Pursuing Patent Law without a Science/Engineering Degree

Graduate School Law School
1

<p>Background Info on me: (Please feel free to skip over this part) </p>

<p>My first year of undergraduate, I pursued electrical engineering with the intent of getting a graduate degree in engineering or science. When I decided to eventually go to law school, I decided to change majors—and it wasn’t because of any gpa issue with engineering, because I actually ended up with a 3.68 my first year. I switched to a double major in economics and philosophy, because they are two subjects I’m genuinely interested in, and because I feel that it would be a more well-rounded as preparation for law school as opposed to picking up one “vocational” degree after another. </p>

<p>My Concerns: </p>

<p>My question is first whether I am eligible to sit for the patent bar exam with the following science courses:
4-unit material science class with weekly lab (equivalent to a chemistry class)
4-unit physics class with a weekly lab
3-unit electrical engineering class with a lab
Because the website that outlines the requisites for the patent bar, simply states that one needs "40 semester hours in a science/engineering class" and I don't quite know what "40 semester hours" means, but I definitely have spent more than 40 hours in each of these classes. </p>

<p>My second question is if I am indeed eligible to take the patent bar, will Intellectual Property Firms or Jobs look down upon the fact that I didn't actually MAJOR in a science/engineering type field? Or will I considered on the same plane as other patent law types (assuming that I went to a Top 14 ls). </p>

<p>My last question is since typically one is recruited or pursues a job at a firm before they take the bar exam, would a firm looking for a patent lawyer take a 3L law student who has a liberal arts degree seriously when the only element I have at that point to prove my interest in patent law is "40 semester hours" in a science-related field? Or would I have to first take and pass the patent bar before large firms would consider me a viable patent attorney?</p>

<p>Thank you all for your time.</p>

2

<p>I may be wrong, but I believe 40 semester hours is the equivalent of 40 credits (at least that is how it is done in my school where 1 hour= 1 credit).</p>

