2.5 GPA Forum

[tesoro]

Unfortunately, a 2.5 GPA is going to be a really difficult number to get in to any T1 school without at least a 170+ LSAT.

Fortunately, with an EE degree, you can go to any TTT toilet and work in patent prep/pro/lit anyway.

So ultimately, if you don't hit PSU or Miami, it's OK.

Also, even if you raise your GPA you're fucked. 2.5 does you no better than a 2.8 because both of these are well below any respectable law school's median GPA. Just study your ass off for the LSAT and hit 160+ and go to a school with a respectable IP program.

You're being overly pessimistic. With my numbers, I got accepted at 3 T1's and WLed at 5 others. With a 170+ he'd be in pretty good shape at several T30 schools, including WUSTL, GW, UIUC, Iowa, and IU-B. If he can hit 172+, he's looking at a few T14's, including Northwestern, GULC, and possibly UVA ED and Cornell.

High LSATs are a LOT more rare than high GPAs, because they are curved across the entire applicant pool, whereas in theory there could be an infinite number of 4.0's, depending on the grading policies of undergraduate schools.

I think we're in full agreement. The pessimism is because the "With a 170+" is tentative, but we essentially said the same exact thing. Congrats on your cycle though, hopefully OP can actually achieve the 170+ and find a similar outcome.

[quadsixm]

[]

[lostjake]

Unfortunately, a 2.5 GPA is going to be a really difficult number to get in to any T1 school without at least a 170+ LSAT.

Fortunately, with an EE degree, you can go to any TTT toilet and work in patent prep/pro/lit anyway.
So ultimately, if you don't hit PSU or Miami, it's OK.

Also, even if you raise your GPA you're fucked. 2.5 does you no better than a 2.8 because both of these are well below any respectable law school's median GPA. Just study your ass off for the LSAT and hit 160+ and go to a school with a respectable IP program.

-1. Bad advice. Employers will look at your undergrad transcript if you want to get into patents. Many people here don't understand how engineering degrees work. First of all you may have an engineering degree, even an EE, but there are things called concentrations. If you don't have a concentration in a desired area you're SOL. Also if your engineering school was TTT you're SOL. Also if your GPA in engineering school was under a 3. you're SOL. If someone isn't going to hire you to work in a cube to calculate numbers why do you think they'll hire you to write out their patents? Also if you go to a TTT and even have a EE degree good luck finding a job.

[tesoro]

Unfortunately, a 2.5 GPA is going to be a really difficult number to get in to any T1 school without at least a 170+ LSAT.

Fortunately, with an EE degree, you can go to any TTT toilet and work in patent prep/pro/lit anyway.
So ultimately, if you don't hit PSU or Miami, it's OK.

Also, even if you raise your GPA you're fucked. 2.5 does you no better than a 2.8 because both of these are well below any respectable law school's median GPA. Just study your ass off for the LSAT and hit 160+ and go to a school with a respectable IP program.

-1. Bad advice. Employers will look at your undergrad transcript if you want to get into patents. Many people here don't understand how engineering degrees work. First of all you may have an engineering degree, even an EE, but there are things called concentrations. If you don't have a concentration in a desired area you're SOL. Also if your engineering school was TTT you're SOL. Also if your GPA in engineering school was under a 3. you're SOL. If someone isn't going to hire you to work in a cube to calculate numbers why do you think they'll hire you to write out their patents? Also if you go to a TTT and even have a EE degree good luck finding a job.

I have an EE degree and I fully understand how "it works." I work very closely with the legal side of patents. I'm not sure where you're coming from.

Concentration does not matter, period. Anyone who completed an EE degree is able to functionally understand anything related to communications, security or multiplexing with minimal training. Patents are very high level creatures. One does not need to understand OFDM technology such that they can formulate and derive equations, set up circuitry, or program a device to have OFDM functionality. One simply needs to be able to understand what the invention improves over the prior art in order to successfully draft a claim. A quick look at wikipedia, IEEE standards and similar patents would quickly bring anyone with an EE background up to speed. You simply need to be able to learn quickly and to be resourceful.

TTT engineering school does not help, nor does a <3.0 GPA, but these are not going to completely shut you out. Somebody, somewhere, at a small or mid sized patent-oriented firm will grant you an interview by virtue of you having "electrical engineering" and "law" on the same resume - this is NOT a common combination. If you can explain away the GPA and give an interviewer reason to believe that you're socially competent and resourceful enough to learn on the job, you're fine.

Also, there's no reason to believe OP is at a TTT engineering school (though he may be).

[lostjake]

I was speaking to your advice in general. And also, an engineer with a power concentration will have no idea whats going on in a complex circuit design. To say otherwise is pretty misleading, like your comment about going to a TTT with an EE degree and being able to find a job. Even the patent companies aren't hiring right now unless you have experience or a T1 degree.

