Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

I came across a recently archived thread on this topic a little while ago. Now that our college search/decision has been settled and we are into the "what do we bring/how do we get it there?" stage, I thought it would be useful to pick up this thread, as people had been discussing possible careers in science-related law, particularly patent law, without contributions from a patent attorney. So let's rectify that situation.

First of all, it has been a long time since I attended law school, so I will leave comments about admissions, GPAs, etc., to those who have been through it, such as Ariesathena and Burningsands.

I will say, however, that as far as I know, professors are generally positive about having engineers or scientists in their classes. They often tend to be quite focused both on doing the work and on staying on point in discussions. Some engineers may have to readjust their manner of thinking inasmuch as law is not an exact science with definite answers to problems and, as we all know, is subject to occasional drastic changes, as well as involving societal aspects. However, many scientists/engineers have proven themselves able to make the adjustment, graduated law school and become successful attorneys.

As an aside, I might say that while I don't know about the present time, in years past many successful patent attorneys have been those who received their engineering degrees in our military academies.

In addition to patent law, which I will address in a moment, science/law careers include many areas of environmental law, regulatory law (EPA, FDA, state agencies), science law/policy positions, and product liability where complex technical products or services are involved (for example, litigation over liability for engineering or architectural designs).

Even intellectual property law/patent law has some subdivisions of careers - patent preparation/prosecution, litigation, technology transfer/licensing, for example.

Time now to address patent law specifically, and certain questions or statements in the previous thread.

The qualifications for becoming a registered patent agent (non-lawyer) or attorney, including the taking of the examination on USPTO (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - better learn this abbreviation) procedures are found at the USPTO website uspto/gov.; in particular, the General Requirememts Bulletin at uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/gcounsel/oed.

To qualify for the examination, one must have either a bachelor's degree in one of the enumerated subjects (which include practically all categories of engineering, as well as various degrees in biology, chemistry and physics). Pharmacy is also possible; computer science is acceptable with the proper accreditation. A person not having such a degree may also qualify for the examination if he or she has a certain number of science credits, also as listed in the Bulletin.

Is a Ph.D. required or preferred? It depends on the type of patent law you would like to practice, and the technology.

If your aim is to primarily or entirely deal with obtaining or evaluating patents, a Ph.D. is advantageous (though not required) in fields where graduate level education is needed in order to understand some areas of technology.

For example, if you plan to practice patent law in cutting-edge biotechnology, an advanced degree (Masters', at least) is recommended. Many law student candidates I have seen have PhD. degrees, even some post-doc experience. The same may be true with inventions involving advanced physics. On the other hand, a bachelor's degree is often quite adequate in writing patent applications in mechanical engineering, medical devices, electrical engineering, and some areas of chemical engineering. I am NOT saying that these areas don't require as much intelligence or are not complex; however, what is needed in patent law is an ability to understand inventions and to use patent law principles and strategies to protect them, and the scope of techical education in a bachelor's degree in engineering is often sufficient for this purpose.

To put it another way, advanced degrees are more common for patent attorneys in fields where research experience is needed or common for making any professional progress, whereas in fields where one can work effectively with a good quality bachelor's degree, that may be all that is needed.

In any case, afer a certain period of time one's own technical knowledge becomes less than current, and one's technical skills become oxidized (aka rusty); at that point what counts is the ability to learn new areas of technology and write and prosecute patents there. Sometimes, in fact, one winds up very quickly working in technical areas other than that which one knows well, especially at a law firm which is filing patents in numerous technologies, including many where no attorney has much familiarity.

What tier law school must one attend? It depends. If your aim is to become a professor, then you need to attend those law schools that are highly regarded academically (e.g., Harvard, Yale, Berkeley, Duke, others) and you need to have publications.

If your aim is to work as a patent attorney preparing and prosecuting patent applications in a prestigious law firm, it's preferable, but not essential, that you attend one of the top academic law schools, or a good law school in that geographical area. In either case, you do need good grades.

If your aim is to work in a corporation or a smaller or local law firm, or in the Federal government (see below), then you can feel free to attend any ABA-accredited school, especially if cost is a factor.

