<p>Im going to swarthmore college next year. My very crude plan as of now is to majoring in engineering, go to law school, and become a patent attorney. Im wondering what people think of this somewhat unique field of law. I would like to live a financially secure (and hopefully more than just secure) and happy life. Now of course i dont know what the job is really like but i think my interest in both engineering/tech and business makes this a good career. Does anyone know more abouit it to tell me if its worth pursuing a potentially very hard major at a very hard school?</p>
<p>Patent attorneys are well compensated.</p>
<p>i was wondering the same thing as well.</p>
<p>what is "well compensated"? 100k first year out of law school? also, for patent law, is the technical background more important, or where you went to law school? i guess what i'm asking is, would it be unrealistic to expect 100k+ first year out of an average (usnews ranked 30-50) law school practicing patent law.</p>
<p>It looks like you and I are looking to do the same thing; and I'm actually kind of scared of how engineering kills GPAs.</p>
<p>I have a BS in Math with a Minor in Comp Sci. My degree had a lot of overlap with the EE core. I am also applying for law school this year, so here's my 2 cents for whatever its worth:</p>
<p>You gotta do what you love. Your undergrad will be 4 long years (often 5 in engineering) if you major in engineering without actually caring about engineering. If your not naturally talented in this area then your going to need passion to perform well because the math schedule is rigourous, and the application of the math in the physics courses just gets tougher. I did it cause I love it, and I have no regrets, but many people who pursue these techincal paths just because it sounds good and will "guarantee" good money fail miserably - they just can't survive the challenging course load after the first 2 years. That whole spiel about "look to your left, look to your right, one of the 3 of you wont make it through this program" thing is actually true in most math, physics and engineering programs. </p>
<p>Secondly, GPA will be a factor when you apply to law schools, so do keep that in mind if you know your math and science abilities are weak and will effect your grades in engineering accordingly. Law school rankings take into account the GPA of their admitted students which is a very unforgiving formula that doest take into account that while your GPA is low, your degree was difficult. As a result, law schools have to pick the best GPA and LSAT combos they can find, and sparingly chose who to let in with lower numbers regardless of the reason (hard degree, URM, whatever) because otherwise their entire program will be punished in the rankings. </p>
<p>However, more encouragingly, all people in the recruiting community that I have talked to say that committees actually do keep difficulty of degree in mind when they review applications. So although you may love engineering, work your ass off and still only come out with like a 3.4 instead of the 3.5 and up GPAs that your competitor poly sci major applicants have, don't despair...they know exactly how impressive it is to get even a 3.4 in those degree programs. Its hard to get them to pin down how much difficulty compensates for GPA numerically but I've heard between 1 and 2 tenths...especially if you have a strong LSAT that makes you seem like an even more solid candidate. I have attended a ton of recruitment events this year, and it always cracks me up when the question of how GPA vs difficulty of degree is perceived becuase EVERY TIME the speaker will comment on how they frequently make allowances for difficult degrees "like math majors." I've also heard many comments along the lines of "we can usually pick out the technical degreed students quickly...their the ones with the high LSATs." So there are gives and takes when it comes to pursuing a technical degree with law school in mind. </p>
<p>Ok, I know this is becoming a novel, but one more thing. Law schools also report the median salary of their students after graduation...and the higher they report the better. Patent lawyers are known to be really well paid (why? because you can only be one if you have an undergrad in engineering and per our discussion above, thats a hard combo to pull off as a student...this puts those candidates in short supply, and when supply is low, your salary will be high), so when you apply make sure that you find a way to work that into your personal statement in a big way. Your potential positive impact on their salary reportings at graduation may compensate for your less than optimal GPA at admission, and you may get in. </p>
<p>Hope that helps.</p>
<p>Wow, I know it's only one (or maybe a few) anecdotal pieces of evidence, but about a tenth or two-tenths compensation? That's actually much more than I was expecting.</p>
<p>I'm not doing engineering for the sake of it; I always loved math, and after taking Physics, I realized that I loved that, too. I figured why not put one and one together and do mechanical engineering (hopefully with lots of cross-courses in electrical). Though I suppose I don't know if I really want engineering because I have little to no exposure to it; but I am open to things like math or physics majors, too - those are the two subject areas to which I intend to switch if engineering gets too brutal, but I really want to stick it out.</p>
<p>I also take it then that you are on the path to patent law?</p>
<p>Well your right - its completely anecdotal, and from the discussions I've heard it seems like something that committee members can do when taking a holistic look at your application to justify wanting to bring you on. For example, if you have a 3.3 and they normally want a 3.5....well if you have a great LSAT and something really interesting in your addendum's/personal statement, then they can say, we want this person and although their GPA is lower, we can argue that his 3.3 is equivalent to a 3.5 cause he was a physics major (or whatever technical). But again, you want to get as high as you can, because their decision to make unofficial compensations for you due to your difficulty of degree is purely optional - they will have to report your GPA as it actually is when rankings time comes around. </p>
