Which stats? In law it is either feast of famine, with little room in the middle. The job market for lawyers suck - don't believe the hype.
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
You guys really make it sound horrible
What's your opinion on US News' statistics on employment & salary? Do you think it's exaggerated? It probably is, but is it THAT much so?
Do you think having an MS helps in the admissions process much?
Anyone want to comment on that ^^^ ?
Originally posted by: LS20
i cant even fathom how and why one would have an interest in law aside from money. 1 friend i know who is into law was born into affluence and wealth (gotta keep up the pedigree), and the other is really materialistic.
im a geology senior...simple life for me, plz
great read by digdug others. thanks for the insight
Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
Which stats? In law it is either feast of famine, with little room in the middle. The job market for lawyers suck - don't believe the hype.
Originally posted by: LordSnailz
Any comments on Patent Law? A lot of my friends, EE/CS ugrads are thinking about going to law school to do patent law? It should not change anything you've said above, but just curious to hear what you have to say about it ...
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: LordSnailz
Any comments on Patent Law? A lot of my friends, EE/CS ugrads are thinking about going to law school to do patent law? It should not change anything you've said above, but just curious to hear what you have to say about it ...
That's what I'm interested in... it seems what a lot of people say here contradict what I hear from patent lawyers.
Originally posted by: freesia39
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: LordSnailz
Any comments on Patent Law? A lot of my friends, EE/CS ugrads are thinking about going to law school to do patent law? It should not change anything you've said above, but just curious to hear what you have to say about it ...
That's what I'm interested in... it seems what a lot of people say here contradict what I hear from patent lawyers.
what on earth do the patent lawyers say?!
if you have a science degree, you will have an advantage because most don't have that technical background which can be helpful in patent or IP.
Originally posted by: lizardboy
As I said above, I'm a 1L at a top-15 school, the vast majority of people that have summer associate positions ($2,000+/week) have science/engineering undergrad degrees, seems to be what firms are really looking for.
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: freesia39
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: LordSnailz
Any comments on Patent Law? A lot of my friends, EE/CS ugrads are thinking about going to law school to do patent law? It should not change anything you've said above, but just curious to hear what you have to say about it ...
That's what I'm interested in... it seems what a lot of people say here contradict what I hear from patent lawyers.
what on earth do the patent lawyers say?!
if you have a science degree, you will have an advantage because most don't have that technical background which can be helpful in patent or IP.
Don't take everthing I say as gospel, but this is generally what I was told:
Well you have to have a science or engineering degree to be licensed with the USPTO.
They say that you have 2 pedigrees - a law school pedigree and your technical pedigree.
There are two types of patent lawyers:
1) the ones that go to court, live a fast-paced, exhaustive lifestyle, non-stop hours, etc. These are the litigation patent lawyers.
2) the ones that you have to drag kicking and screaming to go to court if you need them, have liveable working hours, etc. These are the ones that do the patent filings, strategy, etc. These are called the prosecution patent lawyers.
Usually, #1 earns much more money than #2.
They say most patent lawyers (along with tax lawyers I think) are trolls and geeks that never see sunlight.
If you're biomedical or biology or chemistry or pharmaceutical etc. related, it's basically required to have a PhD.
They say that a lot of other technical majors like civil engineering and others have a lot fewer patent law positions, so sometimes it's hard to get a position. I remember talking to a patent lawyer on the internet who was a civil engineer who couldn't get any civil engineering patent law related jobs since it's not exactly a largely patentable field. She said that the only reason she even got a patent law positon was because she went to Stanford or some other prestigious school. So it's not like if you just have some random technical degree, you can get any patent lawyer position.
A lot of them said they wished that they had EE backgrounds since they're really in demand. Some of them said that EEs out of law school were some of the most highly sought after law school grads.
It seems that a large amount have graduate degrees, especially since it adds to your technical pedigree. As I said before, some fields basically require PhDs.