Remember, what I just said relates to getting a position in the field. Massdad is correct in saying that clients are interested in the technical or legal skills of a patent attorney and not where they went to law school.

Note also that many patent attorneys obtain their legal education in evening law schools (I did). I don't know of any first-tier and not many second-tier law schools with evening divisions. So, many of us graduate from a good, or even mediocre, law school. Jamimom's comment on local law schools applies here.

One traditional way of entry into the profession is to become a patent examiner in the USPTO (which does not require legal education) and attend evening law school in the D.C. area.

Ariesathena made a comment that if you want to work outside a technical field, you must go to one of the top law schools. Again, it depends. For example, it's not uncommon for litigators get into law firms by going to a local law school, then taking a job that involves heavy litigation from the start, for example in a state attorney general's office, a DA's office, or a public defender's office, then after a few years switch to a law firm.

Sheela45 asked whether a bachelor's degree in biomedical engineering might be adequate to work in product liability law. I would say yes, and also that it might be fine for patent law; we don't have that many biomedical engineering graduates in the profession yet. Some practical experience as an engineer can only make one's credentials better in either case. Coureur's advice is well taken - find a position in the field while getting rady for law school.

I think that will be enough on generalities. I'd be happy to answer any other questions; just post them and I will check the board from time to time.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 06:45 pm: Edit

Thank you to DadofSam!

I do have a question regarding actually going to law school and courses. How much specialization in patent law do law firms like to see? Are a few courses adequate, or would you have an edge by really focusing on patent law?

As a related question, to what extent does the reputation of a school in IP count? Some schools, such as Cardozo in NYC, have excellent reputations for intellectual property. Would one be better off attending a school with a good IP reputation (regardless of overall ranking), or a highly regarded national school that does not have such a strong IP reputation?

Thank you again. Very informative post!

By Drusba (Drusba) on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 08:08 pm: Edit

In law school you will not concentrate on intellectual property (including patent) law as you will spend the three years taking mostly courses required of all lawyers. You may be able to pick up an elective or two in that area before getting your J.D. but the schools devoted to intellectual property law do so on the masters level after you graduate law school. At that graduate level, many of the schools considered in the top echelon for intellectual property may surprise you as they include Cardozo and places like John Marshall and DePaul in Chicago, and Harvard and Yale hardly place. In other words do not assume your high ranked law schools are your high ranked graduate law schools for intellectual property.

Most patent lawyers become so not through course work in law school or by going to graduate law school, but instead as a result of training and doing the work at the associate level in a law firm. Law firms with a patent law practice will not be looking for you to have particular training in such law coming out of law school --they are more interested in your technical background and related degree and that you have a law degree from a decent school and did well in law school.

By Rhonda63 (Rhonda63) on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 10:22 am: Edit

I also wanted to add that lawyers in general are often impressed with undergrad science/math/engineering degrees. I think this is because it's uncommon among those who go to law school, and many lawyers went to law school because it was a good way to avoid any kind of math, so they find it impressive.

By Dadofsam (Dadofsam) on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 12:11 pm: Edit

Ariesathena: I'm not sure what the question is. I thought that you were heading for Washington & Lee. Perhaps you're still deciding where to go.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 01:17 pm: Edit

DadofSam: I am heading to W&L, unless (repeat, unless) doing so would effectively block out my opportunties for patent law (or severely restrict those). Law school, unlike undergrad, obviously allows for multiple years of applications.

By Dadofsam (Dadofsam) on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 04:51 pm: Edit

Gosh, that's a heck of a responsibility to drop on someone you've just met over a discussion board.

First of all, I'm not in the law school guidance counselor business. From what I've seen of your postings you have no doubt spent a lot of time (and probably correspondence) deciding where to apply to law school and where to attend. I'm sure that W&L fits your criteria. (If not, why not?).

I don't think that any of the above is going to effectively or otherwise block out or severely restrict your opportunities for patent law (if you know that's what you want to work in).

But it does help any candidate for a law firm position (again, if that's what you want to work in) or for that matter some other entry level position, to have some background or knowledge of the intellectual property law field.

