Michigan vs WashU (114000 award) vs Illinois (Full Ride) Forum

[boognish42]

I have been accepted to the University of Michigan with no merit award offered, resulting in $163,000 in tution. I have also been accepted to WashU with $114,000 of $150,000 offered, Minnesota with $120,000 of $146,000 offered, and University of Illinois with a full tuition award.

I have a bachelors degree in chemistry and would like to practice IP law in Chicago. I have a 3.2 GPA and a 171 LSAT.

Is it worth paying sticker at Michigan over the significantly reduced rates at these other schools?

[reasonable person]

WUSTL.

[TheProdigal]

In order to receive the best feedback in this forum, please provide as much of the following information in your original post as possible:

-The schools you are considering
-The total Cost of Attendance (COA) of each. COA = cost of tuition + fees + books + cost of living (COL) + accumulated interest - scholarships.
-How you will be financing your COA, i.e. loans, family, or savings
-Where you are from and where you want to work, and other places where you have significant ties (if any)
-Your general career goals
-Your LSAT/GPA numbers
-How many times you have taken the LSAT

[boognish42]

In order to receive the best feedback in this forum, please provide as much of the following information in your original post as possible:

-The schools you are considering
-The total Cost of Attendance (COA) of each. COA = cost of tuition + fees + books + cost of living (COL) + accumulated interest - scholarships.
-How you will be financing your COA, i.e. loans, family, or savings
-Where you are from and where you want to work, and other places where you have significant ties (if any)
-Your general career goals
-Your LSAT/GPA numbers
-How many times you have taken the LSAT

I will be taking loans to finance my degree. I am from Chicago. I have taken the LSAT once.

[chuckbass]

I'd say either WUSTL or UIUC. I don't think that WUSTL would get you anywhere in Chicago that UIUC wouldn't, but I also feel like WUSTL may be better in your case given that IP significantly increases your chances at snagging biglaw and you won't be fighting everyone at WUSTL for Chicago like you will be at UIUC. I don't think you'd really be able to make a bad choice between the two.

[DoveBodyWash]

this is tough because your goals are relatively narrow...Chicago is a hard market to break into which makes me wanna lean Michigan but you're IP (which may help overcome diminished placement power from WUSTL/UIUC) and if the odds are low, paying as little as possible seems safer...

tbh i'm not familiar enough with the Chicago IP market to confidently say one or the other. But i will say that the biggest summer class in Chicago only has 5 IP kids in it and they're all T14 (Harvard, Stanford, UChicago, Northwestern). Maybe there were a bunch of non-T14 2L's that had offers but turned them down but i'm skeptical since i know the IP group at this firm is pretty strong for a general service firm (not sure how it stacks up against boutiques).

ETA: Maybe there's a Chicago firm with a smaller summer class but has more IP people. But I don't have access to all the data. Just wanted to give you the stats i had.

[boognish42]

Thanks for the responses, this is definitely helpful.

[DoveBodyWash]

Thanks for the responses, this is definitely helpful.

you should post in each school's respective "Taking Questions" thread to learn more about the IP placement at each school, might get some more responses

[eriedoctrine]

WashU, for all the reasons above.

[Jay2716]

Are you patent bar eligible? I know some chem people who aren't.

[MidwestLifer]

IIRC don't life sciences such as chemistry not really get much of an IP boost unless you have a PhD?

[buckiguy_sucks]

.

[boognish42]

Are you patent bar eligible? I know some chem people who aren't.

Yes

[boognish42]

IIRC don't life sciences such as chemistry not really get much of an IP boost unless you have a PhD?

Chemistry is not really a life science, the life sciences are derivative of chemistry, just as chemistry is of physics and physics of math.

Anyway, this seems to be faulty tls logic. I asked a partner at a large Chicago firm that does ip litigation this question and he laughed at me, he said almost everyone he knows that prosecuted patents has no more than a bs.

[boognish42]

Did you apply to Northwestern?

Yes, wait listed at nw and u Chicago. Campaigning for both.

[Jay2716]

IIRC don't life sciences such as chemistry not really get much of an IP boost unless you have a PhD?

Chemistry is not really a life science, the life sciences are derivative of chemistry, just as chemistry is of physics and physics of math.

Anyway, this seems to be faulty tls logic. I asked a partner at a large Chicago firm that does ip litigation this question and he laughed at me, he said almost everyone he knows that prosecuted patents has no more than a bs.

I think that's generally true, and I know very little about IP. I only know two chem people going for IP, and both had to take some physics classes to be patent bar eligible. If your degree is on the USPTOs list, then that's a good start.

The other issue is the more common your science degree is, the less of a boost firms have to give (because there are more of you, and presumably, more of you at good schools who did well. Anecdotally, I know some bio and chem people who are not going for IP, and I know some who struck out. Every EE/CS/PhD I know at my school got a job. It's not that you can't do it, it's just that absent some good work experience you're not going to be a rarity in the same way an engineer is.

Again, this is all from limited anecdotal experience. Just wanted to make sure you've done your diligence before you dive in and find out whether you are IP Secure.

