Hey all,
i wanted to get into patent law in graduate school, and as of right now I was thinking of getting my bachelors in some osrt of science as well as some sort of social science. Is this a good choice of undergrad majors for someone who was looking to do patent law down the line? Are there better majors?
Thank you!
<p>Hey needhelp! I am looking to become an intellectual property attorney as well...</p>
<p>I'm looking at a prospective math major and music minor and then go to law school. Any major will do for law school, so in college take what you want and get the major that you want.</p>
<p>Any major will do as far as law aschol is concerned, but if you want to be a good patent lawyer I suggest majoring in some branch of science. I regularly deal with patent attorneys at work, and they are much more effective if they have some technical knowledge to go with their legal training.</p>
<p>If you want to be a lawyer, then be careful with those science classes. The fact is, science classes tend to require more work and give out lower grades than do non-science classes, and law schools place a premium on high grades, and don't really care about how difficult it is for you to get them, just as long as you get them. If you want to be a patent lawyer, it does you little good to major in science and end up with grades that are too low to get you into a good law school. I know it sounds cowardly and sad, but that's the game of law school admissions - you gotta get high grades, so if that means majoring in something easy, then so be it. </p>
<p>I agree that patent lawyers who have a technical background are probably better patent lawyers than those who don't, but hey, at least they got into law school now which is more than I can say for all those guys who majored in science and now can't get admitted to law school because their grades are too low.</p>
<p>what is patent law may I ask?</p>
<p>patents are things you discover and then 'patent' (ie you own the rights to that invention, discovery, et al). patent law is usually known when two parties fight over infringments concerning the patent (ie someone used your patent and made money off of it- for example DuPont chemicals patents Teflon and then Y chemicals sells a chemical like B which is an exact copy of Teflon- that would violate DuPont's patent) or other various misc problems concerning patents. and corporations dont own patents, but individuals patent the idea and the company receives all the profits/money from it.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>...but hey, at least they got into law school now which is more than I can say for all those guys who majored in science and now can't get admitted to law school because their grades are too low.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Science courses aren't THAT hard. If you are not smart or hard-working enough to earn decent grades in science courses, you probably aren't smart or hard-working enough to be a decent patent attorney either.</p>
<p>But you can't get just 'decent' grades, you have to get very good grades to be competitive for a decent law school. And the unfortunate reality is that it's usually easier to get those very good grades if you're in a non-science major. </p>
<p>And I agree with you that if you aren't smart or hard-working to get decent grades in science courses, you probably aren't good enough to be a decent patent attorney either. Sure. But something that REALLY prevents you from being a decent patent attorney is not getting admitted to law school in the first place.</p>
<p>In my experience Coureur is correct. In fact the patent attorneys I have had contact with in recent years have all had undergraduate degrees in technical fields, the last two being double e's with national patent only boutique firms. I agree that such a courseload could be more difficult but we're talking tenths of a point here folks, and the law school admission folks I know aren't idiots.They can read a transcript. Go for the more technical degrees .</p>
<p>coureur is incorrect regarding undergrad major for patent laywers. It is true that you can get into law school with any major. A major in a technical area is required in order to become a patent attorney able to practice law with the US Patent Office.</p>
<p>Mikemac, as I am not familiar with the requirements to practice before the patent office, for the purpose of this thread I will trust that you know what you are talking about. The attorneys I spoke about were litigation specialists practicing , in these particular cases, in the Federal District Courts and the Federal Appellate Courts where there is no such "requirement" of a technical degree.</p>
<p>mikemac, after re-reading the thread it is fairly clear to me at least that Coureur and I have a broader definition of Patent Attorney than you do. Hence the confusion. I would like to point out that under either definition, all three of us agree that a technical degree is the way to go.</p>
<p>So tell me, curmudgeon, if law school adcoms aren't idiots, then why is it that engineering students perenially report significant difficulty in getting admitted to top law schools, despite the fact that it's a well-known fact that engineering is usually the most difficult (and lowest-graded) of all the majors at any school? You may want to reference the posts by ariesathena's post which go into this subject at great detail. I repost one of his quotes here:</p>