Nowadays (just as with college applications) employers having openings need to sort out the qualifications of a number of candidates, at least some of whom have done heavy-duty preparation (if they have been able).

So-first of all, if you go to W&L, take advantage of all the opportunities that you find in patent or other IP law. From the website they currently offer two courses - one in copyrights/patents, the other in trademarks. Take at least the first, maybe the second (see below). Think about preparing a patents case note or other material for an issue of the law review.

If you're thinking of looking for an in-house position, knowledge of trademark law could be useful.

Next: if you have only heard of patent law, try to get some experience in working in it to see if it's what you really want. If the place that you've been working as an engineer has a patent group, try to get connected with it, at least informally. If you are available to work in the summers, once you begin law school look for interviews with law firms for summer spots (they go by various names). Interviews tend to start in the late fall, so update your resume and contact the school's office dealing with those.

IP courses are always upper division in law schools so normally, first-year students such as yourself will not have taken them in this round of interviews.

Try for a similar spot the next summer. Some students even split a summer between two firms, to get the feel of working in different types or sizes of firms. Law firms often choose their first-year associates from among those who have worked there a summer or two (but not exclusively).

If you feel or find out that you really need to take as many patents courses as you can, then look into summer courses or possible transfers. There are some law schools in addition to Cardozo (a fine school) that offer a number of patent and other IP courses in the J.D. program. These include the schools in D.C. (Georgetown, GW, American U, I think, possibly also Catholic U), and Franklin Pierce (New Hampshire). There are some others; wouldn't take long to check. But most (probably inlcuding Harvard and Yale)only offer a couple, such as those at W&L.

Look at programs such as the Giles Rich Moot Court competition. This is a national competition run under the auspices of the AIPLA (American Intellectual Property Law Association). Get a teammate from your school and a coach and enter (usually best in your third year when you have some law under your belt). (If you find the Eastern Region full, as it often is, enter in another region - for the experience). Maybe join the AIPLA as a student member.

Some people also try to take the USPTO registration exam while in law school as an extra credential. It is possible to pass it without actual working experience, but better if you have some, so that the material makes sense.

You didn't ask for advice on what else to take law school but since I'm in the mode, here goes anyway. Remember that in addition to patents, if you wish to become a patent attorney you will need to pass one or more state bar exams - none of which include any questions on patent law. So I suggest that (unless you want to have to learn a lot of subjects in the bar review course, which is intensive enough as it is), that you take certain additional subjects after the freshman year. I would say definitely evidence (surprised that it's not required at W&L) and wills/decedents estates, possibly Advanced Contracts and Torts II. Another possibility is Remedies. If you are thinking of IP litigation, Federal Civil Procedure. You may also want to take a class or more in other subjects that interest you; more than one law student has changed career objectives in law school on being excited by some subject.

And if that's not enough advice, here's one more bit. Try to keep up generally with developments in chemical engineering - nanotechnlogy, nanostructure templates, semiconductors, computer process simulation, etc, if you want to work on patents in that field. Read publications such as Chemical Engineering magazine (which has a patents column).

And that should be enough for now.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 06:49 pm: Edit

THANK YOU!!! Did not mean to drop that responsibility on you - an answer such as "Patent attorneys come from many different schools," or "You're in for an uphill battle in the IP field" would have been great.

I was really wondering if a patent firm, sifting through massive amounts of applications, would look at one and say "W&L doesn't have much in the line of patents," and cast it aside. As that probably isn't the case (from what you've mentioned), I'm happy to hear that. Eases my mind re: the one qualm I had about W&L. I've read (Robert Miller's Law School Confidential) that for corporate law, you need to have come out of one of the top schools to even be considered for the top NYC firms. Also read that many firms tend to only hire people from law schools which they are familiar with. I didn't know if the first principle applied to patent firms as well (replace top US News rankings with top IP schools), and if the second principle would make getting a patent law job difficult. Simply put, there is a lot of information around for people who are going certain routes (ex. want to be corporate attorneys in NYC), but not much at all for patent law.

