"Apply to Law School Now!" YES, someone actually wrote an article stating this!

[Anonymous]

I know a couple 2012 AU law grads doing doc review. Not exactly a representative sample, I realize.

A few recent AU law grads with technical degrees doing patent law are doing just fine, but patent law has a different market than other areas of law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I know a couple 2012 AU law grads doing doc review. Not exactly a representative sample, I realize.

A few recent AU law grads with technical degrees doing patent law are doing just fine, but patent law has a different market than other areas of law.

Do they work at the patent agency?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I know a couple 2012 AU law grads doing doc review. Not exactly a representative sample, I realize.

A few recent AU law grads with technical degrees doing patent law are doing just fine, but patent law has a different market than other areas of law.

that's an understatement.

I guess anytime law school is brought up we should all qualify our statements by saying 'non-patent'

[Anonymous]

Non lawyer here with some patent law friends. What is the difference?

[Anonymous]

Non lawyer here with some patent law friends. What is the difference?

Mostly supply and demand. To do patent law, you need to have a technical degree, and those in the highest demand are engineering degrees. In some areas, you need to have a masters or PhD in addition to the JD, and not that many people are interested in investing nearly a decade of time into higher education. There are just not that many people with engineering degrees who are interested in going into law--especially given that there are other employment options without taking on so much debt. There are also a lot of scientists and engineers who suck at writing, which is problematic if you are a lawyer. Most people who go to law school have humanities or social science majors, and they don't have the background to do intellectual property law for tech, biotech, pharma, etc.

On top of that STEM degrees tend to have less grade inflation, especially engineering, so there are not nearly as many people who have the grades to get into top law schools. People also tend to go to law school a little older than traditional law students, because they have pursued higher education or worked in industry for a while and decided to do a career change. This means more people go to part time law school than other areas of law, or go to lower tier law schools with scholarships because when you are older sometimes you are not in a position to take on as much debt. For the most part, the top law schools don't have part time programs.

All of this means that employers can't be as choosy as with other areas of law since there is just a smaller pool of qualified people. More people get employed in high paying jobs coming from worse ranked law schools or having worse law school grades, especially if they have education and experience that is relevant to clients. There are also a lot of firms that specialize in only intellectual property that pay just as well as Big Law firms. DC is a hub for intellectual because of the patent and trademark office and there are a lot of firms that specialize in intellectual property based out of the DC area, so there are a lot of opportunities to work in a legal job if you go to school part time, and Georgetown, GW, AU, and George Mason all have night programs.

[Anonymous]

I know several patent attorneys who were laid off and were unemployed or underemployed. And several of them took lower paying positions or non-patent law jobs. It's not what it used to be.

[Anonymous]

I know several patent attorneys who were laid off and were unemployed or underemployed. And several of them took lower paying positions or non-patent law jobs. It's not what it used to be.

Yeah, it's not 100%, but nothing is. Since the economy is shitty and there are not as many jobs in the pharmaceutical industry, there are a lot of people looking to go into patent law and other non-traditional careers, driving up the numbers of attorneys. It just has a much better market than any other area of law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only people who should be going to law school are those who get into a top-ten school or get a free ride. Otherwise, do not bother.

So, this is our thinking - My husband is older than most law students (29), a veteran and has a job. However, he would be an incredibly good attorney, especially immigration or constitution. Not big money getters, we know. However, with his LSAT scores (very, very high...but mediocre college grades...not sure how important that is since it's been a long time and lots of life between college and now) and GI Bill, we think that it will cost very little or even nothing for him to get his JD. We are going to move out of the area and Penn is where he really wants to go.

Is this still a stupid idea?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only people who should be going to law school are those who get into a top-ten school or get a free ride. Otherwise, do not bother.

So, this is our thinking - My husband is older than most law students (29), a veteran and has a job. However, he would be an incredibly good attorney, especially immigration or constitution. Not big money getters, we know. However, with his LSAT scores (very, very high...but mediocre college grades...not sure how important that is since it's been a long time and lots of life between college and now) and GI Bill, we think that it will cost very little or even nothing for him to get his JD. We are going to move out of the area and Penn is where he really wants to go.

Is this still a stupid idea?

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only people who should be going to law school are those who get into a top-ten school or get a free ride. Otherwise, do not bother.

So, this is our thinking - My husband is older than most law students (29), a veteran and has a job. However, he would be an incredibly good attorney, especially immigration or constitution. Not big money getters, we know. However, with his LSAT scores (very, very high...but mediocre college grades...not sure how important that is since it's been a long time and lots of life between college and now) and GI Bill, we think that it will cost very little or even nothing for him to get his JD. We are going to move out of the area and Penn is where he really wants to go.

Is this still a stupid idea?

1. You don't know that he would be a good attorney. You just don't, because he's never gone to law school or been an attorney. What makes you think that he would be a good immigration attorney or constitutional law attorney? Constitutional law does not seem like a very realistic goal given how few people actually have that practice.

2. If he gets into Penn for little or no money, it moves from bad idea territory to probably still a bad idea, maybe a good idea. It depends, what are his other opportunities? What is your financial situation like? Are you going to work and support him through school? Or are you still going to take out loans? Is your marriage ready for the crucible that is having a spouse in law school (speaking from experience!)? Are you ready to not really have much fun or free time with your spouse for three and a half years and in the end he still may not get a very good job? Is he ready to enter a profession that has thousands of people floating around, searching for jobs that don't exist?

Oh, why am I even bothering. Yes, law school is still a stupid idea.

[Anonymous]

PP here - he has the GI bill, which provides for some living/housing expenses regardless if he goes full time or part time. He is currently a GS employee here but we are very unhappy here. IDEALLY he'd get a transfer and go to school at night.

There are many lawyers in our social circle. I think his biggest hurdle will be, frankly, the other students in law school. They're jerks. That's why I didn't go to law school (there were dual programs and I shared classes with many, they were just jerks).

I guess our feeling (yes, we've discussed it for years) was that if he has no debt because of school, he would have the freedom to do any type of law that he actually enjoys (non-profit, immigration, international). He currently has a job, but I'd do anything not to be stuck here.

Yes I plan to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only people who should be going to law school are those who get into a top-ten school or get a free ride. Otherwise, do not bother.

So, this is our thinking - My husband is older than most law students (29), a veteran and has a job. However, he would be an incredibly good attorney, especially immigration or constitution. Not big money getters, we know. However, with his LSAT scores (very, very high...but mediocre college grades...not sure how important that is since it's been a long time and lots of life between college and now) and GI Bill, we think that it will cost very little or even nothing for him to get his JD. We are going to move out of the area and Penn is where he really wants to go.

Is this still a stupid idea?

i don't know if penn likes splitters (high lsat/low gpa) as much as northwestern -

i don't think it is a stupid idea for you guys because law school would be paid for so you aren't as dependent on landing a biglaw job to service loans.

For your husband, I would say go for it if he can get into a top 10 law school and have it fully paid for.

[Anonymous]

Pp here. Ideally he could work and do school part time. He works in a field that needs attorneys (immigration).

We aren't set on anything but if it's free, a jd might give us more options it he can get in to penn (he has a lot of post college experience so hopefully that helps!)

[Anonymous]

And thanks for the input! It's helpful.

[Anonymous]

if i had the choice between penn at sticker (with some living expenses subsidized) and a lower T1/state school free ride, i would take the latter. he should try for a scholly somewhere.

honestly, if he wants to do immigration, he should get a full ride to a rancid toilet school and do well. he will be fine. he will not be doing constitutional law-related anything.