Top Law Schools

35k per year at American University, renewable at 2l and 3l.

With a master of engineering in ee/cs degree I'm thinking about IP law, just found out they are ranked 9th this year in IP specialty.

I'm also waiting for my offer from UC hasting which makes tier 1 this year, should I take the offer from AU or wait for hastings?

GPA/LSAT? # of takes/more information would help. American at that much debt is very very bad. Specialty rankings mean virtually nothing.

If you take and pass the patent bar before law school, it's worth it. Otherwise, it's a tough call.

Dr. Nefario wrote:GPA/LSAT? # of takes/more information would help. American at that much debt is very very bad. Specialty rankings mean virtually nothing.

Yeah, I wonder what those specialty ranking mean, exactly. I mean, to make the point, American is ranked above both Harvard and Yale in this IP ranking, but clearly one would not choose American over those schools if they are interested in IP. Agree with previous poster, need more info, but 35k/yr for American is a dubious choice.

Better off going into engineering than that much debt at a mediocre school.

A masters degree in engineering will get you the same outcome or better than any law school other than the T-10. Save yourself the debt

kwabedi wrote:A masters degree in engineering will get you the same outcome or better than any law school other than the T-10. Save yourself the debt

Lol... Good ol' TLS wisdom.

OP: if you go to either of those schools you are essentially committing yourself to a career in patent prosecution. Do you know that's what you want to do with absolute certainty? It's not for everyone. If you end up hating it you will have wasted years and hundreds of thousands in opportunity costs. If you're absolutely sure, go to whichever school ends up cheaper.

Also in law specialty rankings are worthless*. A school is only as good as its general rank - which is pretty bad for either of these schools.

* There is an exception, but it doesn't apply to you.

Nammertat wrote:

kwabedi wrote:A masters degree in engineering will get you the same outcome or better than any law school other than the T-10. Save yourself the debt

Lol... Good ol' TLS wisdom.

Not TLS wisdom.... If I had a masters in engineering I would run with it lol.

kwabedi wrote:

Nammertat wrote:

kwabedi wrote:A masters degree in engineering will get you the same outcome or better than any law school other than the T-10. Save yourself the debt

Lol... Good ol' TLS wisdom.

Not TLS wisdom.... If I had a masters in engineering I would run with it lol.

How can you be so sure? The grass is always greener.

OP, if you're all about that IP life and don't have a dramatically better offer on the table, AU will serve your needs just fine. Several classmates of mine into that are just counting the days till graduation to be begin their gov or firm IP jobs. Also, Prof Carroll, who heads the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property is makes a pretty remarkable semester and I only had him for first year Ks.

orangered wrote:OP: if you go to either of those schools you are essentially committing yourself to a career in patent prosecution. Do you know that's what you want to do with absolute certainty? It's not for everyone. If you end up hating it you will have wasted years and hundreds of thousands in opportunity costs. If you're absolutely sure, go to whichever school ends up cheaper.

Also in law specialty rankings are worthless*. A school is only as good as its general rank - which is pretty bad for either of these schools.

* There is an exception, but it doesn't apply to you.

I'd say yes I'm kind of determined on IP, but just don't know if either of these schools can secure me a job. Do I have to be at least top 10-20% ?

orangered wrote:

kwabedi wrote:

Nammertat wrote:

kwabedi wrote:A masters degree in engineering will get you the same outcome or better than any law school other than the T-10. Save yourself the debt

Lol... Good ol' TLS wisdom.

Not TLS wisdom.... If I had a masters in engineering I would run with it lol.

How can you be so sure? The grass is always greener.

Yup. Got masters. Went to law school.

OP, be a patent agent first. If I could do it over again, I would have done that.

SplitMyPants wrote:

orangered wrote:

kwabedi wrote:

Nammertat wrote:

kwabedi wrote:A masters degree in engineering will get you the same outcome or better than any law school other than the T-10. Save yourself the debt

Lol... Good ol' TLS wisdom.

Not TLS wisdom.... If I had a masters in engineering I would run with it lol.

How can you be so sure? The grass is always greener.

Yup. Got masters. Went to law school.

OP, be a patent agent first. If I could do it over again, I would have done that.