3

<p>First, you have to take and pass the bar exam in at least one state. </p>

<p>Then, you apply for and study for the patent bar. The following are some of the qualifications from the PTO website (<a href="http://www.uspto.gov):%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.uspto.gov):&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>III. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION TO THE EXAMINATION
Applicants bear the burden of showing the requisite scientific and technical training. To be admitted to the examination, each applicant must demonstrate possession of the required scientific and technical training.
A. CATEGORY A: Bachelor's Degree in a Recognized Technical Subject. An applicant will be considered to have the necessary scientific and technical training if he or she provides an official transcript showing that a Bachelor's degree was awarded in one of the following subjects by an accredited United States college or university, or that the equivalent to a
Bachelor's degree was awarded by a foreign university in one of the following subjects:
Biology
Biochemistry
Botany
Computer Science*
Electronics Technology
Food Technology
General Chemistry
Marine Technology
Microbiology
Molecular Biology
Organic Chemistry
Pharmacology
Physics
Textile Technology
Aeronautical Engineering
Agricultural Engineering
Biomedical Engineering
Ceramic Engineering
Chemical Engineering
Civil Engineering
Computer Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Electrochemical Engineering
Engineering Physics
General Engineering
Geological Engineering
Industrial Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
Metallurgical Engineering
Mining Engineering
Nuclear Engineering
Petroleum Engineering
*Acceptable Computer Science degrees must be accredited by the
Computer Science Accreditation Commission (CSAC) of the Computing
Sciences Accreditation Board (CSAB), or by the Computing Accreditation
Commission (CAC) of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology (ABET), on or before the date the degree was awarded.
i. Bachelor’s Degrees In Other Subjects: An applicant with a Bachelor’s degree in a subject not listed above, such as Biological Sciences, Pharmacy, or Mechanical Technology, must qualify under Category B or Category C below.
ii. Graduate Degrees: An applicant who has a Master's or higher level degree in one of the subject areas listed above, but does not have a Bachelor's degree in such subject, must qualify under Category B or Category C below.
B. CATEGORY B: Bachelor's Degree in Another Subject. An applicant with a Bachelor's degree in a subject other than one of those listed in Category A, must establish that he or she possesses scientific and technical training equivalent to that received at an accredited U.S. college or university for a Bachelor's degree in one of the subjects listed in Category A. To establish such equivalence, an applicant can satisfy one of the following four options, other training, or other education listed below. The applicant must submit the necessary documentation and objective evidence showing satisfaction of one of the options or other
means of qualifying.
i. Option 1: 24 semester hours in physics. Only physics courses for physics majors will be accepted.
ii. Option 2: 32 semester hours in a combination consisting of the following:
 8 semester hours of chemistry or 8 semester hours of physics, and
 24 semester hours in biology, botany, microbiology, or molecular biology.
 The 8 semester hours in chemistry or 8 semester hours of physics must be obtained in two sequential courses, each course including a lab. Only courses for science or engineering majors will be accepted.
iii. Option 3: 30 semester hours in chemistry. Only chemistry courses for chemistry majors will be accepted.
iv. Option 4: 40 semester hours in a combination consisting of the following:
 8 semester hours of chemistry or 8 semester hours of physics, and
 32 semester hours of chemistry, physics, biology, botany, microbiology, molecular biology, or engineering. (For Computer Science, see other acceptable course work.)
 The 8 semester hours of chemistry or 8 semester hours of physics must be obtained in two sequential courses, each course including a lab. Only courses for science or engineering majors will be accepted. All acceptable coursework for Options 2 and 4 must be for science or engineering majors.
vi. Course Descriptions: For each course relied upon in Options 1, 2, 3, or 4 above, applicants must furnish an official course description which is concurrent with the year in which the course was taken to accompany the official original transcript. The course descriptions must include:
 Copies of the catalog cover page showing the year, the page(s) describing the requirements for the major and
 Complete pages describing the courses to be considered.
vii. Grades: Only courses with a grade of C- or better will be accepted. Please highlight the courses to be considered on the transcripts and course descriptions submitted.
x. Other Acceptable Course Work: Under Option 4, up to four semester hours will be accepted for courses in design engineering or drafting. Also, under Option 4, computer science courses that stress theoretical foundations, analysis, and design, and include substantial laboratory work,
including software development will be accepted. Such courses include the representation and transformation of information structures, the theoretical models for such representations and transformations, basic coverage of algorithms, data structures, software design with a laboratory,
programming languages with a laboratory, and computer organization and architecture. Other acceptable courses in computer science include artificial intelligence and robotics, networking, linear circuits, logic circuits, operating systems, and software methodology and engineering.
However, the courses may not be substituted for the eight semester hours of chemistry or physics required under Option 4.
xi. Typical Non-Acceptable Course Work: The following typify courses that are not accepted as demonstrating the necessary scientific and technical training: anthropology; astronomy; audited courses; behavioral science courses such as psychology and sociology; continuing legal education courses; courses in public health; courses relating technology to politics or policy; courses offered by corporations to corporate employees; courses in management, business administration and operations research; courses on how to use computer software; courses directed to data management and management information systems; courses to develop manual, processing or fabrication skills; courses taken on a pass/fail basis; correspondence courses; ecology; economics of technology; courses in the history of science, engineering and technology; field identification of plants and/or animals; home or personal independent study courses; high school level courses; mathematics courses; one day conferences; patent law courses; paleontology; political science courses; repair and maintenance courses; radio operator license courses; science courses for non-science majors; vocational training courses; and work study programs. Also not accepted are college research or seminar courses where the course content and requirements are not set forth in the course descriptions; and courses that do not provide scientific and technical training in patentable subject matter. Further, not accepted are courses that repeat, or which are substantially the same as, or are lesser-included courses for which credit has already been given.
xiv. Military Service: Although the OED will not evaluate and award credit for military service, credit may be granted for technical courses taken pursuant to military training. The applicant has the burden of showing the semester hours credit each course relied upon would be accorded
toward a degree at an accredited U.S. University or college.
C. CATEGORY C: Practical Engineering or Scientific Experience. An applicant relying on practical engineering or scientific experience or who does not qualify under Category A or B above may establish the required technical training by demonstrating that he or she has taken and passed
the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) test. The FE test is a test of engineering fundamentals. The FE test is developed and administered by a State Board of Engineering Examiners in each State or comparable jurisdiction. Neither the USPTO nor any other U.S. Government agency
administers the test.</p>

4

<p>First, look at the USPTO requirements that I just posted. The requirements are very stringent as to what courses would qualify to enable you to take the Patent Bar at all. </p>