[09042014]

I was speaking to your advice in general. And also, an engineer with a power concentration will have no idea whats going on in a complex circuit design. To say otherwise is pretty misleading, like your comment about going to a TTT with an EE degree and being able to find a job. Even the patent companies aren't hiring right now unless you have experience or a T1 degree.

My EE program had no formal concentrations, and I went to Illinois. There were unofficial concentrations, but they don't go on your transcript. Even if you took mostly power elective courses, you had to take circuitry courses.

[tesoro]

I was speaking to your advice in general. And also, an engineer with a power concentration will have no idea whats going on in a complex circuit design. To say otherwise is pretty misleading, like your comment about going to a TTT with an EE degree and being able to find a job. Even the patent companies aren't hiring right now unless you have experience or a T1 degree.

Circuit design is a very narrow class of patents. There are classes like the ones I named that an engineer with a power concentration could learn in a short period of time. Complex circuit design is not where the patents are right now - the backlog is growing exponentially in communications technologies. All accredited EEs are required to take signals classes, so the background is there, and any further technicalities can be trained at minimal cost and time.

You're assuming that the entire need for patent lawyers in the EE realm is satisfied by those with a T1 degree. This is not true. A smart and resourceful EE can go to TTT and do fine for himself. I know a few who have done just that, and know none who failed in chasing this. Anecdote? Yes. But telling.

[lostjake]

I was speaking to your advice in general. And also, an engineer with a power concentration will have no idea whats going on in a complex circuit design. To say otherwise is pretty misleading, like your comment about going to a TTT with an EE degree and being able to find a job. Even the patent companies aren't hiring right now unless you have experience or a T1 degree.

Circuit design is a very narrow class of patents. There are classes like the ones I named that an engineer with a power concentration could learn in a short period of time. Complex circuit design is not where the patents are right now - the backlog is growing exponentially in communications technologies. All accredited EEs are required to take signals classes, so the background is there, and any further technicalities can be trained at minimal cost and time.

You're assuming that the entire need for patent lawyers in the EE realm is satisfied by those with a T1 degree. This is not true. A smart and resourceful EE can go to TTT and do fine for himself. I know a few who have done just that, and know none who failed in chasing this. Anecdote? Yes. But telling.

Well, as you said you work for a patent company, how many EEs are you looking for currently? How many open positions do you know of? To say that you can learn any further technicalities at a minnimal cost is also misleading, you can teach ANY 300 level EE class to ANY engineer. Also if you want to be truthful you'll state that the USPTO is allowing patents more easily recently which is lowering the demand for patent agents and attorneys. To tell anyone to go to a TTT with a 2.5 GPA is misleading.

[tesoro]

I was speaking to your advice in general. And also, an engineer with a power concentration will have no idea whats going on in a complex circuit design. To say otherwise is pretty misleading, like your comment about going to a TTT with an EE degree and being able to find a job. Even the patent companies aren't hiring right now unless you have experience or a T1 degree.

Circuit design is a very narrow class of patents. There are classes like the ones I named that an engineer with a power concentration could learn in a short period of time. Complex circuit design is not where the patents are right now - the backlog is growing exponentially in communications technologies. All accredited EEs are required to take signals classes, so the background is there, and any further technicalities can be trained at minimal cost and time.

You're assuming that the entire need for patent lawyers in the EE realm is satisfied by those with a T1 degree. This is not true. A smart and resourceful EE can go to TTT and do fine for himself. I know a few who have done just that, and know none who failed in chasing this. Anecdote? Yes. But telling.

Well, as you said you work for a patent company, how many EEs are you looking for currently? How many open positions do you know of? To say that you can learn any further technicalities at a minnimal cost is also misleading, you can teach ANY 300 level EE class to ANY engineer. Also if you want to be truthful you'll state that the USPTO is allowing patents more easily recently which is lowering the demand for patent agents and attorneys. To tell anyone to go to a TTT with a 2.5 GPA is misleading.

Meh. Without going into detail, I do not work for a law firm.

But to help answer your question as best I can, as a concerned 0L, I asked a friend (also EE) who does prep and pro for a large firm what the hiring situation was like in his office and if he or his colleagues are sweating layoffs. He said they hired their largest class of associates this year, economy be damned.

He went to Temple.

Your comment about teaching any 300 level EE class to any engineer reaffirms the point I'm making: concentration does not matter. Training is cheap and quick.

The rate at which the USPTO is allowing patents is slightly higher. Not enough to significantly affect the market.

edit to clarify: associates in his division. Not cumulatively through the firm.

[lostjake]

Patent search company?

[tesoro]

Patent search company?

Not relevant.

