Top Law Schools

I have a 3.36 at Clemson University. I am graduating with a BS in biochemistry and a minor in chemistry. My question is I am taking the LSAT again next Monday (I got a 156 the first time). I plan on making at least a 160 but my GPA is not the best. Do law schools consider the major/degree when looking at applicants? I plan on going into intellectual law with patent prosecution so I can combine by STEM background with law.
Law Schools I am considering: University of South Carolina, SMU, William & Mary, Washington & Lee, UNC - Chapel Hill, and Tulane.

I think law schools look at STEM more favorably and get a slight boost, but it is still mostly a numbers game. They'd still rather take the english major with a 3.6 and a 168 than a STEM grad with a 3.3 and 162

adc3 wrote:I have a 3.36 at Clemson University. I am graduating with a BS in biochemistry and a minor in chemistry. My question is I am taking the LSAT again next Monday (I got a 156 the first time). I plan on making at least a 160 but my GPA is not the best. Do law schools consider the major/degree when looking at applicants? I plan on going into intellectual law with patent prosecution so I can combine by STEM background with law.
Law Schools I am considering: University of South Carolina, SMU, William & Mary, Washington & Lee, UNC - Chapel Hill, and Tulane.

Law schools usually give you a very slight edge for being a STEM major, but it is basically a “soft” factor. It won’t overcome a bad GPA or a mediocre LSAT.

Also, you should be aware that most patent prosecution groups won’t hire somebody only with a BS in biochemistry.

I’m not sure if you are serious about prosecution, or if you were just spitballing ideas for what you would do with a JD. But if your long-term goal is *actually* going to a regional school and doing prosecution, you should talk to some prosecutors and get a sense of the job market and/or the benefits of starting as a patent agent.

Prosecution is also a very unique niche so I would recommend serious investigation before committing to a career doing it. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad niche by any means, but it's just night-and-day apart from what people usually think of when they imagine doing legal work. It's more science than law, really, as patent examiners generally have no legal training. I have yet to hear of a case where one was able to convince an examiner to withdraw a rejection based on legal arguments. (Legal arguments work before the PTAB, but 99% of prosecution doesn't involve appealing to the PTAB.)

QContinuum wrote:I have yet to hear of a case where one was able to convince an examiner to withdraw a rejection based on legal arguments. (Legal arguments work before the PTAB, but 99% of prosecution doesn't involve appealing to the PTAB.)

99% of patent prosecution involves appealing to the PTO for official actions, not rejections as such, which requires extensive legal arguments. All you do as a patent prosecutor is file applications and write legal arguments. Did you just google this and give this poster a cobbled misunderstood answer or something?

chenin_blanc wrote:

QContinuum wrote:I have yet to hear of a case where one was able to convince an examiner to withdraw a rejection based on legal arguments. (Legal arguments work before the PTAB, but 99% of prosecution doesn't involve appealing to the PTAB.)

99% of patent prosecution involves appealing to the PTO for official actions, not rejections as such, which requires extensive legal arguments. All you do as a patent prosecutor is file applications and write legal arguments. Did you just google this and give this poster a cobbled misunderstood answer or something?

Do you have any experience doing prosecution? No patent prosecutor spends "99%" of their time "appealing". That would be tremendously inefficient, not to mention a tremendous waste of client funds.

Responses to office actions (not "appeals") can involve legal arguments, but "extensive legal arguments" don't tend to fly, at least not in the U.S. US patent examiners 1) generally have no legal training or expertise, but 2) usually tend to think they understand the law better than JDs. I'm sure there are rare exceptions, but again, I have never experienced or heard of an examiner withdrawing a rejection because they were convinced by the prosecutor's legal arguments or caselaw citations. A successful response (if the goal is to get the examiner to withdraw a rejection - this may not always be the goal) is heavy on technical arguments and involves at least a few narrowing claim amendments to sweeten the deal for the examiner - but tends to be light on the legal arguments.

0%