A lot of them also said that many patent lawyers eventually phase out into copyright law or some other since patent law can be quite boring to certain types of people. Some people say prosecution patent lawyer work is mind-numbingly boring.
Truth be told, its all numbers. You are no longer in the education bracket where your specific "fit" with a school is enough to give you an edge over other applicants. When I applied to my undergrad, I had pretty damn good credentials (it wasn't until college that I lost my bearings and screwed around like noone's business) and even then, I think it was my artsy bent that got me in. In law school, you could be the next picasso with a 152 on your LSAT, and noone would give two sh1ts. As surprising as it is, these trade schools that stand as the barrier between people and the legal profession, care less about the people they admit than colleges do. It's sad but true.
To get into a top 14 school? These days - in the last 3 years, admissions has gotten crazy difficult since the economy killed itself and everyone blamed business and hence business schools, the other de facto breeding ground, hasn't been so coveted - it takes about a 168+, and a decent GPA, I'd say a 3.4, depending on where you went to school. I admit, I was helped by my alma mater's prestige - Vassar, for what its worth is well respected by the graduate and professional fields - but even then, I don't think it mattered much. If you can score above a 170+, pat yourself on the back regardless of your GPA and know that you'll be making six figures in 3 years. You can have a 2.5 and still make the top 14. Isn't it so screwed up, that one test can counter 4 years of educational evaluation? Noone told any of us this. As I said to someone in private messaging, if I knew what I did, I would have spent my WHOLE last year of college mastering the LSAT. Fvck grades. And the LSAT is masterable. I did pretty well myself on the LSATS, but if I had practiced more, I'd have easily beaten the 170 mark. Instead, I had to spend one extra year to prove my ability over the others in my class.
Originally posted by: hahher
Truth be told, its all numbers. You are no longer in the education bracket where your specific "fit" with a school is enough to give you an edge over other applicants. When I applied to my undergrad, I had pretty damn good credentials (it wasn't until college that I lost my bearings and screwed around like noone's business) and even then, I think it was my artsy bent that got me in. In law school, you could be the next picasso with a 152 on your LSAT, and noone would give two sh1ts. As surprising as it is, these trade schools that stand as the barrier between people and the legal profession, care less about the people they admit than colleges do. It's sad but true.
To get into a top 14 school? These days - in the last 3 years, admissions has gotten crazy difficult since the economy killed itself and everyone blamed business and hence business schools, the other de facto breeding ground, hasn't been so coveted - it takes about a 168+, and a decent GPA, I'd say a 3.4, depending on where you went to school. I admit, I was helped by my alma mater's prestige - Vassar, for what its worth is well respected by the graduate and professional fields - but even then, I don't think it mattered much. If you can score above a 170+, pat yourself on the back regardless of your GPA and know that you'll be making six figures in 3 years. You can have a 2.5 and still make the top 14. Isn't it so screwed up, that one test can counter 4 years of educational evaluation? Noone told any of us this. As I said to someone in private messaging, if I knew what I did, I would have spent my WHOLE last year of college mastering the LSAT. Fvck grades. And the LSAT is masterable. I did pretty well myself on the LSATS, but if I had practiced more, I'd have easily beaten the 170 mark. Instead, I had to spend one extra year to prove my ability over the others in my class.
since lsat is so important, the next question then: why is lsat so important and is lsat a fair way of selecting people.
Originally posted by: LordSnailz
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: freesia39
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: LordSnailz
Any comments on Patent Law? A lot of my friends, EE/CS ugrads are thinking about going to law school to do patent law? It should not change anything you've said above, but just curious to hear what you have to say about it ...
That's what I'm interested in... it seems what a lot of people say here contradict what I hear from patent lawyers.
what on earth do the patent lawyers say?!
if you have a science degree, you will have an advantage because most don't have that technical background which can be helpful in patent or IP.
Don't take everthing I say as gospel, but this is generally what I was told:
Well you have to have a science or engineering degree to be licensed with the USPTO.