<p>"Law school admissions is EXTREMELY grade driven. While there is some compensation for low engineering grades, it does not begin to really amend for the two-pronged nature of engineering/sciences v. liberal arts: that a) your courses were harder, you take more courses, and, if you make it through engineering, you can make it through law school - so you're probably a better candidate and b) you have worse grades to show for it. Rankings consider straight GPA, and they are becoming increasingly important. Most law school admissions officers probably really try, but simply do not understand the rigor of an engineering programme because they themselves have not done it. It crossed my mind thousands of times that I would have been better off, admissions-wise, with an easier major. </p>
<p>Search through "engineering, the truth" threads. BurningSands is an arch engineer doing his 1L year who had a similar l.s. admissions experience to mine. "</p>
<p>And again, nor is this an isolated post. You will find this sort of thing come up again and again about how engineering students from difficult schools (like MIT) have unusual difficulty in getting into top law schools because their grades aren't good enough. </p>
<p>You say that tenths of a point of a GPA aren't important. If we're talking about top-tier law schools, I would have to disagree with that. Tenths of a point make all the difference in the world when we're talking about top-tier law school admissions. For example, consider the data of pre-laws from UCBerkeley who successfully got into top-flight law schools. Basically, if you're a Berkeley student who wants to get into a top 20 law school, then with only a few exceptions, you pretty much need at least a 3.75. If you're a Berkeley student who's down to a 3.5 (which is only a few tenths of a GPA away), it is highly unlikely that you will get into a top law school. </p>
<p>Besides, look at it this way. If law school adcoms are not idiots when it comes to assessing the transcripts of engineers because engineers take tougher courses, then by the same token, law-school adcoms should also realize that it is tougher to get top grades at a better school. Let's face it - it's easier, on average, to get A's at a mediocre no-name school where the student body isn't very selective than it is at a top-ranked school. Take the sports analogy - it's easier to go undefeated when you only play bad teams. So law- school adcoms should compensate students who attend highly-selective undergraduate programs, and we should see evidence of that compensation in the GPA of students who are admitted from such highly selective programs. Hence pre-laws from highly selective schools should be getting into law-schools with grades that are conspicuously lower than the average admitted student at those law schools because of the "grade compensation" that those adcoms provide to prelaws from those selective schools. No evidence of any such compensation exists. Again, look at the data from prelaws from Berkeley, a highly selective school who nobody can seriously accuse of grade-inflation. Admitted prelaws from Berkeley to a particular law school have the same GPA as the average admitted student at that law school. No evidence of compensation. </p>
<p>The fact is, it's simply an unsupported claim that law school adcoms will compensate people for taking tough coursework or going to a tough school. All the published information about who gets admitted and where not only does not support this claim, it actually serves to point to the contrary. MIT engineers who get admitted to top-flight law schools have the same high GPA as others who get into those same law schools despite the fact that it is far far more difficult to get top grades in engineering classes at MIT than it is at most other classes at most other schools.</p>
<p>The point of all this is not to dissuade somebody from studying something technical. The point is that if you do decide to do that, you should do it with your eyes open. You should know going in that by studying something technical, you run the significant risk of hurting your chances of getting admitted to any law school, especially a top-flight one, because your grades will probably be lower than if you had studied something non-technical. I agree that if you can make it all the way to the end, and become a fully-fledged patent lawyer, then you will probably be helped by a technical background. But the point is, you run the significant risk of not making it to the end. Don't fool yourself into thinking that law-school adcoms know that technical coursework is difficult and you will therefore be compensated for its difficulty. Not only does the statistical evidence not support this assertion, it actually tends to supports the opposite. Law schools seem to give little if any compensation for taking tough coursework or doing a tough major or going to a tough school.</p>
<p>curmudgeon, I will defer to your knowledge reqarding the requirements for lawyers in litigation. However when most people say they want to be a patent attorney what comes to mind (for me, at least), is a lawyer who prepares patents and handles them with the patent office, as well as other actions related to the patent office.</p>
<p>The American Bar Association says "* In order to practice patent law in the USPTO, a person must take and pass the "patent bar" exam. <snip> To be eligible to take the patent bar, an applicant must, in general, (l) hold a bachelor's degree or the equivalent in engineering or one of the sciences specified by the USPTO; (2) hold a bachelor's degree in another subject, and have taken a certain number of hours of specified science courses; or (3) have taken and passed the Engineer-in-Training (EIT) test. You need not be a lawyer.* see <a href="http://www.abanet.org/intelprop/patentprep.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.abanet.org/intelprop/patentprep.html</a></snip></p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>Your lengthy arguments about law school admissions may well be true, but in this case they are beside the point. The OP inquired about becoming a patent attorney. As mikemac correctly pointed out, a scientific/technical degree (or some other degree plus a whole bunch of specified science courses) is REQUIRED to practice patent law. </p>