<p>Will IP firms look down upon you because you didn't major in a science/engineering type field? Yes, it may hurt you, particularly since most attorneys don't take the patent bar immediately. In fact, when corporations hire patent attorneys (typically after they have practiced in law firms for several years), they will often post a job as looking for at attorney admitted to the patent bar, with X years of experience and an B.S. or M.S. in electrical engineering or biochemistry or whatever particular area they are looking for. Will you get a job as an attorney admitted to the patent bar? Sure, but there will be some limitations that come from not having an undergraduate or graduate degree in hard science/engineering.</p>

<p>I think that a liberal arts major who wants to work in the intellectual property group of a law firm may have a chance of getting hired. You may just have some really stiff competition from folks with hard science/engineering backgrounds. Don't forget, though, that there are plenty of transactional intellectual property lawyers who are not admitted to the patent bar. I don't know what the future career prospects look like for this group of attorneys, but those practices do exist. Being admitted to the patent bar allows you to do a completely different kind of work from what an IP lawyer does, and it probably give you a lot more career flexibility down the road.</p>

5

<p>What about a more hard generic major like physics or chemistry? Are these naturally in less demand because they are not as specialized as the engineering majors?</p>

6

<p>It really depends on the market at the time. Do a job search on monster.com or hotjobs.com to get an idea of what is out there right now, though that may not be indicative of what employers are looking for years from now.</p>

7

<p>How about a philosophy/physics double major?</p>

8

<p>You have to do the calculation of whether you are eligible for the patent bar at all. If you are (and that is fantastic!), I could not honestly pretent to predict what the job market will be like when you are ready to enter it.</p>

9

<p>i believe you can take the patent bar exam at any time, even before obtaining your j.d.
you would be a patent agent.
when you get your j.d. and pass the bar for your state, then you would be a patent attorney instead of a patent agent</p>

10

<p>That is correct, though you still have to fulfill all of the requirements of the PTO that I listed above to become a patent agent or patent attorney.</p>

11

<p>
[quote]
i believe you can take the patent bar exam at any time, even before obtaining your j.d.
you would be a patent agent.
when you get your j.d. and pass the bar for your state, then you would be a patent attorney instead of a patent agent

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
That is correct, though you still have to fulfill all of the requirements of the PTO that I listed above to become a patent agent or patent attorney.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I believe this might actually form the core of a 'brilliant' strategy. The sad truth is, science classes tend to be graded harder and assign more work than non-science classes are, and law school admissions hinge heavily on your grades, with little regard to how difficult your classes are. Hence, some students who have aspirations for patent law will try to get a science undergrad degree and wind up with lower grades than if they had studied something easier, which ultimately translates into getting into a worse law school than they would have otherwise (and in extreme cases, not getting into any law school at all).</p>

<p>However, if you take science classes AFTER you have already been admitted to law school, then it doesn't really matter what grades you get, as long as you pass. Hence, somebody who wanted to be a patent lawyer could just rack up the science courses that the USPTO requires at some extension school program or re-entry program or maybe even at some community college after having already gotten his law degree. The USPTO just says that you need to have at least C-'s in these science courses. Hence, you just rack up a bunch of science classes and just do the bare minimum necessary to pass them. It won't hurt your law school admissions chance because you already have your law degree.</p>

<p>A less extreme version of this tactic would be to take a whole bunch of science classes in your senior year of college, after you have already applied. I believe most law school applications can be submitted in the first term of your senior year. Hence, if you load up on a bunch of science courses in your senior year, the law school adcom will never be able to see what grades you get in them. Hence, you will be able to fulfill USPTO requirements while also shielding yourself from the deleterious effect of science grading. You might end up with mediocre grades in those science courses, but if the adcom has already admitted you, then it doesn't really matter.</p>

12

<p>wouldn't it help though to come from one of the top science/engineering institutions rather than just taking the easy route. I mean your not going to get anywhere near the same education. I'm just curious...</p>

13

<p>Though Sakky is presenting the right Machiavellian strategy, I have a few qualms against doing that. First off, there are many people who quite easily do very well in science classes and whose gpa's are not the same if not better without having to take unchallenging creampuff classes. </p>