A bit about myself: I'm currently working in the nanotech field, doing chemical engineering (my undergrad) and materials science. I've spent the past four summers and the past year working with nanotubes - also had some spider silk research recently. There is an unofficial "nanoteam" at the company, and I've been fortunate to be on it. I'll find the Chemical Engineering magazine and try to keep up with that throughout the next three years.

My firm has offered to let me work in their legal department after my 1L summer, which will be great. Hopefully, that will let me decide before I've taken too many electives if I want to pursue patent law or go in a different direction. I am lucky in that regards.

The main attraction of W&L for me was its writing programme. Very intense, lots of interaction with professors. The downside to engineering undergrad (even when I paired it with a liberal arts major) was that I got little, if any, good writing instruction. I'm certain that regardless of what kind of law I practice, I will need to be able to write well.

Some of the reason that I did not want to focus exclusively on great IP schools is, well, "more than one law student has changed career objectives in law school on being excited by some subject." I am also open to a few other types of law - health care being one option at the time. Regardless, I did not want to limit myself upon graduation because the school is not strong enough in IP.

By Jrpar (Jrpar) on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 07:20 pm: Edit

I think Dadofsam has given you really good advice.

In general, I wouldn't worry too much about specializing in law school. You will learn so much more from on-the-job training in a patent practice than any courses you could take in law school. You will have plenty of required courses to take, anyways, and courses that you will need to take (definitely evidence) to be in good shape for the bar exam. Your best prep would be to get the best grades possible - that's what will catch the attention of potential employers. (That's what I look for initially when I pick up a law student's resume).

But here's why I chimed in to this thread - I only know one patent attorney (head patent litigator at one of the biggest drug cos), and ... she's a grad of W&L law school.

By Drusba (Drusba) on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 07:50 pm: Edit

Just an addition to courses you take in law school. You should also check the state in which you will be taking the bar exam for its course requirements. For example, someone mentioned above that W&L does not require Evidence, which I find amazing, but many states require you to have that as one of the courses before taking the state bar. I took the bar in two states, Illinois and Indiana. Interestingly, it was Indiana that had the most course requirements before you could take the bar and the net result with courses required by the law school plus additional ones by Indiana was that I literally never had an elective in law school.

By Dadofsam (Dadofsam) on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 08:07 pm: Edit

I guess if I had thought about it I could have given Ariesathena a shorter answer, but I wouldn't have made it as short as she suggested since that short a comment isn't much help.

Drusba is correct in saying *Most patent lawyers become so not through course work in law school or by going to graduate law school, but instead as a result of training and doing the work at the associate level in a law firm. Law firms with a patent law practice will not be looking for you to have particular training in such law coming out of law school --they are more interested in your technical background and related degree and that you have a law degree from a decent school and did well in law school.*

Likewise Jrpar's comments.

I'll modify that by saying that the experience can be gained in a law firm or a corporate department.

Very few attorneys are in corporate law in a top NYC law firm; most of those in corporate law are in other law firms and not necessarily in NYC. In those situations Jamimom and others are correct that unless one is from Harvard or the like, a top local law school that the firms are familiar with is often the best source of new associates.

Among the top 14 schools mentioned by Burningsands in the first thread (my computer skills don't show me how to link to that), as far as I know only Georgetown and UC Berkeley have a significant number of courses in intellectual property or technology-related law.

Patent attorneys, like most attorneys, depend heavily on writing skills. We do have to be able to write well, although the writing in patent applications is of a different nature than in other areas.

Ariesathena - sounds like you're well on the right track. You don't have to do all the things I suggested - if you're interested in patent law, do a few to show that and to learn about the field. Enjoy law school, get a good education and preparation for bar exams, and, as others have said, aim at getting good grades.

Happy to answer any other questions on this subject.

By Dadofsam (Dadofsam) on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 08:27 pm: Edit

Drusba, it sounds like we went to the same law school, although mine was in New York.

By Drusba (Drusba) on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 12:39 am: Edit

My three years of joy/punishment were on the near north side of Chicago (Northwestern) and went at a time when "Future Interests" was still a required property course, and I have gladly learned to forget whatever I learned in it along with wills/estates.