This is actually good advice.

Source: got masters, was patent agent, made sure I liked the law, got a solid LSAT score, now at a good school and enjoying life.

Also, you will avoid the issue I faced during interviewing, which was that I wanted to go to a place where I could definitely get pros experience but everyone pushes you toward IP lit. Some firms (Ropes/Fish) go so far as to only hire patent agents to do pros and all the JDs they hire into the IP group are for lit. Added bonus: go do pros at one of those shops and they may pay for your law school down the road.

SplitMyPants wrote:Also, you will avoid the issue I faced during interviewing, which was that I wanted to go to a place where I could definitely get pros experience but everyone pushes you toward IP lit. Some firms (Ropes/Fish) go so far as to only hire patent agents to do pros and all the JDs they hire into the IP group are for lit. Added bonus: go do pros at one of those shops and they may pay for your law school down the road.

WOW, do all IP Boutiques go to extremes like that ? I believe I learned from TLS that about 90% of the time patent lawyers are doing pros work.

jrwhitedog wrote:

SplitMyPants wrote:Also, you will avoid the issue I faced during interviewing, which was that I wanted to go to a place where I could definitely get pros experience but everyone pushes you toward IP lit. Some firms (Ropes/Fish) go so far as to only hire patent agents to do pros and all the JDs they hire into the IP group are for lit. Added bonus: go do pros at one of those shops and they may pay for your law school down the road.

WOW, do all IP Boutiques go to extremes like that ? I believe I learned from TLS that about 90% of the time patent lawyers are doing pros work.

Not 100% sure. I'm pretty sure Finnegan, Fitzpatrick, Knobbe, and Kenyon (to the extent they'll still be around) are not like that. But they seem to still ultimately hire mostly into lit bc its the bulk of the revenue stream.

You will find most of the pros in DC and the Bay Area. But regardless of where you practice, having the JD makes you more expensive than the patent agent to do basically the same job...


ETA: I'm just a lowly student, not a practitioner, and am referring mostly to interviewing. I'm not necessarily saying that firms who represent to you that you can do pros will "push" you into lit after you start. I'm saying that if you are trying to go into pros, you may be steered toward lit.

SplitMyPants wrote:

jrwhitedog wrote:

SplitMyPants wrote:Also, you will avoid the issue I faced during interviewing, which was that I wanted to go to a place where I could definitely get pros experience but everyone pushes you toward IP lit. Some firms (Ropes/Fish) go so far as to only hire patent agents to do pros and all the JDs they hire into the IP group are for lit. Added bonus: go do pros at one of those shops and they may pay for your law school down the road.

WOW, do all IP Boutiques go to extremes like that ? I believe I learned from TLS that about 90% of the time patent lawyers are doing pros work.

Not 100% sure. I'm pretty sure Finnegan, Fitzpatrick, Knobbe, and Kenyon (to the extent they'll still be around) are not like that. But they seem to still ultimately hire mostly into lit bc its the bulk of the revenue stream.

You will find most of the pros in DC and the Bay Area. But regardless of where you practice, having the JD makes you more expensive than the patent agent to do basically the same job...

Yeah, makes sense. What about New York ?

jrwhitedog wrote:

SplitMyPants wrote:

jrwhitedog wrote:

SplitMyPants wrote:Also, you will avoid the issue I faced during interviewing, which was that I wanted to go to a place where I could definitely get pros experience but everyone pushes you toward IP lit. Some firms (Ropes/Fish) go so far as to only hire patent agents to do pros and all the JDs they hire into the IP group are for lit. Added bonus: go do pros at one of those shops and they may pay for your law school down the road.

WOW, do all IP Boutiques go to extremes like that ? I believe I learned from TLS that about 90% of the time patent lawyers are doing pros work.

Not 100% sure. I'm pretty sure Finnegan, Fitzpatrick, Knobbe, and Kenyon (to the extent they'll still be around) are not like that. But they seem to still ultimately hire mostly into lit bc its the bulk of the revenue stream.

You will find most of the pros in DC and the Bay Area. But regardless of where you practice, having the JD makes you more expensive than the patent agent to do basically the same job...

Yeah, makes sense. What about New York ?

PM'd