<p>You can read the requirements yourself here:
<a href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/oed/grb0110.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/oed/grb0110.pdf</a></p>
<p>If he still wants to be a patent lawyer, he's gotta study science. Unless you can convince the government to change its rules, that's pretty much the end of the argument.</p>
<p>The point remains that your hypothetical high school student is better off (IF their heart is set on being a patent attorney ) having a degree in a technical field from a respectable undergraduate school and then going to a respectable law school . If YOUR hypothesis is driven by words such as "top"or "elite" when describing undergraduate school and law school, I'm assuming you are also assuming that someone would wish to work in a "top" or "elite" national patent lawfirm. I saw no such qualifiers in the OP.</p>
<p>In Texas, for example, an undergrad from let's say A+M with an E.E. degree, could gain acceptance to let's say SMU for law school . That law school graduate would be in fine shape for an exceptionally nice legal career with any number of fine lawfirms. I was under the impression that that is what this post was about. Practicing patent law. Not theoretical contemplations on the rights and wrongs of law school admissions committees at the nation's elite law schools. I couldn't have cared less and wouldn't have posted on the thread. If the OP is interested only in the "Lives of The Rich and Famous " as you appear to be, I apologize for wasting their time.</p>
<p>Mikemac, living as I do far away from Washington or New York, I can only trust that some , maybe most, would define patent law as you have. I have a partner with a Master of Laws in Tax from NYU but in my 15 years with him he has never been to U.S. Tax Court,or filed a client's tax return yet considers himself a Tax Attorney. Since in my 20+ years of litigation , I have never had the occasion or need to visit the U.S. Patent Office, I will again defer to your greater knowledge. In my admittedly limited experience ,all of it being litigation related, within the last five years I have come across a couple of gentlemen with whom I handled patent enforcement cases. They considered themselves "patent attorneys", also. I have serious doubts that these particular patent litigation specialists spent much time any place other than in a litigation setting.</p>
<p>Coureur, not to call you on this, but I am afraid that you haven't done your homework. Thank you for that link because it illustrates my point in a way that I could never do otherwise. The document that you presented lists the various ways in which a person is allowed to qualify for the exam to register for the USPTO. </p>
<p>Let's look at what the official document says. The document never says that you must get a technical undergraduate degree. The document does say that you must have develop a provable technical background of some sort, but getting a technical undergraduate degree is only way to show that you have such a background. The document enumerates the various ways in which you can get such a background. Go ahead, read the document yourself.</p>
<p>In particular, coureur, your quote that "If he still wants to be a patent lawyer, he's gotta study science", is misleading. The fact is, a guy does not have to get a technical undergraduate degree to qualify under government rules. That's only one method (the so-called Category A) He can use Category C and pass the Fundamentals of Engineering exam run by whatever state he happens to be in, which is certainly not an easy test, but not impossible for a dedicated person. If you're good enough to pass the Bar exam, you should be good enough to pass the FE exam. He can use Category B and demonstrate a proper scientific background through life experience, or he can study for and pass a bunch of CELP technical exams. All of these methods are listed as alternative means. </p>
<p>Now, to curmudgeon, forget about 'top' or 'elite' law schools. Let's just talk about law schools in general. Even non-elite law schools admit based heavily on grades. Your scenario of a guy coming out of Texas with an EE degree and going to SMU Law is only realistic if that guy has half-decent grades. If the guy's grades are mediocre, then that guy will have difficulty to getting even into SMU Law. Let's not knock SMU Law - the median entering GPA for getting into the day-school was around a 3.75, and even the SMU Law night school is highly selective. As an engineer, it is actually quite easy to end up with a quite-low GPA (i.e. hovering around a 2.0), which means that you run the chance of not ever getting admitted to any law school. And that's even presuming you graduate in the first place - a lot of engineering students end up flunking out because of the difficulty of the coursework. </p>