They say that you have 2 pedigrees - a law school pedigree and your technical pedigree.
There are two types of patent lawyers:
1) the ones that go to court, live a fast-paced, exhaustive lifestyle, non-stop hours, etc. These are the litigation patent lawyers.
2) the ones that you have to drag kicking and screaming to go to court if you need them, have liveable working hours, etc. These are the ones that do the patent filings, strategy, etc. These are called the prosecution patent lawyers.
Usually, #1 earns much more money than #2.
They say most patent lawyers (along with tax lawyers I think) are trolls and geeks that never see sunlight.
If you're biomedical or biology or chemistry or pharmaceutical etc. related, it's basically required to have a PhD.
They say that a lot of other technical majors like civil engineering and others have a lot fewer patent law positions, so sometimes it's hard to get a position. I remember talking to a patent lawyer on the internet who was a civil engineer who couldn't get any civil engineering patent law related jobs since it's not exactly a largely patentable field. She said that the only reason she even got a patent law positon was because she went to Stanford or some other prestigious school. So it's not like if you just have some random technical degree, you can get any patent lawyer position.
A lot of them said they wished that they had EE backgrounds since they're really in demand. Some of them said that EEs out of law school were some of the most highly sought after law school grads.
It seems that a large amount have graduate degrees, especially since it adds to your technical pedigree. As I said before, some fields basically require PhDs.
A lot of them also said that many patent lawyers eventually phase out into copyright law or some other since patent law can be quite boring to certain types of people. Some people say prosecution patent lawyer work is mind-numbingly boring.
Thanks, at least there are some good news for EE/CS ugrads. My friend is currently on his first year, and trying to pull me into it. I have a good job with big company that's paying for my MSEE degree but then again by going patent law, I'll finish quick and making more money.
He says the studying is tough but the number of hours you put in is pretty much equal the numbers of hrs we put in during our ugrad. So I'm torn between finishing up my MSEE part time for free (4yrs) or quit and go full time patent law (assuming I get in).
I. What Law School is and What it Isnt.
While both medical school and law school share a prestige, or rather, being a lawyer and being a doctor both carry a degree of prestige, there are fundamental differences between the two. I introduce to the topic of medicine only to juxtapose it against the legal sphere, to make clear the difference that exists and to make clear many fallacies surrounding law school.
Originally posted by: DigDug
This may turn out to be a long post, or it may not. I'm speaking from the heart, partly because I need to get out so much after all this time and all this experience, and partly because I want to give all of you law school hopefuls, and there surely will be many among you, the god honest truth.
I. What Law School is and What it Isnt.
While both medical school and law school share a prestige, or rather, being a lawyer and being a doctor both carry a degree of prestige, there are fundamental differences between the two. I introduce to the topic of medicine only to juxtapose it against the legal sphere, to make clear the difference that exists and to make clear many fallacies surrounding law school.
Getting into medical school is incredibly difficult. Getting into law school is comparatively easy. What, you say? Hear me on. The medical establishment has wisely organized their admissions process, providing on some level, a general equivalence between the medical schools of this country, where a student attempting to get into one medical school stands a chance of acceptance not TOO different than at another medical school. Of course, there are "better" schools than others, with admission spots at Harvard and Hopkins being harder to obtain than at a school in the Midwest, for example. HOWEVER, there is a base competency required; a base performance on both the MCAT and undergraduate experience that is required to get into even the "worst" medical school.
This is not the case with law school. While entry in to Yale, Harvard, and their ilk are EXTREMELY competitive, there are schools that will allow entry with nothing more than a showing of a graduate degree and the most minimal of LSAT scores. I'm talking 40th percentile scores. Scores that would make anyone question whether the profession was even appropriate for them.
What does this mean? Getting into law school isn't a privilege. Getting into a GOOD one is. Remember this, because the employers out there, who are the ones who seek to hire new law school grads, do.