[lostjake]

Patent search company?

Not relevant.

It is for the Lulz!

[romothesavior]

Question for DF (or other engineers): Why do they set the curve so low? I personally think curve-grading is a very good way to grade, but why not set the curve higher so that you engineer people aren't getting f*cked when you decide to switch over to LS or something else? They could keep the tests insanely hard, but just set it so that the average grades look more like the average grades of liberal arts students or something.

It seems like you guys are getting screwed for taking a major that would destroy most of the people on TLS.

[lostjake]

Question for DF (or other engineers): Why do they set the curve so low? I personally think curve-grading is a very good way to grade, but why not set the curve higher so that you engineer people aren't getting f*cked when you decide to switch over to LS or something else? They could keep the tests insanely hard, but just set it so that the average grades look more like the average grades of liberal arts students or something.

It seems like you guys are getting screwed for taking a major that would destroy most of the people on TLS.

C is supposed to be an average grade, the real question is why is grade inflation everywhere in LA colleges? Answer?! Because they can't find jobs and GPA matters in getting into graduate studies. As an engineer a 3. was/is the magical number. With it you can find a job paying over 50k a year, without it you're in the LA food stamp line.

[tesoro]

Question for DF (or other engineers): Why do they set the curve so low? I personally think curve-grading is a very good way to grade, but why not set the curve higher so that you engineer people aren't getting f*cked when you decide to switch over to LS or something else? They could keep the tests insanely hard, but just set it so that the average grades look more like the average grades of liberal arts students or something.

It seems like you guys are getting screwed for taking a major that would destroy most of the people on TLS.

Engineering schools arent worried about your ability to go to law school or wall street. They're protecting the profession.

The curve is sent to something reasonable like a B-. This allows for a large spread to make the relative ability of one engineer to the next readily apparent.

Setting the curve to a B+ or higher like a lot of other disciplines do doesnt allow for a lot of color (i.e., if half the class is getting an A- or better, it doesnt help employers in discerning the cream of the crop).

I have no problem with the curve. Friends with 2.3s have great jobs. Friends with 3.7s have great jobs. I had friends in my class all across the spectrum and know 0 of them who did not get jobs that rely on their experience. The latter have jobs that are more prestigious than the former. But the curve does not hurt us unless we leave the profession.

[lostjake]

Dude, do you seriously know of someone with a 2.3 GPA that found a job without experience or family connections? And seriously most engineering firms hire someone, and it doesn't matter if they have a 4. or a 3. they get paid the same amount starting and go from there. Engineering isn't like law school, there isn't sh@tlaw and biglaw, prestigious engineering jobs are just jobs, unless you're not really an engineer and doing some really crappy job with the degree hanging in your cube and claim because you're an engineer that you're doing an engineer job.

[tesoro]

Dude, do you seriously know of someone with a 2.3 GPA that found a job without experience or family connections? And seriously most engineering firms hire someone, and it doesn't matter if they have a 4. or a 3. they get paid the same amount starting and go from there. Engineering isn't like law school, there isn't sh@tlaw and biglaw, prestigious engineering jobs are just jobs, unless you're not really an engineer and doing some really crappy job with the degree hanging in your cube and claim because you're an engineer that you're doing an engineer job.

Yeah. I have a buddy whose family has literally never left a few hours outside of our college town. He was born and raised there. 2.3 GPA. It took him a few months after graduation, but a firm on the other side of the country offered him a job. He's traveling the world now consulting at firms that contract his company. Coolest job I know and happiest dude I know.

He was a charismatic, ultrasmart dude, and this was readily apparent if you had a five minute conversation with him. Just was poor, had to commute to school and consequently had to miss or go late to classes thanks to parking being scarce. Never had much of a chance to study because he had to work all of the time.

When I said prestige, I just meant Microsoft versus tiny firm.

[lostjake]

Let me speak to the chior. I had a 3.25 GPA with a ME from a fairly well known engineering school. I also got a job traveling the world out of college and it is serious fun. Getting to see things and visit places is a blast. Until you get married, and your wife is wondering if you'll be home in the next three months. The money is great but after you're 27 something the job sucks.

[quadsixm]

[]

[quadsixm]

[]

[09042014]

Question for DF (or other engineers): Why do they set the curve so low? I personally think curve-grading is a very good way to grade, but why not set the curve higher so that you engineer people aren't getting f*cked when you decide to switch over to LS or something else? They could keep the tests insanely hard, but just set it so that the average grades look more like the average grades of liberal arts students or something.

It seems like you guys are getting screwed for taking a major that would destroy most of the people on TLS.

I guess they aren't concerned with those of us going to law school. I'm the only engineer from Illinois that I know personally going to law school. I'm sure there are more, but not a significant portion.