Ariesathena, you are correct in assuming that being able to write well is one of the keys to both law school and being a lawyer. You seem to have yourself going in the right direction and to already have a summer job offer before walking into your first class is definitely a plus. If you want to know the way many lawyers become experts in some area of the law, it is serendipity. You are a young lawyer in a firm and the only warm body who just happens to be immediately available to do a rush project on an area of the law. You do that one well and someone asks you to do another. Before long, you become the firm guru on the subject and it was something you never even thought about pursuing even when you graduated law school. Thus, having specific goals is important but keeping an open mind and taking opportunities when they come your way is far more so. Having training as an engineer is a good background to being able to do well in law school as the thinking process is similar. Even so, the key to law school is getting through the first year when you need fortitude to overcome frustration at not being able to understand everything when it is first encountered. Typical is for the first year law student to feel lost by the fourth week. Eventually you will have a moment of "awakening" when all those things you tried to understand in the first few weeks start to make sense and that moment may not come until you are half way through the semester and then you spend much of the first year always feeling you are still several steps behind on the learning curve but it does all come together as you progress. Recommend for entertainment's sake, but also because there are some truths about law school in them, that you see the movie Paper Chase and read the book One L (Scott Turow) before starting law school. There is one line in that book that sums up what you will feel like when trying to read case law in your freshman texts: it is like trying to stir concrete with your eyes.

By Over30 (Over30) on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 12:59 am: Edit

These are the most helpful and informative posts I've seen on this site. Good work Drusba and Dadofsam.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 11:30 am: Edit

Drusba and DadofSam: Many, many thanks again. So - rough game plan - take required courses plus things like Evidence (to help with the bar), with some patent electives throw in.

"You are a young lawyer in a firm and the only warm body who just happens to be immediately available to do a rush project on an area of the law. You do that one well and someone asks you to do another. Before long, you become the firm guru on the subject and it was something you never even thought about pursuing even when you graduated law school."

I will keep that in mind.

Have heard of 1L, but never managed to find it anywhere. I've seen The Paper Chase and have heard that it's one of the most accurate movies about law school.

I spent a fair amount of my time as an engineer being confused, puzzled, and not understanding the larger picture - apparently good training for law school!

Thank you again for all of your help and advice.

By Dadofsam (Dadofsam) on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 11:58 am: Edit

Drusba and I seem to be of similar vintage, since I also was in law school (lower Manhattan) when Future Interests was a course of its own. My experience took a little longer, since I was in evening school.

On serendipity - it can happen anywhere. In my second day at work as an attorney in a corporation my boss came into my office with a thick book and told me that as of that moment I was the company's expert in that subject. Becoming the company's expert in a subject (certain governmental regulations) that no-one wanted to deal with, and that was a pain to the company's personnel, but that was vital to our business, led to some interesting situations later. Keep your eyes open for such disguised opportunities. Yes, they often are very well disguised.

I concur with the comments on the first year of law school. The other thing is that as of your entry into the legal profession, you will be switching from being a scientist (carrying out specific tasks aimed at producing a product or a solution to a problem, carrying out bench-scale experiments or pilot-plant runs) to a desk-oriented position - primarily mental work, paperwork. If you liked being an engineer, you'll have to see how you feel about not being one. You'll have a taste of that in the legal department.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 04:13 pm: Edit

If one does not like the lab work but prefers desk work... In many ways, I do not like being an engineer.

By Chemy (Chemy) on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 04:21 pm: Edit

i know a lot of laywers who were engineers first

By Monydad (Monydad) on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 07:58 pm: Edit

I personally don't think engineering is great training for law school. I think lawyers need to write well and effortlessly, read dense bunches of detailed legal gibberish with a high degree of comprehension, speak well, and think on their feet.

Frankly I think engineering is among the worst majors for cultivating these particular skills. Engineers do get great analytical training, but it is applied to highly mathematical, quantifiable topics. In math, there is generally a "right" answer if you work the problem right, vs. a best possible answer that is subject to debate. Engineers don't get trained to deal with this squishy "gray area" stuff, particularly in a non-mathematical context.