<p>Secondly, if you are not good at sciences, why would you cram them all into your senior year? If you aren't capable of making high grades in science classes using a normal 4-year schedule anyways, how well are you goign to do cramming all your hard classes science your senior year? I would have to say you might do very badly indeed to the point of failing at least a few classes. </p>

<p>It is a good strategy, and helps alleviate the law school bias against science grads, it seems like a waste of time. Patent lawyers do make more, but if you're not good enough to maintain a 3.0-3.5 in your science courses, why would you want to be a patent lawyer if you're not good at it (barring, the pay increase)? And if you care that much about the money, there are probably other ways to increase your salary as a lawyer without going to the trouble of getting a science degree. </p>

<p>And people who do harder majors often score higher on average on the LSAT anyways as a partial compensation.</p>

14

<p>When would someone who has already been admitted to law school find the time for science classes (particularly since the patent bar requires advanced science classes with labs)?</p>

<p>If you want to study sciences undergrad because you enjoy them, then do it. I know plenty of people who have done extremely well as science majors because they were studying something that they enjoyed -- something that they were passionate about. College is expensive, and it is a once in a lifetime opportunity to immerse yourself in studies that challenge and stimulate you. Don't throw that away because you think that maybe, just maybe, your GPA might suffer. </p>

<p>In addition, don't forget that many firms and companies that are looking to hire patent lawyers specify that they want someone who majored in physics or chemistry or electrical engineering, etc. I don't know that just taking some classes outside of the traditional college major path would buy you the same credibility down the line.</p>

15

<p>
[quote]
First off, there are many people who quite easily do very well in science classes and whose gpa's are not the same if not better without having to take unchallenging creampuff classes.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>True, but not as many as otherwise brilliant science students who nevertheless get KILLED in science courses. Ask the students at MIT or Caltech. These are some of the best science students in the world, and many of them nonetheless end up with terrible science grades at those schools. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Secondly, if you are not good at sciences, why would you cram them all into your senior year? If you aren't capable of making high grades in science classes using a normal 4-year schedule anyways, how well are you goign to do cramming all your hard classes science your senior year? I would have to say you might do very badly indeed to the point of failing at least a few classes.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I never said anything about cramming "hard" science classes. I just said science classes. As you can see from the USPTO requirements, you aren't required to take "hard" science classes. You are just required to take science classes that fulfill the requirements for a bachelor's degree. Some of these classes are easier than others. So clearly one should avoid the weeders.</p>

<p>Besides, you also don't have to do these classes at your school. For example, you could rack them up at a community college. And according to the USPTO, you only need a C-. I think that plenty of people could take community college science classes and get C-'s in them. </p>

<p>
[quote]
It is a good strategy, and helps alleviate the law school bias against science grads, it seems like a waste of time. Patent lawyers do make more, but if you're not good enough to maintain a 3.0-3.5 in your science courses, why would you want to be a patent lawyer if you're not good at it (barring, the pay increase)?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Like I said, there are plenty of schools in which maintaining a 3.0-3.5 in science classes is difficult for even the best students. Again, MIT and Caltech immediately come to mind. I think we can all agree that MIT and Caltech students are invariably brilliant at science. Nevertheless, plenty of them will end up getting poor grades in science classes at those schools. I think that even many science geniuses would find the science courses at these schools to be highly challenging. </p>

<p>Hence, my point is, given the various different grading schemes used by the various schools, just because somebody doesn't get a 3.0 or 3.5 in science classes doesn't mean that he isn't good at science. For example, one of the most brilliant science guys that I know admitted that he got only about a 2.8/4 at MIT. I am fairly certain that this guy knows far more about science and technology than the vast majority of patent lawyers out there, even the ones who went to the best law schools. His GPA is a testament to the sheer difficulty of MIT. Yet, with a 2.8 GPA, even from MIT, you cannot get into a top law school. Sad but true.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And if you care that much about the money, there are probably other ways to increase your salary as a lawyer without going to the trouble of getting a science degree.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First off, I never said anything about getting a science degree. The USPTO does not require that you get a science degree. That's only one way that you can use to become eligible for the patent bar. The other way is, like I said, to take a bunch of science classes and get at least C-'s in them, but not necessarily get a science degree. You don't have to take these science classes at the school you are at. You can probably do them in an extension program or at a CC.</p>