Engineering and science masters programs all know that engineering isn't grade inflated.

[09042014]

Question for DF (or other engineers): Why do they set the curve so low? I personally think curve-grading is a very good way to grade, but why not set the curve higher so that you engineer people aren't getting f*cked when you decide to switch over to LS or something else? They could keep the tests insanely hard, but just set it so that the average grades look more like the average grades of liberal arts students or something.

It seems like you guys are getting screwed for taking a major that would destroy most of the people on TLS.

C is supposed to be an average grade, the real question is why is grade inflation everywhere in LA colleges? Answer?! Because they can't find jobs and GPA matters in getting into graduate studies. As an engineer a 3. was/is the magical number. With it you can find a job paying over 50k a year, without it you're in the LA food stamp line.

I'm not sure why you keep saying that. A full 40% of my class has under 3.0, and we all do fine. It will however keep you out of good engineering firms and prestigious companies.

I make over 50. But I also have a degree from a good school. I have no idea what it's like from a no name school. But there are plenty of small company app engineer jobs that need to get filled.

[lostjake]

Let me speak to the chior. I had a 3.25 GPA with a ME from a fairly well known engineering school. I also got a job traveling the world out of college and it is serious fun. Getting to see things and visit places is a blast. Until you get married, and your wife is wondering if you'll be home in the next three months. The money is great but after you're 27 something the job sucks.

Seriously. The money is nice compared to the low/unpaid jobs that my liberal arts classmates are working at right now. But the job gets old.

When you're doing something like what I'm doing the job doesn't get old, I'm always having to think and it is always a time constraint. I LOVE my job, and if I was still single I would still love to do it. At our company we won't consider someone under a 3. even from MIT. My wife is also an engineer, in the EE field, at her company unless you're a URM they won't consider you unless you have a 3. Also I'm posting this from a hotel room, about 1000 miles from my house, which unfortunately I bought. Word to the wise: rent.

[tesoro]

Let me speak to the chior. I had a 3.25 GPA with a ME from a fairly well known engineering school. I also got a job traveling the world out of college and it is serious fun. Getting to see things and visit places is a blast. Until you get married, and your wife is wondering if you'll be home in the next three months. The money is great but after you're 27 something the job sucks.

Seriously. The money is nice compared to the low/unpaid jobs that my liberal arts classmates are working at right now. But the job gets old.

When you're doing something like what I'm doing the job doesn't get old, I'm always having to think and it is always a time constraint. I LOVE my job, and if I was still single I would still love to do it. At our company we won't consider someone under a 3. even from MIT. My wife is also an engineer, in the EE field, at her company unless you're a URM they won't consider you unless you have a 3. Also I'm posting this from a hotel room, about 1000 miles from my house, which unfortunately I bought. Word to the wise: rent.

Very cool. And noted, some firms are more "prestigious" than others. GPA does matter a lot in some places. I often wish my job put me on detail anywhere outside of headquarters.

But you need to acknowledge that those with <3.0 GPAs get great jobs. Both as engineers, and as attorneys. As far as engineers go, the curve is understood and does not dagger anybody regardless of where they fall on it.

Full disclosure: I have a 3.5+ GPA. Not trolling for myself. Just for the friends of mine who do not deserve to be judged based on GPA, especially considering where they are in life 2 years post graduation.

[lostjake]

Question for DF (or other engineers): Why do they set the curve so low? I personally think curve-grading is a very good way to grade, but why not set the curve higher so that you engineer people aren't getting f*cked when you decide to switch over to LS or something else? They could keep the tests insanely hard, but just set it so that the average grades look more like the average grades of liberal arts students or something.

It seems like you guys are getting screwed for taking a major that would destroy most of the people on TLS.

C is supposed to be an average grade, the real question is why is grade inflation everywhere in LA colleges? Answer?! Because they can't find jobs and GPA matters in getting into graduate studies. As an engineer a 3. was/is the magical number. With it you can find a job paying over 50k a year, without it you're in the LA food stamp line.

I'm not sure why you keep saying that. A full 40% of my class has under 3.0, and we all do fine. It will however keep you out of good engineering firms and prestigious companies.

I make over 50. But I also have a degree from a good school. I have no idea what it's like from a no name school. But there are plenty of small company app engineer jobs that need to get filled.

I'm not really up to date the on the college rankings for engineering schools so I don't know where your school is. I'm somewhat planning to apply to some law school in the future so I don't want to out myself, but I came from a top engineering school and 3. is the cut off. I graduated in 2005 with a 3.2x and had a couple of offers, the highest being 70k. Last year I reported 200k to the IRS. My wife makes 90k a year. For some reason she wants me to quit my job and make 70k a year and she will stay at home with the kids. Just because she's an engineer doesn't mean she knows anything.