NU vs Cornell vs GW for IP Forum

[kapenak]

Hi guys

It's getting that time that I have to decide where to make that first deposit and I'm wondering if you guys can pitch in some advice. I have a bs and masters in engineering and am looking to get into IP law. I applied this cycle and have narrowed my choices down to these:

- NU at sticker
- Cornell at sticker
- GW with a 120k scholly

Which option would be better and yield the highest return in the long run? Obviously NU and Cornell have better names but GW is cheaper and a well known school for IP. Any help appreciated!!

[trmckenz]

What kind of engineering? Do you have any work experience? Where do you want to practice after graduation?

[kapenak]

What kind of engineering? Do you have any work experience? Where do you want to practice after graduation?

Mech e ece, nyc or dc but chicago is good too. And no work experience

[kingpin101]

If I were you I would retake and get some WE, but going to GW with 120k and an ece degree isn't a terrible idea. Going to NU and Cornell sticker is a terrible idea though.

[rpupkin]

What do you mean by "IP law"? Are you gunning for patent prosecution? Patent litigation? Something else?

[kapenak]

What do you mean by "IP law"? Are you gunning for patent prosecution? Patent litigation? Something else?

Yes patent pros/lit. Havent made up my mind but leaning more towards lit

[rpupkin]

What do you mean by "IP law"? Are you gunning for patent prosecution? Patent litigation? Something else?

Yes patent pros/lit. Havent made up my mind but leaning more towards lit

That matters. If you were set on pros, I'd think that GW with $$$ would be tcr. But if you're leaning towards lit, NU and Cornell will give you a meaningful bump over GW.

However, you shouldn't attend Cornell or NU at sticker. What's your GPA/LSAT? Any reason you aren't retaking the LSAT?

[trmckenz]

GW is your best option. rpupkin is right in that having some work experience would help, but your engineering background is perfect for IP law. Each of the schools you listed will give you great options in patent prosecution, either IP boutique or BigLaw (assuming your grades aren't horrible and you can show a glimmer of a personality in an interview). It is fairly easy to switch to patent litigation from patent prosecution. I would focus on minimizing your debt, and $120k at GW is a solid offer.

[kapenak]

What do you mean by "IP law"? Are you gunning for patent prosecution? Patent litigation? Something else?

Yes patent pros/lit. Havent made up my mind but leaning more towards lit

That matters. If you were set on pros, I'd think that GW with $$$ would be tcr. But if you're leaning towards lit, NU and Cornell will give you a meaningful bump over GW.

However, you shouldn't attend Cornell or NU at sticker. What's your GPA/LSAT? Any reason you aren't retaking the LSAT?

Already sat out a year for the lsat and did well but my gpa is rather low for higher ranked schools. At this point retaking isnt an option, so I just wanna make the best decision moving forward

[rpupkin]

What do you mean by "IP law"? Are you gunning for patent prosecution? Patent litigation? Something else?

Yes patent pros/lit. Havent made up my mind but leaning more towards lit

That matters. If you were set on pros, I'd think that GW with $$$ would be tcr. But if you're leaning towards lit, NU and Cornell will give you a meaningful bump over GW.

However, you shouldn't attend Cornell or NU at sticker. What's your GPA/LSAT? Any reason you aren't retaking the LSAT?

Already sat out a year for the lsat and did well but my gpa is rather low for higher ranked schools. At this point retaking isnt an option, so I just wanna make the best decision moving forward

What will your total COA be at each school?

[Otunga]

2-5 years experience as an engineer would probably make you even more competitive for IP jobs. Why not go that direction and save money before going to law school? That said, if your number one career goal has always been to become a lawyer and you must go now, take GW.

[L’Étranger]

2-5 years experience as an engineer would probably make you even more competitive for IP jobs. Why not go that direction and save money before going to law school? That said, if your number one career goal has always been to become a lawyer and you must go now, take GW.

Where are you getting this experience needed stuff from? For someone with a terminal degree in engineering experience may matter a tiny bit for prosecution and probably not at all for lit.

As already stated, if patent prosecution, GW is fine.

If IP litigation, consider retaking for scholarship at T14.

[Otunga]

2-5 years experience as an engineer would probably make you even more competitive for IP jobs. Why not go that direction and save money before going to law school? That said, if your number one career goal has always been to become a lawyer and you must go now, take GW.

Where are you getting this experience needed stuff from? For someone with a terminal degree in engineering experience may matter a tiny bit for prosecution and probably not at all for lit.

As already stated, if patent prosecution, GW is fine.

If IP litigation, consider retaking for scholarship at T14.

Maybe that's correct. In any case, it doesn't hurt to get technical work experience before gaining debt and giving up 3 years of opportunity cost. At least then OP would have savings, less debt, and would no doubt be a better interviewer when applying for law jobs.