By Wlrsqtr (Wlrsqtr) on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 08:10 pm: Edit

What about a double major BA in environmental engineering and public policy as prep for law? Very tentative plan of high school senior.

By Dadofsam (Dadofsam) on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 08:31 pm: Edit

wlrsqtr: If you look back at the archived first thread of this series, you'll see comments about the difficulty of maintaining a high GPA (that many school schools are said to require) with an engineering major, especially a double major.

So I'm going to lateral this off to Ariesathena and others who have recently applied to law school.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Thursday, May 06, 2004 - 11:49 am: Edit

Regarding engineering as law school prep: I will, in a year, be able to answer that one. However, I think I can say a few things now. Some professors say that engineers make the best law students - being analytical, knowing how to think inductively, and being focused. Also, I will disagree with the "engineers are taught to find one right answer" philosophy. At least at my alma mater, it simply isn't true. Some of the lower-level courses (mainly math and physics) did have that; however, the upper-level courses often required projects with no right answer. I remember the last one we did where we had to design a factory to produce a chemical out of two precursors. Then, we had to do an economic analysis to see if it was financially viable. We then did a presentation for the professor and TA with our recommendations (to build or not to build). There was no "right answer." They were interested in how we arrived at it, how rigorous our economic analysis was, and our suggestions. My partner and I threw in a recommendation (based on similar cost) for the more environmentally friendly option. While that is probably more black-and-white than something like philosophy, it isn't entirely right/wrong. In fact, it isn't unlike some law school exams - professors really emphasize the rigor of analysis, correctly using either parts of the law or certain constructs to explain yourself, and making recommendations.

I wholeheartedly agree that engineers are not taught to write well.

If BurningSands, another engineer, sees this, he could reply. Regarding the law school admissions - I would not recommend engineering for that. An English major should not have too much trouble getting B+ or better grades, which would put you in good shape for most law schools. Engineers work a lot harder than their liberal arts counterparts, and they end up with much lower GPAs - probably about 0.4 points to 0.5 points. Some engineering majors are harder than others; I think only 2 out of 24 chemical engineers were inducted into the honour society, while the number of civil engineers was more like 1 in 5. The second-highest GPA in my chem-e class was something like a 3.5. It's brutal. Some classes have curves where half the class gets a C+ or below - and that isn't uncommon.

Many law schools want to see a high GPA, regardless of major; if they do make adjustments for engineering, it probably isn't enough to really compensate. I don't think that they looked at my schedule, coursework, credit hours, etc and said "man, that girl is a crazy workaholic." I think they focus on the straight GPA and start to make assumptions. IMO, it is difficult, if not nearly impossible, for an engineer to maintain good enough grades for competitive law schools.

Enough of my rant.

By Dadofsam (Dadofsam) on Thursday, May 06, 2004 - 12:19 pm: Edit

WRLSQTR: Now that Ariesathena's had her crack at this, let me add a couple of cents.

1. Engineering school or an engineering major is very focused on teaching students how to be engineers. I would not recommend taking such a program unless at that time one actualy plans to become an engineer.

2. You may be thinking of aiming for a position or profession in environmental policy. If so, a number of schools also teach a combination of sciences under a heading such as "environmental science" or "earth science". That might be more suitable for such an aim and also might provide a more realistic basis for getting a good GPA.

3. If that's your aim, I suggest you start a new posting with a more general question asking for recommendations on majors or schools for such an objective - you may get more answers that way.

By Monydad (Monydad) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 11:25 am: Edit

I guess I made a couple of errors in my prior post.

First of all, I said I don't think engineering school is great training for law school. Actually I meant it's not great training for being a lawyer.

I have no familiarity with the requirements of law school. However my spouse is a lawyer, and I also used to work closely with lawyers on a daily basis. Consequently I am quite familiar with what they (or at least these types of lawyers) actually do. Engineers do not receive training that will enhance their ability to perform these tasks.

Secondly, by my emphasizing that engineers get great analytical training, one may have inferred that others don't. Actually I believe many liberal arts majors are trained to think analytically. However the context is not mathematical, but prose argument- which is more directly relevant to the law.