<p>No - I am not into patent law. As a math major my undergraduate degree does not qualify me to sit for that exam (you must actually have an engineering degree) and as a Hawaiian my interests are in Native issues. I loved the degree program though - it may be difficult but I think it really prepares your for the rigor of law school and like I mentioned above...they can usually pick out us technical degreed kids cause its reflected in high LSATs. If you search google to find out what majors score the highest on the LSAT, Math/Physics majors score at the top of the charts. Also, people dont normally associate Mathematics with strong writing skills, but 300 and 400 level math courses require a lot of writing in developing proofs (which obviously also requires greatly honed analytical thinking/problem solving skills) and actually will often count as an upper division literacy and writing credit. So my point is, if you like math and physics go for it, because although your right that you may have difficulty keeping your GPA has high as other liberal arts majors, there are a lot of other benefits/trade offs to be enjoyed in perception of degree difficulty, likelihood for higher LSAT scores, options for post law school employment/salary, and skill development to make you most competitive in law school.</p>
<p>Frommer Lawrence & Haug will pay its first-year associates $150,000, making its legal rookies the highest paid in the nation. The news was first reported by IP Law 360.</p>
<p>The Law Blog has written liberally about the law firm salary domino effect. Last fall Los
Angeles-based Irell & Manella announced it was boosting first-year associates’ base pay to $135,000 in 2006. With that, nearly every other top firm fell in line, with New York firms moving the base salary up to $145,000.</p>
<p>In an interview with the Law Blog, Frommer Lawrence managing partner Edgar Haug said that the increase was sparked by a “desire to attract first rate legal talent both out of law school and laterally.” But why not just meet the other firms at $145,000? “The rationale is that we did want to be first,” said Haug.</p>
<h2>Along with the headline-grabbing salary increase, the New York-based firm has launched aggressive expansion plans. On Jan. 1 it opened an office in Tokyo and plans to open a Washington, D.C., office in mid-May. Today, Frommer Lawrence showed up in The Wall Street Journal’s Who’s News with an announcement that Michael Brockmeyer, the head of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary’s antitrust group, will run Frommer Lawrence’s Washington, D.C., office and start the firm’s antitrust practice.</h2>
<h2>
[quote]
Corporate attorneys with patent expertise earned salaries well above the national norms in 2006, according to a survey of U.S. lawyers’ compensation released Tuesday.
[/quote]
</h2>
<p>
[quote]
Quinn Emanuel Bumps All First-Years To $145K
Monday, February 27, 2006</p>
<h2>Less than five months after initiating a wave of salary hikes, the Los Angeles-based Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges has announced that it will match new pay scales recently announced in New York, boosting first-year salaries to $145,000.
[/quote]
</h2>
<p>
[quote]
- IP Rookies Get Pay Raise At Two Boutiques Tuesday, December 06, 2005 Two major intellectual property firms have raised starting salaries for associates to $135,000, exceeding the base pay offered by most of their rival firms by at least $10,000. </p>
<ol>
<li>IP Rookies Start Out At $115K, Salary Survey Finds
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
U.S. intellectual property lawyers are still commanding heftier salaries than other attorneys, but the premium has been shrinking slightly in recent years, according to a new salary survey.
[/quote]
</li>
</ol>
<p>interesting it does seem really like something i would like to at least try to pursue. Id stlil like to hear about job satisfaction or something like that</p>
<p>also im a little worried about the law school gpa thing. swarthmore is known for grade deflation. That coupled with low engineering gpas...will i be screwed? I mean i think im a smart kid and good at the subject but it sounds daunting nevertheless</p>
<p>To the OP:</p>
<p>you are going to Swarthmore and majoring in Engineering. That sounds like a deadly combination that may have negative effects on your chances at top law schools if that is what you are looking forward to. </p>
<p>Just a heads up.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As a math major my undergraduate degree does not qualify me to sit for that exam (you must actually have an engineering degree)
[/quote]
In fact, you can automatically qualify for the patent bar exam with many types of degrees, including biology, chemistry, computer science, and physics degrees, as well as engineering degrees. There are ways to qualify with math or other types of degrees as well.</p>
<p>It's true - the rules do allow you to sit with other degrees if you have enough credit hours in "other applicable course work" (<a href="http://www.patbar.com/grb15nov05.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.patbar.com/grb15nov05.pdf</a>) which amounts to significant hours in a combination of physics, chemistry and other sciences, but this combination basically amounts to having a sciences/engineering degree (which is by design). With a math degree, I have the requisite amount of physics and computer science classes, but would have to go back for the chemistry. </p>
<p>So Andrassy, if you're not sure about engineering, check out that pdf. It looks like physics counts, and you could make a math degree work as well as long as you make sure to load up on physics and chemistry (a certain amount of which is normally required for the degree anyways, you'd just be taking a few optional ones).</p>
<p>yeah i was aware of that I noticed though that it seems like engineering (electrical in particular) seems to be much more in demand unless you have a PhD in a science</p>
<p>i guess im gonna try and just see what happens. do you all really think engineering at swarthmore will kinda kill my chances at a good law school?</p>
<p>well, I just hear that Swarthmore is one of the most difficult schools around with regards to earning a good GPA (comparable to Reed, UChi, etc.). Combine that with Engineering (arguably one of the most difficult majors to earn a good GPA in) and you may have a problem.</p>
<p>And I'm no expert on law schools at all, but I hear the undergrad school that you are at will only compensate for your GPA to an extent. So if you end up pulling a 3.4 or so at Swat, someone at a good state school with a 3.8+ and a similar LSAT will have a better shot.</p>
<p>Of course, you can work hard and mold your own future, but Swat + Engineering = very tough, in my opinion. So good luck! :D</p>
<p>
[quote]
With a math degree, I have the requisite amount of physics and computer science classes, but would have to go back for the chemistry.
