Applicants from a rigorous engineering background?

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
threecat2
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:56 pm

Applicants from a rigorous engineering background?

Postby threecat2 » Fri Jan 08, 2010 2:16 pm

I am a current junior in Cornell engineering. I have a high GPA, and I've just started to take some interest in law schools. I've got a couple of questions:

1. How would law schools see an applicant with a 'purely engineering' major (mine is applied physics, which is mostly theory and math) without any law or english related coursework?

2. What percentage of law school applicants have higher degrees than undergrad? (Would someone with a master's in engineering apply and get accepted?)

3. I want to keep a firm base in engineering. In other words, I don't want to work in a law firm, but instead an engineering firm. What would be my best option?

Thank you so much.


*edited question 1 for clarity
Last edited by threecat2 on Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
AlanShore
Posts: 1505
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:21 pm

Re: Applicants from a rigorous engineering background?

Postby AlanShore » Fri Jan 08, 2010 2:21 pm

threecat2 wrote:I am a current junior in Cornell engineering. I have a high GPA, and I've just started to take some interest in law schools. I've got a couple of questions:

1. How would law schools see an applicant with a 'purely engineering' major without any law or english related coursework?

2. What percentage of law school applicants have higher degrees than undergrad? (Would someone with a master's in engineering apply and get accepted?)

3. I want to keep a firm base in engineering. In other words, I don't want to work in a law firm, but instead an engineering firm. What would be my best option?

Thank you so much.

1. law schools either see engineering as neutral or they may even give you a slight boost because they know the course work is very challenging. getting a high gpa engineering is difficult and looks good on your app

2. it varies from school to school. i would say it doesn't really matter that you have a masters. however, see below

3. if you want to keep your engineering roots, go for patent law. it requires an engineering major (and some others are accepted, i forget which ones) and you have to pass a patent bar. some top firms or patent boutiques like to see a MA in engineering. however, this isnt a pre-req. Engineering majors interested in patent law often go to big firms or get paid 160k without having to go to a top top school. it's a great option for you engineering folks

*edited for clarity

jerjon2
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:11 pm

Re: Applicants from a rigorous engineering background?

Postby jerjon2 » Fri Jan 08, 2010 2:46 pm

AlanShore wrote:
threecat2 wrote:I am a current junior in Cornell engineering. I have a high GPA, and I've just started to take some interest in law schools. I've got a couple of questions:

1. How would law schools see an applicant with a 'purely engineering' major without any law or english related coursework?

2. What percentage of law school applicants have higher degrees than undergrad? (Would someone with a master's in engineering apply and get accepted?)

3. I want to keep a firm base in engineering. In other words, I don't want to work in a law firm, but instead an engineering firm. What would be my best option?

Thank you so much.

1. law schools either see engineering as neutral or they may even give you a slight boost because they know the course work is very challenging. getting a high gpa engineering is difficult and looks good on your app

2. it varies from school to school. i would say it doesn't really matter that you have a masters. however, see below

3. if you want to keep your engineering roots, go for patent law. it requires an engineering major (and some others are accepted, i forget which ones) and you have to pass a patent bar. some top firms or patent boutiques like to see a MA in engineering. however, this isnt a pre-req. Engineering majors interested in patent law often go to big firms or get paid 160k without having to go to a top top school. it's a great option for you engineering folks

*edited for clarity


Another important question is what your actual major is. Not every engineering major has the same demand. Also, there are a lot of threads on this. Here's a good one to get you started:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=96207
beyond this, just search for patent law information with the search function.

drew
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 7:17 pm

Re: Applicants from a rigorous engineering background?

Postby drew » Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:03 pm

OP should master the engineering of TLS's search function.

I kill me.

ram jam
Posts: 297
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:32 pm

Re: Applicants from a rigorous engineering background?

Postby ram jam » Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:07 pm

Is engineering rigorous?

1. How would law schools see an applicant with a 'purely engineering' major without any law or english related coursework?

Doesn't matter. GPA + LSAT

2. What percentage of law school applicants have higher degrees than undergrad? (Would someone with a master's in engineering apply and get accepted?)

A low percentage, doesn't matter.

3. I want to keep a firm base in engineering. In other words, I don't want to work in a law firm, but instead an engineering firm. What would be my best option?

Got to law school. Apply to engineering firms.

User avatar
camstant
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 12:59 am

Re: Applicants from a rigorous engineering background?

Postby camstant » Fri Jan 08, 2010 7:18 pm

As an engineer myself going to law school here has been my take on the issue (i am in civil, btw)

1. it doesn't necessarily matter, but the more important thing is to show that you have made a commitment to your degree and engineering community (honor societies, leadership roles, etc).

2. I don't know about percentages, but there are some that decide to get a masters and go on to law school. This is definitely not a disadvantage, if anything you might seem more attractive seeing that you are giving up a paying career to pursue 3 more years of law school and the incurring debt, which shows some commitment to the law profession.

3. You could do intellectual property, in which you could work for any number of technical companies or corporations (i have a friend who worked at Sprint, for example). You also could consider working as in-house counsel at a construction company negotiating contracts / insurance / risk management.

brass_monkey
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:18 pm

Re: Applicants from a rigorous engineering background?

Postby brass_monkey » Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:00 pm

Any reason why a chem degree is less attractive? Most if not all IP questions I've seen on here are from EEs; seems to me that this field should be saturated. What about medical/pharmaceutical/materials companies? Wouldn't they lean towards applicants with chem/biochem backgrounds?

Leeroy Jenkins
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 10:19 pm

Re: Applicants from a rigorous engineering background?

Postby Leeroy Jenkins » Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:08 pm

brass_monkey wrote:Any reason why a chem degree is less attractive? Most if not all IP questions I've seen on here are from EEs; seems to me that this field should be saturated. What about medical/pharmaceutical/materials companies? Wouldn't they lean towards applicants with chem/biochem backgrounds?