Third, Ariesathena pointed out some particular project or group of projects from engineering school that was not a cut-and-dried cookie-cutter type of project with a well-defined answer. I accept this, and will amend my comment to be:

At one major engineering school, back quite a while ago, at least 75% of their coursework was of the "one-solution" variety, probably more like 90% actually. However, students typically also had some design-project courses thrown in that were more creative. The creative courses were probably the most important part of their training, but in absolute hours they were by far in the minority. Most of the work, in the three years leading up to the( few)design project courses,involved learning highly technical subjects from a largely mathematical standpoint.

These observations are based solely on my own experience. I have a degree and work experience in engineering. I imagine they do not apply to all engineering schools or all engineers.

By Dadofsam (Dadofsam) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 11:55 am: Edit

Ariesathena: A correction. "Chemical Engineering" is a good magazine for technical and industry news, but the magazine with the patents column is Chemical Engineering Progress, published by the AiChE. Only you can decide whether to read one magazine or two.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 12:17 pm: Edit

Monydad: It does make sense that engineers will have trouble doing many of the lawyer tasks. I forever maintain that engineering curriculum are not designed to produce good writers; that is something that engineers either pick up in law school or don't get good at. Some of the reason that I took a liberal arts major was to develop some skills beyond mathematical prowess. For the attorneys who have to orate, think on their feet, etc., engineering is probably not a good background.

While the majority of our assignments were mathematical problem sets, we were fortunate to get large projects (the one I described was assigned over a month period) as capstones in the upper-level courses. (Part of my decision to get out of engineering is that I preferred those types of things to problem sets!)

DadofSam: Thanks. One magazine or two: one during the school year, zero during finals, and two during breaks to have something to think about besides law.

By Dadofsam (Dadofsam) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 05:56 pm: Edit

Friday afternoon; time to get a little philosophical?

I don't think that the question really is whether engineering school is good preparation for law school or for being a lawyer. Law school is quite different from most undergraduate majors. Few studies really prepare anyone for it.

In reality the question is whether people who tend to think like engineers, with that thinking possibly reinforced (or possibly not) in college, are able to become good lawyers.

One answer used to be that engineers and scientists tend to be linear thinkers and are by nature promlem solvers or solution finders whereas lawyers need to think (or tend to think, which is not necessarily the same) in a more circular or less linear fashion.

However, in more recent times the environment has changed. Engineers have always had to think of the business and ecomomic aspects of the solutions they find; otherwise no-one would purchase their services or designs. Theoretical physicists and engineers in theoretical reserch used to be excepted from this. Starting some 10 or 15 years ago, however, researchers in practically all fields and situations, whether in universities or in for-profit organizations, all have had to look at the economic and business implications of their actual or proposed work. They have not had the "luxury" of having projects funded on scientific merit alone, but have had to argue for the projects on balance, taking into account a number of non-scientifc factors. Areas such as balancing scientific merit with research costs have had to be considered by scientists who previously were solely aiming to make new or improved products or engage in some investigation and were allowed to let others find a use for the results, or carry out the necessary engineering to make it efficient and/or profitable. In other words, scientists have had to start thinking more like lawyers in having to look at different viewpoints, not just science, just to stay gainfully employed or funded.

Lawyers have had to change also. Formerly viewed as being dispensers of advice and counsel (which some clients might feel free to ignore), lawyers have increasingly been called upon to become useful problem-solvers, not unlike engineers - if otherwise, they found fewer and fewer takers of their advice; clients are not interested in retaining lawyers whose advice they then decide to ignore.

By Monydad (Monydad) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 08:24 pm: Edit

Regarding what "the question" is: Perhaps I raised a side issue; sorry if I diverted the original topic off- course.

In my opinion lawyers are useful problem-solvers in that they apply a body of knowledge to bear on particular problem. Not unlike engineers. Or doctors. Or accountants. Or virtually everyone else who masters an arcane body of knowledge.

