BC ($$) vs. Northwestern for hard IP Forum

[worldHome]

I have an Electrical Engineering degree. BC will cost me $100k, Northwestern will cost me $240k. Consider me BigLaw or bust.

Some have argued that with EE in hard IP, the biglaw advantage Northwestern holds over BC diminishes, making the extra cost not worth it.

Which way to go? Please include your reasoning.

Thanks guys!

[09042014]

If you want Boston and patent prosecution, I'd go BC. They don't care as much about law school.

Patent lit is a different story since those firms care much more about law school. But you'd probably still get it from BC.

I'd probably go BC, but I don't think either way is wrong.

[jbagelboy]

MA or BA in EE? Do you want patent prosecution or just IP lit? W/o a graduate degree in engineering, you arent guaranteed a hard patent prosecution job anywhere ("IP secure") and soft IP lit is basically the same track and necessary qualifications as other biglaw. I would only risk BC for your goals if you are really, really qualified -- like MA/PhD in EE or a BS from caltech/MIT/stanford. Otherwise, you will be competing for soft ip lit biglaw jobs with much of the rest of the class, and NU will be a far safer bet.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Electrical Engineering degree job options > sticker/non-T14.

[09042014]

MA or BA in EE? Do you want patent prosecution or just IP lit? W/o a graduate degree in engineering, you arent guaranteed a hard patent prosecution job anywhere ("IP secure") and soft IP lit is basically the same track and necessary qualifications as other biglaw. I would only risk BC for your goals if you are really, really qualified -- like MA/PhD in EE or a BS from caltech/MIT/stanford. Otherwise, you will be competing for soft ip lit biglaw jobs with much of the rest of the class, and NU will be a far safer bet.

Politely: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks072waMayk

[worldHome]

Desert: Location is not a variable for me. Also, I was under the impression that a big law firms would do both litigation and prosecution. It seems you disagree?

Monochrome: Sorry if I'm a bit dense this afternoon, but are you saying that it's better to be EE these days than pay sticker at T14 or go to non-T14? If so, then it does not really address my question. If not, would you please explain?

Thanks all.

[09042014]

Desert: Location is not a variable for me. Also, I was under the impression that a big law firms would do both litigation and prosecution. It seems you disagree?

Monochrome: Sorry if I'm a bit dense this afternoon, but are you saying that it's better to be EE these days than pay sticker at T14 or go to non-T14? If so, then it does not really address my question. If not, would you please explain?

Thanks all.

Most big law firms just do litigation. This is less true in smaller markets. Firms that are IP only, called IP boutiques, typically do both, or even only prosecution. Those later firms will focus more on your engineering skills than law skills. The big law firms hire IP lit associates generally like they hire regular associates, based on law grades. But this is in general. Some lit firms care about engineering a lot, and vice versa.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Monochrome: Sorry if I'm a bit dense this afternoon, but are you saying that it's better to be EE these days than pay sticker at T14 or go to non-T14? If so, then it does not really address my question. If not, would you please explain?

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I know it isn't what you asked, but perhaps something to consider. If your alternative is a $60-80k job, I wouldn't go to a school without a decent shot at Biglaw OR take on non-HYS sticker debt.

[worldHome]

Monochrome: Would you say that BC is not a decent shot at biglaw for E.E. undergrad only, looking to do patent work (be it litigation or prosecution)? Regardless of your answer to this (which I do want to know), why do you think this?

[jbagelboy]

If you want Boston and patent prosecution, I'd go BC. They don't care as much about law school.

Patent lit is a different story since those firms care much more about law school. But you'd probably still get it from BC.

I'd probably go BC, but I don't think either way is wrong.

MA or BA in EE? Do you want patent prosecution or just IP lit? W/o a graduate degree in engineering, you arent guaranteed a hard patent prosecution job anywhere ("IP secure") and soft IP lit is basically the same track and necessary qualifications as other biglaw. I would only risk BC for your goals if you are really, really qualified -- like MA/PhD in EE or a BS from caltech/MIT/stanford. Otherwise, you will be competing for soft ip lit biglaw jobs with much of the rest of the class, and NU will be a far safer bet.

Politely: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks072waMayk

Desert: Location is not a variable for me. Also, I was under the impression that a big law firms would do both litigation and prosecution. It seems you disagree?

Monochrome: Sorry if I'm a bit dense this afternoon, but are you saying that it's better to be EE these days than pay sticker at T14 or go to non-T14? If so, then it does not really address my question. If not, would you please explain?

Thanks all.

Most big law firms just do litigation. This is less true in smaller markets. Firms that are IP only, called IP boutiques, typically do both, or even only prosecution. Those later firms will focus more on your engineering skills than law skills. The big law firms hire IP lit associates generally like they hire regular associates, based on law grades. But this is in general. Some lit firms care about engineering a lot, and vice versa.