ETA- also, be careful trusting the anecdotes of a partner or two. Probably better than my anecdotes, but lots of practitioners make bad generalizations. Just because most of the people he knows have a b.s. Does not mean most people with a b.s. Can get the job.

[boognish42]

IIRC don't life sciences such as chemistry not really get much of an IP boost unless you have a PhD?

Chemistry is not really a life science, the life sciences are derivative of chemistry, just as chemistry is of physics and physics of math.

Anyway, this seems to be faulty tls logic. I asked a partner at a large Chicago firm that does ip litigation this question and he laughed at me, he said almost everyone he knows that prosecuted patents has no more than a bs.

I think that's generally true, and I know very little about IP. I only know two chem people going for IP, and both had to take some physics classes to be patent bar eligible. If your degree is on the USPTOs list, then that's a good start.

The other issue is the more common your science degree is, the less of a boost firms have to give (because there are more of you, and presumably, more of you at good schools who did well. Anecdotally, I know some bio and chem people who are not going for IP, and I know some who struck out. Every EE/CS/PhD I know at my school got a job. It's not that you can't do it, it's just that absent some good work experience you're not going to be a rarity in the same way an engineer is.

Again, this is all from limited anecdotal experience. Just wanted to make sure you've done your diligence before you dive in and find out whether you are IP Secure.

ETA- also, be careful trusting the anecdotes of a partner or two. Probably better than my anecdotes, but lots of practitioners make bad generalizations. Just because most of the people he knows have a b.s. Does not mean most people with a b.s. Can get the job.

Thanks, these are some good points. Do you happen to know where they went to undergraduate for chemistry? I am surprised that a school would grant a BS in chemistry and not require enough physics to meet requirements. I know some schools allow chemistry and biology students to take non-calculus based physics, that is the only thing I can really think of.

[Jay2716]

IIRC don't life sciences such as chemistry not really get much of an IP boost unless you have a PhD?

Chemistry is not really a life science, the life sciences are derivative of chemistry, just as chemistry is of physics and physics of math.

Anyway, this seems to be faulty tls logic. I asked a partner at a large Chicago firm that does ip litigation this question and he laughed at me, he said almost everyone he knows that prosecuted patents has no more than a bs.

I think that's generally true, and I know very little about IP. I only know two chem people going for IP, and both had to take some physics classes to be patent bar eligible. If your degree is on the USPTOs list, then that's a good start.

The other issue is the more common your science degree is, the less of a boost firms have to give (because there are more of you, and presumably, more of you at good schools who did well. Anecdotally, I know some bio and chem people who are not going for IP, and I know some who struck out. Every EE/CS/PhD I know at my school got a job. It's not that you can't do it, it's just that absent some good work experience you're not going to be a rarity in the same way an engineer is.

Again, this is all from limited anecdotal experience. Just wanted to make sure you've done your diligence before you dive in and find out whether you are IP Secure.

ETA- also, be careful trusting the anecdotes of a partner or two. Probably better than my anecdotes, but lots of practitioners make bad generalizations. Just because most of the people he knows have a b.s. Does not mean most people with a b.s. Can get the job.

Thanks, these are some good points. Do you happen to know where they went to undergraduate for chemistry? I am surprised that a school would grant a BS in chemistry and not require enough physics to meet requirements. I know some schools allow chemistry and biology students to take non-calculus based physics, that is the only thing I can really think of.

Yeah, like I said, I know almost nothing about this stuff. One went to a good public school (like Cal, UT, UVA, Mich., UW, UMN, etc.). The other one I don't know off the top of my head. I just want you to be sure either that you're eligible or that the requirements will be easy enough to complete in law school.

Also, as I understand it, Different sub fields of IP are concentrated in different places (like biochem in San Diego, Comp Sci in SV, etc.). Also something I know very little about, but I would also want to be sure that the type of work you want to do (and will be qualified to do) is something that has a real presence in Chicago.

[KMart]

If you can get off the WL at NU/Chi that might be your best bet. Otherwise I'd lean WUSTL. Depending on how debt-averse you are it might be UIUC.

[Big Dog]

unless your family is wealthy, Michigan at sticker is always a bad idea.

[pamphleteer]

If you're 100% certain you want to practice in Chicago and nowhere else, take the full ride at Illinois.

Are you on hold at Northwestern or actually waitlisted? I would think your numbers should get you in there off hold if you have any post-undergrad work experience. NU at sticker vs. Illinois for free is a more difficult decision but I'd take the full ride at UIUC over sticker at Michigan every time.

[boognish42]

Haha, that is what I figured, definitely no trust fund here.

[boognish42]

If you're 100% certain you want to practice in Chicago and nowhere else, take the full ride at Illinois.

Are you on hold at Northwestern or actually waitlisted? I would think your numbers should get you in there off hold if you have any post-undergrad work experience. NU at sticker vs. Illinois for free is a more difficult decision but I'd take the full ride at UIUC over sticker at Michigan every time.

I am on hold. I have been working in a medical laboratory for seven years, so I figured that and my splitter status were going to make NU my most likely acceptance among the t14.

[star fox]

Illinois.