Part-time Law schools for IP (patent) Law

[guyindfw]

I am planning to go to law school part-time and work as a patent agent. I live in the Dallas area and moving with family will be challenging. I hope to practice in Texas or California when I graduate.

1. DC law schools (GW) are ranked the best part-time school. Should I move there if I get in?
2. How does SMU compare to Houston and Santa Clara in patent law?

[gnulaw77]

Houston had the #8 program last year in IP, so it's not a bad choice for a TX resident, esp. if you want to practice in TX. Still a relocation, but it's a lot more like Dallas than DC.

GW obviously is the best, but carries a hefty price tag.

[AboveTheLawSchool]

.

[gnulaw77]

Houston had the #8 program last year in IP, so it's not a bad choice for a TX resident, esp. if you want to practice in TX. Still a relocation, but it's a lot more like Dallas than DC.

GW obviously is the best, but carries a hefty price tag.

You have no idea what you are talking about. First of all, specific program ratings do not matter, at all! And second, Georgetown is obviously better than GW, but if OP wants texas I would take SMU hands down.

I'm not sure what evidence you base your *opinions* on, but arrogance and rudeness don't count, sadly for you, as evidence. Short of some objective criteria, I'll take the rankings of a professional rankings organization over the ideas of a wannabee law student, any day.

Houston is better than SMU on IP law. Rankings, number and quality of faculty, number of course offerings, all say so.

I have no problem with opinions--that's all any of us have here, really--but try sharing yours courteously. You're sure to run into different ones from yours in LS, and its best to iron out these little personality quirks now.

[jacketman03]

I was under the impression that if you were trying to decide between Houston and SMU, you should choose whether you would rather live in Dallas or Houston after law school, as that is the only real difference between the two of them.

[AboveTheLawSchool]

.

[vamedic03]

Specialty rankings are meaningless. Go to the T14.

[gnulaw77]

I wasn't trying to be mean, I'm sorry, I was just trying to emphasize the insignificance those rankings have. Just FYI most people care about job prospects more than anything else, and job prospects do not equal number of courses offered...

No problem, AboveTheLaw. I have no wish to be involved in a flame war, either. I think we all have something to share here....ultimately the OP has to make up his own mind based on lots of factors. The major one, as another poster said, is whether he wants to live in Dallas or move to Houston. In the Houston job market, both SMU and Houston are probably equally competitive, at least in IP jobs. And, he'd have the opportunity to learn a greater diversity of IP topics at Houston, as well, which may in fact be important to him.

I know opinions differ on these boards as to whether program rankings are at all relevant to any discussion of a school. That's a philosophical difference between people, I guess, like whether the government should help the economy recover by spending or by cutting budgets. I, for one, don't think program rankings are totally irrelevant, and I believe that some issues they emphasize, like number of courses and faculty prominence, are worth considering. But that's just me: others have a more categorical attitude towards these rankings, and there is probably little either camp could do to change the other camp's minds.

That said, would I personally uproot my family to move to Houston, find another day job in this economy, all to attend a part time law school based on the realistic delta between SMU and Houston? No, I personally wouldn't. I'd probably go to SMU because it has the least impact on my life. But the OP may think the difference in IP program quality matters enough to do so.