II. Getting a Job out of Law School Isn't Easy
Before I start, let me say that I have a job at one of the top ten law firms in the country. I say this for 2 reasons: (1) to dispel any assumptions that my rant is due to the fact that the legal industry passed me by, that is, I'm suffering from some "sour grapes" effect. On the contrary, I was courted by most of the prestigious firms in this country, and ended up at one of my choice. I STILL find disgust in the process, perhaps becase I have been given the opportunity of insight than most.(2) I want to use my own experience as an example of how difficult the legal hiring process is, and how difficult it is to get a job when one is not in the inner circle of law schools.
I attend what is called a 2nd-tier law school. A school that is in the 2nd tier of the USNEWS rankings. However, I could have very well attended a school in the 1st tier, but outside the top 14 schools and have had the same job-hunting experience. Why? Because the reality, folks, and this is what NONE of these place are willing to tell you is this: the legal profession is still an old boys network with the VAST MAJORITY of legal hiring coming from the top 14 schools in the nation. The Ivys, those with law schools obviously, and a handful of others that have made it into that elite circle. After that, the ticket to into the prestigious jobs in the legal industry, often called BIGlaw (yes, this industry is full of self-aggrandizing hierarchy and labels to follow) is only obtainable, as with me, by being at the top of one?s class.
A HARD EXAMPLE: one of my best friends in the world attends NYU, #3 on the USNEWS list of law schools. At his school, 90% of the students are employed with jobs in NY that pay the standard ?BIGlaw? salary of $125,000 a year plus bonus (usually $15k). At MY school merely 10 blocks away? 90% of the students HAVE NO JOB, with only the top 10% of our class offered the same jobs.
Now what does this tell you? That the worst of that school is better than or equal to the best of ours? Clearly not, since those who have transferred from my school to his after the first year are all still at the top of the class there. What it says is this: an old boy?s network remains in the hiring process. Unless you go to the top 14 schools ? and don?t ask me why its 14, since that seems to be how it played out - getting the best jobs in the legal community is hard work.
Now, you ask, DigDug, why are you complaining, since you have one of these jobs? Why? Because 90% of my hardworking friends at my school ? those who are easily capable of doing the work at any of these firms, especially since all of the firms make clear that they are going to teach you how to do it ? have NOTHING.
But what about the smaller jobs, with less pay, you say? Well, here?s another tidbit of information. In the NY legal community, at least, there isn?t a smooth gradation in job opportunities. There are TONS of opportunities at the BIGlaw level, the $125k level as I said, but after that, the next big run of opportunity is at the $40-50k level. There isn?t much in between! Most of the smaller firms that could have offered salaried in between have merged or dissipated.
As you?ve suspected, my writing has deteriorated since the alcohol has taken effect, but know this:
Think long and hard before going to a law school that isn?t well-known. There is truth to the fact that a regional school, that is, a school that is known in the region it exists, can place you in job in that area simply because of the loyal alumni that practice there. However, be cognizant of the fact that if your idea of going to law school is to be rich, or at least make a good living, you might be in for a rude awakening. To put some numbers to the situation, my two good friends at school are both unemployed, and have $100k of debt from law school. What are they supposed to do?
CLIFFNOTES:
1. I am writing to dispel notions that lawschool is a ticket to riches.
2. To be clear, I have an excellent job, so I'm not ranting because I feel I've been fvcked by law school.
3. Law school hiring is very much limited to the top schools.
4. If you are thinking that law school will provide a ticket to wealth and security, think again.
i hardly think if i do go to law school, i'll become a bottom feeding scum sucker, especially since i'm more interested in contracts/wills/estates, or perhaps family law. its litigation that gets you the money but no life, and criminal that gets you the spotlight. lots of lawyers don't make any money. think of your neighborhood public prosecutor. they work for the gov't. heck my bf wants to graduate law school and might just go get his phd if his debt load is low enough. that's hardly going for the riches is it?