[kapenak]

Ive always wanted law so I dont really want to work as an engineer. My goal is to be a lawyer. I figure my family will chip in 20k a year, so I will graduate with around 60k debt. I wouldnt mind prosecution, but think lit would be more exciting and a better fit for me

[Otunga]

Ive always wanted law so I dont really want to work as an engineer. My goal is to be a lawyer. I figure my family will chip in 20k a year, so I will graduate with around 60k debt. I wouldnt mind prosecution, but think lit would be more exciting and a better fit for me

Well, 60k debt can be handled even if end up without a law job and/or hate lawyering, so if you feel this strongly about law school, then GW is a solid choice in this context.

[orangered]

2-5 years experience as an engineer would probably make you even more competitive for IP jobs. Why not go that direction and save money before going to law school? That said, if your number one career goal has always been to become a lawyer and you must go now, take GW.

Where are you getting this experience needed stuff from? For someone with a terminal degree in engineering experience may matter a tiny bit for prosecution and probably not at all for lit.

As already stated, if patent prosecution, GW is fine.

If IP litigation, consider retaking for scholarship at T14.

I agree with L'Etranger, don't work in industry for any amount of time. It's not useful for IP lit and marginally useful for pros but not worth giving up the opportunity cost of starting your career earlier. If you don't want to retake I'd go for GW. The $120k is too much to pass up, and you'll have more fun going to a school with an IP focus.

[JohnQ3]

Is patent law a good idea given that the value of patents has been decreasing over the last 10 years?

IMO, the US will soon no longer be the leader in IP.

[rpupkin]

Is patent law a good idea given that the value of patents has been decreasing over the last 10 years?

Source?

[JohnQ3]

Is patent law a good idea given that the value of patents has been decreasing over the last 10 years?

Source?

School of hard knocks. Patent reform. Supreme court. Open your eyes.

[totesTheGoat]

2-5 years experience as an engineer would probably make you even more competitive for IP jobs. Why not go that direction and save money before going to law school? That said, if your number one career goal has always been to become a lawyer and you must go now, take GW.

Where are you getting this experience needed stuff from? For someone with a terminal degree in engineering experience may matter a tiny bit for prosecution and probably not at all for lit.

As already stated, if patent prosecution, GW is fine.

If IP litigation, consider retaking for scholarship at T14.

It's not needed, but it's definitely preferred. I don't know where people are getting the idea that technical experience isn't really valued in patent law. Generally, the top firms are looking for a PhD or 2-3 years of work experience in their ideal candidate, even for EE. Sure, you can get hired without those credentials, but you're going to get beat every time by the person who has that experience.

[L’Étranger]

2-5 years experience as an engineer would probably make you even more competitive for IP jobs. Why not go that direction and save money before going to law school? That said, if your number one career goal has always been to become a lawyer and you must go now, take GW.

Where are you getting this experience needed stuff from? For someone with a terminal degree in engineering experience may matter a tiny bit for prosecution and probably not at all for lit.

As already stated, if patent prosecution, GW is fine.

If IP litigation, consider retaking for scholarship at T14.

It's not needed, but it's definitely preferred. I don't know where people are getting the idea that technical experience isn't really valued in patent law. Generally, the top firms are looking for a PhD or 2-3 years of work experience in their ideal candidate, even for EE. Sure, you can get hired without those credentials, but you're going to get beat every time by the person who has that experience.

You turned my qualified statement into an absolute, and you're not distinguishing between patent pros and patent lit which kind of indicates that you're making stuff up.

Yes, all things being equal, an applicant with x years of specialized experience has some edge over the comparable applicant with none with respect to patent prosecution.

However, the edge isn't really that great. Typically, having a scientific degree for pros is about being patent registration eligible and being generally comfortable/proficient with the material in your general area of expertise. At a certain point, one becomes proficient in certain fields without the work experience, so it's not really that valuable. For example, life science PhD students do rigorous coursework and research as part of their degree. Work experience i.e. more research beyond the Phd terminal degree typically doesn't add much in terms of pros work because you're already proficient in the general scientific area that your PhD is in. The same holds true for advanced engineering degrees.

For patent lit, work experience matters even less. Grades, class rank, law review, and school totally trump scientific background for lit. A terminal scientific degree for patent lit is considered a nice to have, but won't get you a job without the other factors being right. Thus, experience on top of the nice to have terminal degree for lit likely doesn't really matter at all.

[totesTheGoat]

you're not distinguishing between patent pros and patent lit which kind of indicates that you're making stuff up.

Of course it matters less in lit. You don't have a registration requirement to overcome. However, I've had more than one senior patent litigator tell me that they look for prosecution experience when hiring new litigators. They say it makes for a better patent litigator. What's helpful if you want to do patent prosecution? Work experience.

Besides, the line between pros and lit is getting a little blurry at some firms with all the post grant stuff.

Yes, all things being equal, an applicant with x years of specialized experience has some edge over the comparable applicant with none with respect to patent prosecution.