1) i love the big lebowski and that scene, so i appreciate how you posited your opinion -- respect.

2) read your comments above. We make the exact same claim re ip lit vs. hard science patent pros. for recruiting, practice area, and skills. I have the same information as you (3L doing IP). Try getting an SA in patent prosecution at knobbe without an MA or high end BS. Since we said the exact same thing, by dismissing my opinion arent you invalidating your own?

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Monochrome: Would you say that BC is not a decent shot at biglaw for E.E. undergrad only, looking to do patent work (be it litigation or prosecution)? Regardless of your answer to this (which I do want to know), why do you think this?

BC is just not a decent shot at Biglaw in general. Biglaw + Fedclerk = 19.2%. If you aren't in the top quarter you won't have a chance. If you miss Biglaw you won't do any better with a JD than with your Bachelor's.

NU will give you a decent shot but it's a scary pricetag.

Is retake an option?

[worldHome]

For the record, I only have undergrad EE.

That being said, I was told that EE/Comp E/Comp Sci have a good shot with just undergrad. The other fields (Bio/Pharma/Mech E./physics) are ones where higher than undergrad is preferable/required. Thoughts?

Monochrome: retake not an option.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Monochrome: retake not an option.

What did you score and how many times have you taken?

[worldHome]

PMed

[Informative]

I would take the lower cost option given your hard science degree. While BC gives most students a 21-22% shot at biglaw, a hard science degree in the IP-heavy Boston market will significantly improve your odds. Northwestern at sticker is a lot of debt that will take a long time to pay off, even assuming you get biglaw in the midwest.

[czelede]

If you want Boston and patent prosecution, I'd go BC. They don't care as much about law school.

Patent lit is a different story since those firms care much more about law school. But you'd probably still get it from BC.

I'd probably go BC, but I don't think either way is wrong.

MA or BA in EE? Do you want patent prosecution or just IP lit? W/o a graduate degree in engineering, you arent guaranteed a hard patent prosecution job anywhere ("IP secure") and soft IP lit is basically the same track and necessary qualifications as other biglaw. I would only risk BC for your goals if you are really, really qualified -- like MA/PhD in EE or a BS from caltech/MIT/stanford. Otherwise, you will be competing for soft ip lit biglaw jobs with much of the rest of the class, and NU will be a far safer bet.

Politely: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks072waMayk

Desert: Location is not a variable for me. Also, I was under the impression that a big law firms would do both litigation and prosecution. It seems you disagree?

Monochrome: Sorry if I'm a bit dense this afternoon, but are you saying that it's better to be EE these days than pay sticker at T14 or go to non-T14? If so, then it does not really address my question. If not, would you please explain?

Thanks all.

Most big law firms just do litigation. This is less true in smaller markets. Firms that are IP only, called IP boutiques, typically do both, or even only prosecution. Those later firms will focus more on your engineering skills than law skills. The big law firms hire IP lit associates generally like they hire regular associates, based on law grades. But this is in general. Some lit firms care about engineering a lot, and vice versa.

1) i love the big lebowski and that scene, so i appreciate how you posited your opinion -- respect.

2) read your comments above. We make the exact same claim re ip lit vs. hard science patent pros. for recruiting, practice area, and skills. I have the same information as you (3L doing IP). Try getting an SA in patent prosecution at knobbe without an MA or high end BS. Since we said the exact same thing, by dismissing my opinion arent you invalidating your own?

completely disagree with #2. IP secure applies to more than just patent prosecution - there's a several shades of difference in between "hard patent prosecution" and "soft IP lit;" it's not one or the other. General consensus is that you need an MA/PhD for the pure sciences, but BS will suffice if its in engineering, especially EE. I know plenty of people at hard IP firms (Knobbe included) with a BS in engineering or a B.Eng (not from a top 10 engineering school, in fact). Furthermore, a lot of biglaw GP firms that do both lit and pros don't make you choose one or the other when you come in. Some start you off 50/50. Many practicing attorneys I know were started off in pros and then transitioned to lit (even though some wanted to start in lit); almost NONE of these attorneys have more than a B.S. in engineering. I agree that you obviously have a better shot at law firms if your BS is from a more prestigious engineering institution, but that's kind of common sense, isn't it?

That being said, I think going to Northwestern broadens your options since with the same grades you'll have a greater appeal to some of the snobbier GP firms that happen to have strong practices.

[09042014]

If you want Boston and patent prosecution, I'd go BC. They don't care as much about law school.

Patent lit is a different story since those firms care much more about law school. But you'd probably still get it from BC.

I'd probably go BC, but I don't think either way is wrong.

MA or BA in EE? Do you want patent prosecution or just IP lit? W/o a graduate degree in engineering, you arent guaranteed a hard patent prosecution job anywhere ("IP secure") and soft IP lit is basically the same track and necessary qualifications as other biglaw. I would only risk BC for your goals if you are really, really qualified -- like MA/PhD in EE or a BS from caltech/MIT/stanford. Otherwise, you will be competing for soft ip lit biglaw jobs with much of the rest of the class, and NU will be a far safer bet.