<p>For example, again, take a guy who comes to MIT and finds out that the science classes are too hard for him. Either that, or he decides he wants to be a lawyer. So he decides to major in political science or economics at MIT - as these are well established departments at MIT, and these majors are quite common for prelaws. Yet if he wants to become a patent lawyer, the guy has 2 choices. Either take the extremely difficult science classes at MIT. Or take them at some other school. If this guy wants to preserve his GPA, then the smart thing to do may be to just rack up a bunch of classes at a community college. </p>

<p>I agree with you that there are better ways to make money, and specifically, those who want money should become investment bankers. But that's not the issue I'm talking about. I'm talking about people who want to become patent lawyers, but not jeopardize their chances of getting into a top law school through the difficult grading of their science classes at their undergrad school. </p>

<p>
[quote]
When would someone who has already been admitted to law school find the time for science classes (particularly since the patent bar requires advanced science classes with labs)?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Easy - in the summer right after undergrad, and before matriculation at law school. Like I said, you can rack up a whole bunch of community college science classes during that summer. All you need to get is a bunch of C-'s.</p>

<p>Add that to the semesters of your senior year, because these grades will never be seen by the law school adcom. So really, you have an entire year to complete these science classes (fall semester, spring semester, summer semester). Doesn't seem impossible to me. </p>

<p>
[quote]
If you want to study sciences undergrad because you enjoy them, then do it. I know plenty of people who have done extremely well as science majors because they were studying something that they enjoyed -- something that they were passionate about. College is expensive, and it is a once in a lifetime opportunity to immerse yourself in studies that challenge and stimulate you. Don't throw that away because you think that maybe, just maybe, your GPA might suffer.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, I don't know. Like I said, there are plenty of quite brilliant science and engineering students at MIT and Caltech who are nonetheless getting mediocre grades. Grading isn't all about how much you enjoy a subject. It's also about just how difficult the grading is at your school. Some schools are far more difficult than others. You can be a genius at a subject and nonetheless get bad grades, simply because you take extremely difficult clases. That's what happened to that guy who got the 2.8 in physics at MIT. He actually got admitted to a number of elite PhD programs in physics despite his "low" grades because the PhD adcoms respected the difficulty of the classes he took. But law school adcoms won't care about that. They would just see his "bad" grades and then reject him out of hand.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In addition, don't forget that many firms and companies that are looking to hire patent lawyers specify that they want someone who majored in physics or chemistry or electrical engineering, etc. I don't know that just taking some classes outside of the traditional college major path would buy you the same credibility down the line.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure, I agree. But if you just take the minimum courses the USPTO requires, you can still work as a patent lawyer. True, not at all patent law firms. But at some. Contrast that with what you might lose by simply not being able to get into a top law school because you don't have good grades, or in an extreme case, not being able to get into a law school at all. Or, in a REALLY extreme case, not even being able to graduate at all. For example, both MIT and Caltech has some students who don't even manage to graduate at all, again, because the classes are just too hard for them. These are some of the best science students in the world, and some of them come to MIT and Caltech only to flunk out. </p>

<p>Besides, let me say this. I would argue that if you're talking about patent law credibility, I would say that the simple fact that you graduated from a top technical institute will give you credibility, even if you don't actually get a technical degree. For example, let's say that you decide to start your own practice as a patent lawyer. I think that the ability to say that you graduated from MIT or Caltech will give you immense credibility, even if the degree that you obtained is actually in Literature or Economics or Philosophy or some other non-technical discipline, and you completed the USPTO science requirements by going to a community college.</p>

<p>Obviously if you get a science/engineering degree from MIT or Caltech, you would have unimpeachable credibility. However, I would suspect that even having a non-technical degree from MIT or Caltech would give you more credibility than, say, having a technical degree from a no-name school. </p>

<p>Look, I'm not saying that this path is for everybody. Obviously if you can get a science/eng degree with excellent grades, then that is clearly the best way to proceed. But the fact is, not everybody can do that. Grading often times depends on the difficulty of your school. If you just happen to be at an extremely difficult science school, you may be a top science student but nonetheless end up not getting good grades. However, these people should not be prevented from ever becoming patent lawyers. What I am suggesting is another way for these people.</p>