However, unlike many of these other "problem solvers", many lawyers have to read and write a tremendous amount. That is the biggest difference in my view. These activities are not the strong suit of many (dare I say most) engineers.

And, to be clear, Ariesathena I did not assert that individual engineers will necessarily have trouble with the tasks of a lawyer. I just said that engineering school training does nothing to enhance their capabilities in these important areas. Many individuals undoubtedly do just fine anyway, despite this lack of enhancement.

This is where where I'm coming from: I see my spouse writing briefs, reading statutes and opposing briefs, etc., quite often. I know that I personally could not do this work at nearly the same speed. I was a good English student, and am a good writer, but I never developed the facility to write that much that fast,without a great deal of mental effort. I'm positive I have that capability, but it was not developed to the same extent during the course of my education.

On the other hand, my mathematical skills have been enhanced through my education. One clearly can improve at something through repetition.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 12:27 pm: Edit

And, to be clear, Ariesathena I did not assert that individual engineers will necessarily have trouble with the tasks of a lawyer. I just said that engineering school training does nothing to enhance their capabilities in these important areas. Many individuals undoubtedly do just fine anyway, despite this lack of enhancement.

You were clear on that - and I do entirely agree with you. On the whole, engineering school is poorly suited to intense reading and writing tasks. I think that there is a self-selecting group of people who become engineers: those who are better at math, more linear, more focused, etc with respect to the rest of the population. Perhaps there is as well a somewhat self-selecting group of engineers who decide not to be engineers and go to law school instead. I read a lot more than most other engineers and do not like the solely mathematical, one-answer-only nature of much of engineering. Hence the reason I'm getting out of it.

There is a certain amount of training as well - I'll fully admit that my writing skills are rusty from lack of use. Conventional wisdom states that the best preparation for law school is a lot of writing, reading, analytical thinking, and class discussion. Engineering is notably lacking in a few of those areas.

By Dadofsam (Dadofsam) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 02:54 pm: Edit

Ariesathena: Conventional wisdom should be that good abilities for law school and for being a lawyer include focused writing, analytical thinking, a lot of reading and the ability to defend your positions or conclusions in a class discussion. Engineers can have these abilities, and those that do are appreciated by their professors (and sometimes by their classmates) for keeping to the point in class discussions.

Sometimes, though, an engineer will have to let him/herself go and let loose with some philosophy and BS along with one's classmates. But that can happen in engineering school, too, especially in a class where (as can also happen in law school) one's asked to stretch one's mind.

I see from other postings that as of now Brooklyn law School and perhaps others are entering the picture.

By Dadofsam (Dadofsam) on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 05:14 pm: Edit

Let's give this one bump to see if there still is any interest; if not, RIP

Burningsands, Pennamom - where are you?

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 05:36 pm: Edit

Yes, Brooklyn is a possibility - a good one as I want to work in NYC eventually. I'll be going down for an admitted student's thing next Wednesday.

By Prop7750 (Prop7750) on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 08:23 am: Edit

Hi...I recently graduated with a BS in biomedical engineering. I have been thinking about patent law for about 2 years now. What really worries me is that my gpa is only a 2.8 (major 3.1 is this counts for anything at all)I would like to practice in NY (originally from Philadelphia) what are good law schools that I could possible get into? I have been looking into St Johns, Pace, cuny law school, NY school of law just to name a few. Are any of these good law schools to go to? My 1 and 2nd year I goofed off and I primarily had all general engineering classes which served to weed out the non serious students. I however stayed with my bad grades! but I did become allot more serious and i took 20 credits each term and I did fairly well so you can see a progression in my grades. Do law schools look at this?? I’m also trying to shoot for a score of 160 or higher on my LSATS.

Another idea I had was to become a patent agent. If I took the exam for this and passed would this increase my chances of getting into law school? I’ve been trying for about 6 months to get a job as a entry level paralegal in the IP area but its so hard to get. I am currently working as a scientist since I am not very interested in working as a biomed engineer. Fixing instruments or working in the lab does not catch my interest. Does anyone have any advice for me?? Whenever I have downtime at work I’m researching the IP area...any advice would be helpful! Thanks