[/quote]
That's "Category B". But here is yet another way ("Category C") to qualify for the Patent Bar. You can pass the "Fundamentals of Engineering" exam, a standardized 8-hour licensing exam. This is actually quite feasible if you have a math or physical science degree. No specialized engineering knowledge is required, and good review courses are available. </p>
<p>The FE exam is intended for people pursuing Professional Engineer's licenses, but some states will allow aspiring patent lawyers to take it as well.</p>
<p>Thats actually really interesting - I didn't read that far down...</p>
<p>Have you taken this exam? I'm just curious about how difficult it is. I work for an engineering firm (doing mktg stuff, not technical), and the path to promotions/raises for our younger engineers includes first getting their PE license by passing that test. We actually just had a girl take it, and it seemed like a really big deal - everyone was really happy for her. So, that left me thinking it must be a really killer test. </p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>Engineering licensure nomally involves two different tests: the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam, followed by the Principles and Practices of Engineering (PE) exam. Only the FE exam is relevant for the Patent Bar.</p>
<p>The FE exam is normally taken by engineering majors during their senior year in college. If you pass, you typically get a title like "Engineer-in-Training", but no legal powers. The FE exam is not considered particularly difficult; pass rates run around 75% nationally, and over 90% at good schools. </p>
<p>Non-engineers can qualify for the Patent Bar by passing the FE exam. There are different versions of the FE exam, including a "General" version which focuses on math, physics, chemistry, and computer science. The General FE exam is quite passable for science or math majors (I did it on the first try), assuming your state board allows you to take it.</p>
<p>Your colleague probably passed the more advanced PE exam, which is different. You normally need several years of work experience just to qualify for the PE exam, and several months of study to pass. The PE exam tests engineering concepts exclusively, and has lower pass rates. It is generally considered difficult by engineers, and would be much more difficult for a science or math major. But the PE exam is irrelevant, if you want to qualify for the Patent Bar.</p>
<p>is a biochemistry major good for a patent law degree?</p>
<p>Makalika: As I said in my main post, I have no contributions to make concerning law school admissions. On the other hand, I would like to briefly comment <a href="opinion">b</a>** on setting sights on passing the PE exam or the like in order to qualify to take the Patent Bar as a deliberate plan.</p>
<p>And that is to say that in seeking employment as a patent attorney, especially initial employment, both your legal and your technical qualifications will be examined closely. Just about all of your competitors for any position will have a science or enginering degree and some will have a graduate degree. This doesn't mean that you won't be able to find a position with your PE certificate but that your technical background could be looked on as being weak, both in general and in comparison to other candidates.</p>
<p>Depending on the nature of their business, law firms will prefer candidates with a good technical education because their clients will tend to have inventions in many different technologies and the patent attorney will have to build on his/her technical education to understand them.</p>
<p>So I would be cautious about limiting yourself to taking the PE exam as the main qualifier for becoming a patent attorney, with the main exeptions being two situations: (a) you want to open your own practice and aim for variable types of work, where no hiring person will be questioning your technical qualifications or (b) you are already working in an organization that will be receptive to your becoming a patent attorney in this way and will be willing to transfer you to the patent function. [Note that in any case, as a patent attorney - or even a patent agent - you will be ethically required to do only work that you can handle professionally - including calling in help if you need it, say to understand some technology.]</p>
<p>A biochemistry major is fine for a patent attorney who wants to work in that field.<br>
Many patent attorneys in that technology have graduate degrees.</p>