However, the edge isn't really that great.

I think you're underselling this. Work experience, especially with a MS, isn't going to automatically vault you to the top of the resume stack, but it's more than some tertiary consideration. I've been told by hiring partners at more than one firm that they look for at least 3 years of work experience, a PhD, or some combination of work experience and advanced degree. I definitely got the sense that just having an MS wasn't "ideal." Granted, beggars can't be choosers, and having an MSEE puts you above 75% of the applicant pool at most firms.

Typically, having a scientific degree for pros is about being patent registration eligible and being generally comfortable/proficient with the material in your general area of expertise.

That may be how some firms approach it, but I find it more common that they're looking for people who have expertise rather than proficiency. Why hire someone who is merely proficient in EE when you can hire an expert in telecom who is also proficient in the other areas of EE? Then, when your next telecom app comes along, you have an expert to either draft it or provide technical support to the person who drafts it.


I think the difference in our approaches is about whether the OP's goal is to have good IP opportunities or whether OP wants the option to choose the best IP opportunities. All of my classmates and coworkers who went K-BS?E-JD (even with an advanced engineering degree) have good job outcomes. They are (or will be) making market+ at stable boutiques and biglaw firms. The handful who have significant work experience (and/or PhDs) had those jobs offered to them before they were extended to our classmates and coworkers. I only know one guy who (only) has an MSEE, and he has significant work experience. Needless to say, the world is his oyster.

[Otunga]

2-5 years experience as an engineer would probably make you even more competitive for IP jobs. Why not go that direction and save money before going to law school? That said, if your number one career goal has always been to become a lawyer and you must go now, take GW.

Where are you getting this experience needed stuff from? For someone with a terminal degree in engineering experience may matter a tiny bit for prosecution and probably not at all for lit.

As already stated, if patent prosecution, GW is fine.

If IP litigation, consider retaking for scholarship at T14.

For patent lit, work experience matters even less. Grades, class rank, law review, and school totally trump scientific background for lit. A terminal scientific degree for patent lit is considered a nice to have, but won't get you a job without the other factors being right. Thus, experience on top of the nice to have terminal degree for lit likely doesn't really matter at all.

Given these statements, I get the impression that technical work experience, in general, does NOT make one a better patent litigator; otherwise, firms would value it more.

[L’Étranger]

2-5 years experience as an engineer would probably make you even more competitive for IP jobs. Why not go that direction and save money before going to law school? That said, if your number one career goal has always been to become a lawyer and you must go now, take GW.

Where are you getting this experience needed stuff from? For someone with a terminal degree in engineering experience may matter a tiny bit for prosecution and probably not at all for lit.

As already stated, if patent prosecution, GW is fine.

If IP litigation, consider retaking for scholarship at T14.

For patent lit, work experience matters even less. Grades, class rank, law review, and school totally trump scientific background for lit. A terminal scientific degree for patent lit is considered a nice to have, but won't get you a job without the other factors being right. Thus, experience on top of the nice to have terminal degree for lit likely doesn't really matter at all.

Given these statements, I get the impression that technical work experience, in general, does NOT make one a better patent litigator; otherwise, firms would value it more.

Yup. I think that's right.

[orangered]

Of course it matters less in lit. You don't have a registration requirement to overcome. However, I've had more than one senior patent litigator tell me that they look for prosecution experience when hiring new litigators. They say it makes for a better patent litigator. What's helpful if you want to do patent prosecution? Work experience.

IME this really depends on the firm. What you say is absolutely true for patent "boutiques" (and I use that word loosely because some of them are huge) that also do lit. Fish, Finnegan, Cooley, etc. But it's definitely not true as you move to firms that do little to no pros like Irell, QE, even MoFo (sorry in advance for my CA bias). There, they'll take HYS + law clerk types 9 times out of 10 over an MSEE from a lower-ranked school.

This might have to do with the idea that, at least historically, associates in the patent boutiques would mix pros and lit, whereas lit GP firms borrowed their prestige obsession from other fields of litigation. And I think this is borne out if you look at the attorney profiles at each firm. Maybe it's also related to the PPP => vault ranking => preftige => desirability circlejerk that goes on at top schools.

I think the difference in our approaches is about whether the OP's goal is to have good IP opportunities or whether OP wants the option to choose the best IP opportunities. All of my classmates and coworkers who went K-BS?E-JD (even with an advanced engineering degree) have good job outcomes. They are (or will be) making market+ at stable boutiques and biglaw firms. The handful who have significant work experience (and/or PhDs) had those jobs offered to them before they were extended to our classmates and coworkers. I only know one guy who (only) has an MSEE, and he has significant work experience. Needless to say, the world is his oyster.

How do you distinguish "good" and "best"? Sounds like everyone in your example got market paying jobs in the end. What difference does it make if you got your job during 1L or at OCI?