Politely: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks072waMayk

Desert: Location is not a variable for me. Also, I was under the impression that a big law firms would do both litigation and prosecution. It seems you disagree?

Monochrome: Sorry if I'm a bit dense this afternoon, but are you saying that it's better to be EE these days than pay sticker at T14 or go to non-T14? If so, then it does not really address my question. If not, would you please explain?

Thanks all.

Most big law firms just do litigation. This is less true in smaller markets. Firms that are IP only, called IP boutiques, typically do both, or even only prosecution. Those later firms will focus more on your engineering skills than law skills. The big law firms hire IP lit associates generally like they hire regular associates, based on law grades. But this is in general. Some lit firms care about engineering a lot, and vice versa.

1) i love the big lebowski and that scene, so i appreciate how you posited your opinion -- respect.

2) read your comments above. We make the exact same claim re ip lit vs. hard science patent pros. for recruiting, practice area, and skills. I have the same information as you (3L doing IP). Try getting an SA in patent prosecution at knobbe without an MA or high end BS. Since we said the exact same thing, by dismissing my opinion arent you invalidating your own?

Masters are basically irrelevant for EE's. Maybe some firms prefer it but I don't see much evidence. Knobbe's website has tons of people without them, and they have BSEE's from a bunch of random schools.

soft ip = copyright and trademark. hard ip includes patent lit.

Patent lit still gives you a huge leg up in hiring.

You are vastly overstating the type of engineering creds you need to a pros. job. "Not a 3.0" is good enough. A T5 program is not a requirement.

Knobbe isn't that selective.

[jbagelboy]

You are vastly overstating the type of engineering creds you need to a pros. job. "Not a 3.0" is good enough. A T5 program is not a requirement.

Let's just say I hope you are right, but on an anecdotal this has not what I have seen. I'll leave the hard IP thread to you and defer to your judgement

[09042014]

You are vastly overstating the type of engineering creds you need to a pros. job. "Not a 3.0" is good enough. A T5 program is not a requirement.

Let's just say I hope you are right, but on an anecdotal this has not what I have seen. I'll leave the hard IP thread to you and defer to your judgement

EE or more lifesciences? Because life sciences is considerably harder.

[jbagelboy]

You are vastly overstating the type of engineering creds you need to a pros. job. "Not a 3.0" is good enough. A T5 program is not a requirement.

Let's just say I hope you are right, but on an anecdotal this has not what I have seen. I'll leave the hard IP thread to you and defer to your judgement

EE or more lifesciences? Because life sciences is considerably harder.

Biomedical eng, chem eng, and straight bio (all patent eligible). None of my 2L/3L friends are EE. I didnt know there was such a wide gap in credentialism expectation b/t the fields. Even with a strong biochemistry background, Ive been told time and again that an MA or higher is highly recommended for patent pros. Again, my b.

[jbagelboy]

And look also, beyond your degree, its whether you can actually understand the science behind the patent, or just the details of the litigation. Those are two different skill sets. If you have a BS in EE but you dont know your shit well enough to understand how the circuit was built in the core drawings, GL HF working in hard patents. Generally people with advanced degrees have more practical training, and often thats separating the wheat from the chaff for those positions that require you to understand the science and not just the litigation. Thats all im saying I guess.

[09042014]

And look also, beyond your degree, its whether you can actually understand the science behind the patent, or just the details of the litigation. Those are two different skill sets. If you have a BS in EE but you dont know your shit well enough to understand how the circuit was built in the core drawings, GL HF working in hard patents. Generally people with advanced degrees have more practical training, and often thats separating the wheat from the chaff for those positions that require you to understand the science and not just the litigation. Thats all im saying I guess.

One of the reasons a MSEE doesn't mean shit is because it's 30 hours of random shit. It barley increases the likelihood you'll run into something you know.

[worldHome]

Question about something Informative said above:
I understand that IP improves odds at BC. But can't the same thing be said about it improving odds at Northwestern? So at the end of the day, won't the odds at Northwestern still be much bigger than at BC?

Thanks!

(PS. Let's put the issue of what hard ip creds are necessary behind us and focus on the schools )

[jbagelboy]

Question about something Informative said above:
I understand that IP improves odds at BC. But can't the same thing be said about it improving odds at Northwestern? So at the end of the day, won't the odds at Northwestern still be much bigger than at BC?

Thanks!

(PS. Let's put the issue of what hard ip creds are necessary behind us and focus on the schools )

yes to the bolded

sorry for distraction

the point informative was making is that as the chances at both schools at lucrative employment increase with IP security, the relative value of that odds gap decreases w/ respect to the added $140K cost. does that relative value go down enough to justify BC? not IMO unless you want to practice in boston.