Serious splitter with IP interest/science background Forum

[101dollnations]

Hi everyone,

Longtime lurker.

Does anyone here have any idea how someone hoping to go into IP (and with a hard science bg) would differ in their analysis of schools from the typical K-JD arts candidate?
About me:

LSAT - 174
cGPA - 2.78 (upward trend; 3.5 by final year, but horrible first year. Every year higher than last)

Majored in neuroscience and biology. Interested in IP. Strongish softs (University's Board of Governors, worked with an internationally-regarded prof on senior thesis). 1 year work experience doing medical research for a well-regarded world-class medical research company.

I know I should only be looking T14 generally, but does the science background/IP-potential make it safer to dip down lower in the first tier?

Thanks!

[thequigley]

You're not getting T14. Your safety "dipping" into the lower 1st tier is thus your only option.

[101dollnations]

Alright, then. I know going below T14 at sticker is generally a tragic life decision when it comes to employment prospects. Any indication it's ameliorated by the decision to take the patent law route, or is it equally a fool's errand at this point?

[FSK]

With patent law, firms right now dip much deeper in the class in hiring. For example, at GW, generally top 1/3 makes you in play for big law, but top 1/2 is good with a hard science background.

However, just a B.S. in a life science isn't going to cut it for many of these firms. You need a PhD in a life science, or preferably an M.S. in Ee/Cs. A BS is sufficient if you have excellent grades, putting you back in the place of your normal class mates.

There's no guarantee that this will be the same when you go through OCI (although no indication it won't be). There's also no guarantee you'll be above median/ top 1/3.

[daleearnhardt123]

I've heard that it's safer for someone in your shoes. But, obviously, apply broadly. Your cycle will be unpredictable.

Anecdotally I have a friend at a Top50 who was a touch above median but scored one of those mythical midlaw IP firms that pays about 100k in a secondary. He attributes his luck to a bioengineering degree.

[daleearnhardt123]

With patent law, firms right now dip much deeper in the class in hiring. For example, at GW, generally top 1/3 makes you in play for big law, but top 1/2 is good with a hard science background.

However, just a B.S. in a life science isn't going to cut it for many of these firms. You need a PhD in a life science, or preferably an M.S. in Ee/Cs. A BS is sufficient if you have excellent grades, putting you back in the place of your normal class mates.

There's no guarantee that this will be the same when you go through OCI (although no indication it won't be). There's also no guarantee you'll be above median/ top 1/3.

This is too pessimistic. Also parts of this post don't make sense. If you have a BS you then have to do excellent to be in the same position as your basket-weaving degree peers? Uh, no.

[FSK]

With patent law, firms right now dip much deeper in the class in hiring. For example, at GW, generally top 1/3 makes you in play for big law, but top 1/2 is good with a hard science background.

However, just a B.S. in a life science isn't going to cut it for many of these firms. You need a PhD in a life science, or preferably an M.S. in Ee/Cs. A BS is sufficient if you have excellent grades, putting you back in the place of your normal class mates.

There's no guarantee that this will be the same when you go through OCI (although no indication it won't be). There's also no guarantee you'll be above median/ top 1/3.

This is too pessimistic. Also parts of this post don't make sense. If you have a BS you then have to do excellent to be in the same position as your basket-weaving degree peers? Uh, no.

B.S. makes you patent bar eligible. Everything I've heard, from TLS and my friends going through the process, is that it doesn't make you any more than eligible for Lit or prosecution with a life sciences B.S.

Also, this is the proper level of pessimism.

[4lg2lb]

Based on my experiences, here are some of the problems you’re going to run into with those scores and a desire to do patent law (for reference: BSEE, 3.01 uGPA, 166 LSAT, 3 yrs WE).

With your uGPA score what it is, many straight patent prosecution firms will balk at hiring you. The people doing the biotech patents, plant patents, and genome shit usually have at least a masters. Also for some reason many engineers going to law school have substantive work experience. One year at a company won’t stand out as much as you think.

My school places our top 10-15% in biglaw. I know several people in the top 1/3 with non-EE engineering and life sciences degrees that were shut-out at OCI and PLIP (the big patent law job fair). There was also a guy in my class with a masters in EE who just didn’t get law school exams and ended up in the bottom half after 1L. Firms weren’t willing to overlook that. Don’t be that guy.

It sounds like you have a good thing going for you with your current job. You might have to make a hard decision and decide if law school is really in your best financial interest.

If you must go to law school, be sure to look at the location of the school you attend. Outside the T14 the geographic location of your school gets more important. Try looking at the University of Houston. It’s located in decent legal market with plenty of small, medium, and large patent firms. GW and Georgetown have night programs, which may allow you to work at the patent office or a patent firm during the day as an examiner/agent. Alternatively you could do a 1 year non-thesis masters. While I don’t believe your graduate GPA this will affect your LSAC GPA, your LSAT is good for 5 years and having the masters on your resume could help your job placement.

Hope this helps you make a decision. Good Luck.

[101dollnations]

That's really quite helpful! I noticed it's your first post, too -- thank you so much for posting!!

[yot11]

I would not bank on your BS in neuroscience and biology helping you fight above your weight class (either in admissions or OCI), even for IP.

For patent prosecution, law firms only want to hire people that their clients will agree to work with. You should know (since you worked with a PI for your thesis) that people working in life sciences, ESPECIALLY biology, look down on anyone in the field without a PhD, because virtually everyone actually working in biology has a PhD.

This is less true for engineers, where a lot of people working in the field have only a BS or MS, so they will not look down on you for not having a PhD.

Not trying to bring you down, just trying to ground your expectations in reality.

[Yardbird]

I would not bank on your BS in neuroscience and biology helping you fight above your weight class (either in admissions or OCI), even for IP.

For patent prosecution, law firms only want to hire people that their clients will agree to work with. You should know (since you worked with a PI for your thesis) that people working in life sciences, ESPECIALLY biology, look down on anyone in the field without a PhD, because virtually everyone actually working in biology has a PhD.

This is less true for engineers, where a lot of people working in the field have only a BS or MS, so they will not look down on you for not having a PhD.

Not trying to bring you down, just trying to ground your expectations in reality.

TL;DR: Watch the Big Bang Theory for a quick look at how scientists view non-PhD degrees.