Out of curiosity, what would be the best way to meet the requirements to sit for the patent bar without having a designated degree? Would you take the hard science classes during law school (2L or 3L)? After? Have your employer pay for them? Has anyone been through this? If so, how did you go about doing it and what would you have done differently?

I was literally about to ask the same question. I was looking at their site and it looked like you could take applicable graduate level courses rather than the typical bachelor's degree classes. That got me thinking that a JD/MS would be a good combo. But, for my situation, I have no idea as to what the feasability would be to getting into an MS program without an applicable undergrad degree.

Honestly wouldn't bother taking the patent bar if you don't have a science degree. An employer is going to hire an engineer or PhD over someone who took 24 hours of physics.

In terms of masters, almost impossible to get into a program if you major wasnt a hard science. It can be tangentially related though

Not to mention that you'd have a bitch of a time getting through grad-level hard science classes (if they even let you take them without prereqs) if you didn't take the whole undergrad progression first.

I looked into doing a master separately in structural engineering before law school. When I spoke to the advisors in the department they said that the biggest leap is the mathematics. If you have the math background then you just have to take a handful of classes to satisfy the prereqs. That was at my undergrad too. I also remember either BU or BC having a masters program for engineering specifically designed for non-hard-science majors. So it's not whether or not the program is possible (or even worthwhile) but how you would go about it.

This is true. A lot of the liberal arts/business majors I knew stopped taking math somewhere around what the average engineering student took in 9th or 10th grade.

I highly doubt that. Most of my friends from my high school who are engineers took BC calc in senior year. Hell, almost all the people in my grade took AB or BC calc. Isn't the standard curriculum pre-calc at 11th grade at least?

I don't get what you're highly doubting. Is it that ??? Because I think the above is extremely true. A lot of people I know at my college had not, by the end of undergrad, taken what I and a number of my math/engineering friends took before entering high school.

I'd say a small majority or quite large minority of liberal arts majors have never taken anything past trigonometry or even algebra II. At least at my high school (granted, in middle of freaking nowhere, Pennsylvania) probably about 5% of students took Calculus by graduation, and maybe 10% had either Stats AP or PreCalc.

I spoke with one of professors who heads the IP dept at my school, I asked him about the science backgrounds requirements for IP law. He had said that according to him, who has no science background but worked in IP, and his friends who are hiring partners at large firms that the science requirement for IP is a bit of a myth. Not sure how much I believe that, but it's what he had said; he told me that a lot of the partners don't understand why students have the thought that a hard science background is required for IP. Again, not sure I entirely believe that.

Though, I do have a question to add to this: I was thinking of IP, I have a BS in Psychology and enough credit hours to have had a Biology minor, as well a number of classes in other hard science classes, is that enough to break into IP? I know a lot of IP people have engineering, chemistry, math degrees etc. but I'm not sure how strong of a science background is really stressed if you have a decent science background.

Did you ask about ip law or patent law?

I asked about both. He had said most people in trademark & copyright were non-science people, however with patent it's mostly about having a requisite amount of science credits in your college career. That's why I was curious what exactly those requirements are; like if my Psych BS with Biology heavy courseload and other science electives would be enough to fulfill those requirements.

If you have an undergrad in engineering (virtually any type, but electrical is hot right now), that's enough to break into patent prosecution. If you have a Biology undergrad and want to prosecute, you are probably out of luck. There are a ton of bio PhDs out there fed up with the lab. They flood the market and an undergrad psych degree with a handful of bio classes won't be enough. I have an undergrad bio degree and passed the PB the day before law school started. I thought I wanted to do patent prosecution, but based on what I learned about it through taking the PB and in talking to lots of IP attorneys, I'm leaning toward patent litigation now. I just think it would be more interesting and a better fit with my personality. That said, it's a good thing I feel that way because now that I'm looking for jobs, it is abundantly clear that an undergrad in biology (even with 12 years of technical industry experience) is not enough to compete with PhD level bio types for prosecution jobs. If you don't have the credits for taking the PB, I'd do law school first. Meet some IP professionals and figure out (1) what you really want to do and (2) if it is feasible given your background. You can absolutely do trademark, copyright or patent litigation without the PB credential. It's a nice to have as it shows interest, but not a requirement. Even if you pass the PB, you're facing an uphill battle for prosecution work with your background.

I have no interest in IP or patent law, however my undergrad was social science, and yeah, my highest college math class was approximately equal to what my 17 year old niece (who is a math/science girl) did in 9th grade. Her math looks like greek to me. So, just backing that idea up, lol.

I know at our school, the IP firms at the first year student receptions actually requested that students ineligible to take the patent bar not even come to their receptions.

And at my school, all the IP employers encouraged non-technical students to come. Most people who are interested are going for IP litigation over prosecution, so no patent bar required.

That is awesome! I hope more IP firms at more schools do this.

A few of you mentioned a BS in bio not being able to compete with all the bio phDs. What about a biochem or chemistry masters (along with a t14 law degree)? Would that still be competitive for patent prosecution?