highly reactionary and don't want to play ball, and instead insist on playing irresponsible games with grading information,
I think it's time for the undergrad eng programs themselves to simply deny them this information. For example, how about the concept of a 'pseudo-transcript' - where if you as an engineer apply to med-school or law school, your school gives you a cleaned up transcript that converts every grade you got below a B into a P grade? Lest you think this is controversial, I would point out that MIT and Caltech today run a similar situation with MIT's hidden freshman grades and Caltech's "shadow" grades, where the basic idea is that there are 2 sets of grades floating around for each student, one set used internally and the other set presented to the outside world. My idea is just an expanded version of this. It would only be used against med and law schools, as these are the two parties that I have seen behave the most irresponsibly.</p>
<p>I don't know of any law schools in Canada that will accept you with a 3.0 GPA (unless you annhilated the LSAT). I want to stay at UAlberta, which I believe has an average acceptance of 3.7. </p>
<p>Why shouldn't I expect a top school?</p>
<p>Oh, and the LSAT is 70% weighted at UAlberta; which I guess could be considered a good thing.</p>
<p>You <em>should</em> expect a top school, given your current academic performance. Just keep up the good work and start your LSAT prep early.</p>
<p>All right, thanks. I'm kind of puzzled as to how to study for the LSAT also. When did you start studying, and what did you do to study for it?</p>
<p>Oh, and go Oilers ;)
Hopefully they meet in the first round this year; actually, no, because they Oilers will lose.</p>
<p>I was also wondering what you guys think about CivilE for pre patent law. I'm more interested in civil E than electrical E. Would it make a big difference if I took Civil E?</p>