16

<p>sakky, you definitely make some good points. Let's not forget, though, that not every student pursuing a major in science/engineering is going to MIT or Caltech (and I'm fully assuming that everything you've said about grading at MIT and Caltech is correct). Plenty of students at other well respected science and engineering programs get their degrees and leverage those degrees into fantastic careers in patent law. You're absolutely correct that a 2.8 GPA is certainly not going to make it easy to get into a top law school, but plenty of people majoring in science and engineering do very well. I have to assume that someone is getting the top grades in these classes (at least they were when I was taking difficult classes like organic chemistry and genetics).</p>

17

<p>I don't have a lot of time today, so I will be brief.
While it's possible to qualify to take the USPTO examination by taking miscellaneous science courses, or alternatively by passing certain state engineering examinations, that does not make one particularly competitive when applying for a position as a patent attorney, especially for the first position. Many other law school graduates applying for their first positions (or first couple of positions) will have far better scientific and technical qualifications. Both law firms and corporations will have the opportunity to hire people with heavy-duty scientific qualifications - advanced degrees, post-doctoral work, and/or industrial experience. And smaller law firms usually need first-year associates who are versatile in technology - can handle quite different technologies - to meet the different needs of their clients.
On top of that, any prospective employer who gets a hint that an applicant looked for an easy way to get qualified as a patent attorney or to make the bare minimum requirements to become qualified will toss that resume into the circular file. And, by the way, becoming a registered patent attorney does not automatically guarantee one a job - any job. There is competition for all patent attorney jobs.
So spending time trying to game the grading system can in the end cost a lot more than going to as good a school as you can, and doing your best to get good grades.</p>

18

<p>
[quote]
Let's not forget, though, that not every student pursuing a major in science/engineering is going to MIT or Caltech (and I'm fully assuming that everything you've said about grading at MIT and Caltech is correct). Plenty of students at other well respected science and engineering programs get their degrees and leverage those degrees into fantastic careers in patent law. You're absolutely correct that a 2.8 GPA is certainly not going to make it easy to get into a top law school, but plenty of people majoring in science and engineering do very well. I have to assume that someone is getting the top grades in these classes (at least they were when I was taking difficult classes like organic chemistry and genetics).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>My points are not specific to only MIT or Caltech. I was just using them as examples. There are plenty of other extremely difficult technical schools out there - Georgia Tech, Berkeley, Harvey Mudd, Cooper Union, etc. where you really can be an extremely talented science/engineering student yet nonetheless get quite poor grades. Are there some people who major in technical subjects at these schools and get very high grades? Of course! But there are also quite a few who get very poor grades. Again, that's just the nature of the difficulty of these particular schools. </p>

<p>Bottom line. It's obviously better to get a science degree from a top-ranked technical school, and get top grades. That's obviously the ideal. The problem is that not everybody can do that. In fact, only a minority of people can. So for the rest of the people who don't have the inherent talent to get decent technical grades at a top technical school, what are they to do, just give up any dreams of becoming a patent lawyer at all? I don't think so. For these people, I am proposing another option.</p>

<p>Personally, I think the REAL solution is for law school adcoms to understand that certain schools are simply more difficult than others. Let's face it. It's far more difficult to get top grades in, say, chemical engineering at MIT than it is at a cheesepuff major at a no-name school. But from what I've seen, the adcoms don't know that and/or they don't WANT to know that. Which is why I propose another option. </p>

<p>
[quote]
While it's possible to qualify to take the USPTO examination by taking miscellaneous science courses, or alternatively by passing certain state engineering examinations, that does not make one particularly competitive when applying for a position as a patent attorney, especially for the first position. Many other law school graduates applying for their first positions (or first couple of positions) will have far better scientific and technical qualifications. Both law firms and corporations will have the opportunity to hire people with heavy-duty scientific qualifications - advanced degrees, post-doctoral work, and/or industrial experience. And smaller law firms usually need first-year associates who are versatile in technology - can handle quite different technologies - to meet the different needs of their clients.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Like I said, I agree that the best thing to do is to go to a top technical school and get top grades. The problem is that most people can't do that. Getting stellar grades in engineering at MIT is not just a simple matter of wanting it. You also have to have the inherent talent, and the fact is, most people don't have the talent. It's like telling somebody that all they have to do to be successful is to become a professional athlete, when the fact is, most people do not have the talent to become professional athletes. So for these people, I am offering an alternative path.</p>