It goes EE/CE --> ChemE/MechE --> Bio/Chem PhD --> Other Sciences --> Civil/Industrial Engineering

brass_monkey
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:18 pm

Re: Applicants from a rigorous engineering background?

Postby brass_monkey » Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:18 pm

I see that. I just don't see why or how that order applies to every field.

Leeroy Jenkins
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 10:19 pm

Re: Applicants from a rigorous engineering background?

Postby Leeroy Jenkins » Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:22 pm

brass_monkey wrote:I see that. I just don't see why or how that order applies to every field.

Because nobody will hire a Bio BS when they can hire a Bio PhD? lol
Because nobody invents stuff as a Civil Engineer? lol

FreshPrince
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:11 pm

Re: Applicants from a rigorous engineering background?

Postby FreshPrince » Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:38 pm

Because nobody invents stuff as a Civil Engineer? lol[/quote]

Bullshit. Permeable pavement, structural trusses, the single point urban interchange, and roundabouts just to name a few.

CyLaw
Posts: 1557
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:59 pm

Re: Applicants from a rigorous engineering background?

Postby CyLaw » Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:41 pm

FreshPrince wrote:
Because nobody invents stuff as a Civil Engineer? lol


Bullshit. Permeable pavement, structural trusses, the single point urban interchange, and roundabouts just to name a few.


Quick Aside: I hate f*cking roundabouts.

I think what was meant is that the number of patents for EE or Cpr E related work is likely more than for Civil E, so they are not as much in demand in the Patent world.

FreshPrince
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:11 pm

Re: Applicants from a rigorous engineering background?

Postby FreshPrince » Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:44 pm

CyLaw wrote:
FreshPrince wrote:
Because nobody invents stuff as a Civil Engineer? lol


Bullshit. Permeable pavement, structural trusses, the single point urban interchange, and roundabouts just to name a few.


Quick Aside: I hate f*cking roundabouts.

I think what was meant is that the number of patents for EE or Cpr E related work is likely more than for Civil E, so they are not as much in demand in the Patent world.


That's cool if you don't like roundabouts. But, you'll be thankful when you only get in a side-swipe accident in a roundabout than if you were to be in a t-bone or head on accident in a conventional signalized intersection.

As for the quote pertaining to the number of patents for one type of engineering vs. another, that could be what he/she meant but it wasn't what he/she said. My point is that they do invent shit.

awesomepossum
Posts: 928
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 12:49 am

Re: Applicants from a rigorous engineering background?

Postby awesomepossum » Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:45 pm

FreshPrince wrote:Because nobody invents stuff as a Civil Engineer? lol


Bullshit. Permeable pavement, structural trusses, the single point urban interchange, and roundabouts just to name a few.



I think the problem is the numbers.

Take a look at this.

--LinkRemoved--

When you look at that chart, look at how many of those classes are "EE" and add them all up. They make up the overwhelming majority.

From what I've seen at the patent job fair, the number of EE's seem to be far less by proportion when compared to that number. If someone had the actual info on that it would be great though. I couldn't find it in my lazy 20 second google search.

FreshPrince
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:11 pm

Re: Applicants from a rigorous engineering background?

Postby FreshPrince » Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:48 pm

awesomepossum wrote:
FreshPrince wrote:Because nobody invents stuff as a Civil Engineer? lol


Bullshit. Permeable pavement, structural trusses, the single point urban interchange, and roundabouts just to name a few.



I think the problem is the numbers.

Take a look at this.

--LinkRemoved--

When you look at that chart, look at how many of those classes are "EE" and add them all up. They make up the overwhelming majority.

From what I've seen at the patent job fair, the number of EE's seem to be far less by proportion when compared to that number. If someone had the actual info on that it would be great though. I couldn't find it in my lazy 20 second google search.


I am by no means disputing the fact that civil engineers don't typically go after patents. I'm simply disputing the fact that they don't invent things.

CyLaw
Posts: 1557
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:59 pm

Re: Applicants from a rigorous engineering background?

Postby CyLaw » Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:50 pm

FreshPrince wrote:That's cool if you don't like roundabouts. But, you'll be thankful when you only get in a side-swipe accident in a roundabout than if you were to be in a t-bone or head on accident in a conventional signalized intersection.


You are right. I just hate getting stuck in them. Probably more about my inability to drive then a design flaw.

brass_monkey
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:18 pm

Re: Applicants from a rigorous engineering background?

Postby brass_monkey » Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:29 pm

[/quote]brass_monkey wrote:
I see that. I just don't see why or how that order applies to every field.

Because nobody will hire a Bio BS when they can hire a Bio PhD? lol
Because nobody invents stuff as a Civil Engineer? lol[/quote]

That was pretty funny; I bet people love to be in your company.

So an EE is favored over biochem by a pharmaceutical company? I think you missed my point...

EricM
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:59 pm

Re: Applicants from a rigorous engineering background?

Postby EricM » Fri Jan 08, 2010 11:56 pm

FreshPrince wrote:
Lxw wrote:Because nobody invents stuff as a Civil Engineer? lol


Bullshit. Permeable pavement, structural trusses, the single point urban interchange, and roundabouts just to name a few.


This dude needs to chill. Certainly some civil engineer has invented something at some point in time...the guy was exaggerating.

Leeroy Jenkins
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 10:19 pm

Re: Applicants from a rigorous engineering background?

Postby Leeroy Jenkins » Sun Jan 10, 2010 1:09 am

FreshPrince wrote:I am by no means disputing the fact that civil engineers don't typically go after patents. I'm simply disputing the fact that they don't invent things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

hth




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 9 guests