<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>