<p>Now, one might say that 'normal' people who don't have the talent should not go to schools like MIT or Caltech at all, but instead should go to an easier school. The problem with that notion is that that presumes that you actually are able to gauge how much talent you have relative to what the school demands. Nobody matriculates at any school thinking that they are going to do poorly. Almost everybody who is admitted to Caltech or MIT or other top tech schools was a star science student in high school. Yet the fact remains that plenty of these students come to these top technical schools, and end up doing poorly. So the notion that people should not go to a school in which they are going to do poorly assumes that people know that they will do poorly at that school, and that's a rather dubious assumption to say the least. </p>

<p>
[quote]
And smaller law firms usually need first-year associates who are versatile in technology - can handle quite different technologies - to meet the different needs of their clients.
On top of that, any prospective employer who gets a hint that an applicant looked for an easy way to get qualified as a patent attorney or to make the bare minimum requirements to become qualified will toss that resume into the circular file. And, by the way, becoming a registered patent attorney does not automatically guarantee one a job - any job. There is competition for all patent attorney jobs.
So spending time trying to game the grading system can in the end cost a lot more than going to as good a school as you can, and doing your best to get good grades.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>To this, I would say that anybody who matriculates at a top technical school like MIT or Caltech and ends up graduating, even with a non-technical degree, is probably not gaming the system. Both MIT and Caltech require that every undergrad take a certain suite technical classes as a condition of graduation. And these classes are no jokes - these are some quite difficult classes. For example, I seem to recall hearing one Caltech grad say that the required physics sequence for all undergrads is actually arguably more difficult and more intense than anything that the physics majors at no-name schools ever have to take. MIT, the same. Anybody who can survive the MIT or Caltech general institute requirement/core curriculum is obviously quite talented at science, even if the person ends up not actually majoring in science. </p>

<p>Hence, the point is, I don't think you can seriously argue that anybody who graduated from tough technical schools like this is looking for an 'easy way'.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.admissions.caltech.edu/education/core/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.admissions.caltech.edu/education/core/&lt;/a>
<a href="http://web.mit.edu/catalogue/overv.chap3-gir.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.mit.edu/catalogue/overv.chap3-gir.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>In fact, if anybody could be said to be really gaming the system, it is those people who major in science/engineering at low-end no-name schools. Truth be told, I would say that somebody who graduates from any major at Caltech or MIT, even a non-technical major, is probably more talented in science than somebody who graduates with a science major from a no-name school. That's because, like I said, the science requirements at Caltech or MIT are extremely tough - almost certainly tougher than completing an entire science major at a low-end no-name school. </p>

<p>Hence, the point is, if you can graduate from a top technical institute like that, no matter what the major, I doubt that your ability to handle different technologies will be a problem. </p>

<p>
[quote]
And, by the way, becoming a registered patent attorney does not automatically guarantee one a job - any job. There is competition for all patent attorney jobs.
So spending time trying to game the grading system can in the end cost a lot more than going to as good a school as you can, and doing your best to get good grades

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Like I said, the best thing to do is to get into the best technical school you can and get top grades. But that's far easier said than done. I invite any of you to go ahead and take some technical classes at MIT or Caltech, and then come back and talk about how easy it is to get top grades in them. Plenty of MIT/Caltech engineering/science students are killing themselves with studying, and still end up with bad grades. </p>

<p>I agree there is competition for all jobs. However, I would say that, first of all, getting better grades will probably get you into a better law school, and that will help you compete for jobs. Secondly, just graduating from a school like MIT or Caltech automatically gives you technical credibility, even if you ended up majoring in a non-technical discipline. For example, I know a lot of MIT Sloan grads and graduates of other non-technical disciplines at MIT (i.e. philosophy, political science, urban studies, etc.) who have nevertheless found that prospective employers expect them to be technical geniuses, just because they graduated from MIT. That's the technical prestige of the MIT brand name. </p>

<p>Bottom line. Obviously it is grand if you can go to MIT, major in engineering, and get straight A's. Obviously that's the ideal. The problem is, most people can't do that. In fact, plenty of people at MIT work extremely hard and still do quite poorly. So what are these people supposed to do, just give up and abandon all hopes of ever becoming a patent lawyer? I don't think so. I am offering them another path.</p>