<p>Look, here's the point I've been trying to make. First off, you do not 'need' to get a technical undergraduate degree to become a patent lawyer. Is it good to have? Of course. Do you need it? You do not. There are many ways to becoming a patent lawyer. Furthermore, if you choose to get a technical undergrad degree, you may hurt your chances of getting into law school in the first place because technical grades tend to be lower. And I'm not just talking about admission to top law schools, but to any law school. And that's presuming that you manage to graduate in the first place - and by choosing to studying something technical, you are increasing your chances of flunking out. Happened to several people I know - guys who had grandiose plans to attend law school once they graduated with their degrees in engineering - but then end up flunking out of undergrad because they did really poorly in their engineering classes. Forget about graduating with their law degrees, these guys couldn't even make it out of undergrad. It's not that these guys are dumb, but it's because engineering really is that hard. I know that if these guys had simply chosen some stupid, cheesepuff non-technical major like "Peace and Conflict Studies" or "American Studies", where you can barely show up and still got A's, they'd be in law school right now.</p>
<p>The point is that if you choose to get a tech undergrad degree in the hopes of becoming a patent lawyer, you should know that you're playing a high-risk, high-reward strategy. If it all works out for you, then you're golden. But there's a significant chance that it may not work out for you. First off you are increasing the chances of not only not getting into any law school (any law school, not just the top ones), but you are also increasing your chances of not even graduating with your bachelor's degree in the first place. Second of all, what if after all this rigamarole, you decide you don't want to do patent law? Then you just put in a lot of extra work, and put your chances of admission to law school at risk, for nothing. If it all works out, then I agree that getting a technical undergraduate degree is the best strategy. But that's a pretty big 'if'.</p>
<p>Sakky, I think your basic point is not that much different ,logically, from a discussion we have had on the parents board about attending , to paraphrase and way oversimplify, the most difficult school you can for undergrad. I have extrapolated from that conversation that bio-medical engineering and pre-med at JHU, a gunner school, would be incredibly ambitious for a student intent on Med School and intending to be a clinician. </p>
<p>If I am following your point, we have some common ground. Where we depart is on rating the difficulty of what we are calling "technical degrees" which in my parlance means science or engineering degrees and would include but not be limited to engineering degrees. </p>
<p>I realize that the best engineering programs are difficult, but are they in your opinion that much more difficult than a Math degree, or an BBA in Accounting? I would assume that workload differs from program to program and college to college, but it was never my feeling that all "technical" degrees were more difficult than all other degrees. I just haven't seen it that way.I counsel all prospective lawyers to have something unique in their bag with them when they go to Law School. A CPA license. Speaks Chinese. E.E. degree. Nursing degree. Something that will go along with your J.D. , set you apart and make you attractive to employers.</p>
<p>Maybe this comes from my sense that the practice of law that I joined in 1979 doesn't exist anymore and this new practice has different rules for success that don't always favor the generalist. As always , just my opinion and I am willing to learn.</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>Is engineering hard or not?</p>
<p>In paragraph three you say: </p>
<p>"That's only one method (the so-called Category A) He can use Category C and pass the Fundamentals of Engineering exam run by whatever state he happens to be in, which is certainly not an easy test, but not impossible for a dedicated person. If you're good enough to pass the Bar exam, you should be good enough to pass the FE exam."</p>
<p>But in paragraph five we read:</p>
<p>"...guys who had grandiose plans to attend law school once they graduated with their degrees in engineering - but then end up flunking out of undergrad because they did really poorly in their engineering classes. Forget about graduating with their law degrees, these guys couldn't even make it out of undergrad. It's not that these guys are dumb, but it's because engineering really is that hard."</p>
<p>So in the first case, anybody who can pass the bar can go right in there and pass the the state engineering exam without too much trouble. But in the second case, smart guys fail to become lawyers because they flunk out of their undergrad engineering classes because they are really hard. </p>
<p>So which is it? </p>
<p>Over the couse of my career I've personally dealt with about 20, perhaps 25, patent lawyers. And every single one of them had either a science or engineering undergraduate degree. Many had PhDs. Based on what I'm seeing about who is actually practicing patent law, I don't think that relying on life experience or passing a state engineering exam is a very reliable route to a successful career. Those guys just aren't out there. It a longshot route at best. And I think you are doing a disservice to aspiring patent lawyers to steer them down routes that are not likely to be successful.</p>
<p>It's far more common for for patent attorneys to get the science degree first. And thousands of students all across the country get good grades in science classes every year. I did it myself. My wife majored in microbiology, got good grades, and went to Stanford Law school. Her good friend at Stanford Law had a degree in neuroscience. And there were plenty of other science and engineering majors there too. It's just was not that unusual. Scientists didn't comprise a majority of her class, but they certainly weren't weren't all that unusual. If it is so frighteningly difficult how come so many kids are pulling it off? And if passing the state engineering exam is so feasible for lawyers, how come so few patent lawyers have chosen to go that route?</p>