Intellectual Property Forums


    
      
        Intellectual Property Forums
        (http://www.intelproplaw.com/Forum/Forum.cgi)
      

        
        
(Message started by: Peter Foss on Apr 7^th, 2005, 6:51pm)

Title: another science guy?
Post by Peter Foss on Apr 7^th, 2005, 6:51pm

I am another life science guy B.S. biotechnology who will be going to UC Irvine in the fall to pursue a M.S. in Biotechnology and possibly a PhD. Do you think it would be more beneficial to work on another B.S. in chemical engineering( I started out in ChE, but switched) and my M.S. or go for the PhD. I've read its very comptetive for those with PhD's and it would take me about the same amount of time to finish. Then I would go to law school. ??? ??? ???

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by Mario on Apr 8^th, 2005, 9:50am

Why on earth would you want to get another undergraduate degree?

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by dandoe123 on Apr 8^th, 2005, 11:35am

because undergrad girls are hot?

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by Peter Foss on Apr 8^th, 2005, 1:47pm

I was under the impression that ChE degrees are more valued in the patent market than my M.S. which I will be pursuing next fall. I already have a bunch of ChE classes and I could finish with the M.S. in Biotechnology and the B.S. in ChE in three years. If the M.S. will be sufficient to land a job after law school then forget the B.S. Tell me what you think....and yes undergrad girls are hot....especially in SoCal.

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by anon on Apr 10^th, 2005, 7:34pm

You would definitely be better off with the grad degree. But what is your eventual goal. If you want to become a patent attorney, then you should be working on your J.D. now, and you can take the patent bar at anytime as you already have the tech oriented degree. If you are interested in working at the USPTO, then you should follow through with the Ph.D., but that is likely to mean a commitment of six years.

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by Peter Foss on Apr 11^th, 2005, 9:36pm

I really do want to become a patent attorney, but the way people keep talking on this board, it seems like I need a PhD and a law degree to get a job as a patent attorney. Thats why I'm headed to grad school. I don't want to get out having a M.S. in biotechnology and a law degree and not be able to get a job. I could go to Pharmacy school and never have to worry about employment. So I have started to turn toward that. So what realistically am I looking at for if I had continued on my original path M.S. biotechnology and JD? I don't care about small firm vs large firm. And what type of salary/working conditions am I looking at?

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by Steve12 on Apr 12^th, 2005, 11:48am

I think the law degree is more important, because that is an absolute requirement if you want to be an attorney. The advanved science degree would be nice, but in reality when you start working in a firm to prosecute patents, you'll work in a lot of different scientific disciplines, not just a small focused area that was your major when you were a grad student (which by the time you are a lawyer will have been five years ago, and how relevant will it be then?).

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by Patent_Type on Apr 13^th, 2005, 10:28am

Be a pharmacist:

1) Regular, manageable hours
2) Great pay
3) Low stress
4) A sense that you are making a positive contribution

Your family will thank you for it.

PT

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by guest on Apr 13^th, 2005, 10:47am

Agreed. Get your pharmacy degree, go work at some hospital and you can make >$100K/yr for 40 hours of work a week (depending where you are in the US of course). If you still want to go to law school then go part time.

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by danny on Apr 13^th, 2005, 5:01pm

why on earth do pharmacists get paid so much money? ???

really...

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by guest on Apr 14^th, 2005, 7:43am

You have to know the chemistry and pharmacology of every drug out there. As a result, you have to go to school for a long time and there is a huge shortage. Supply and demand.

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by Patent_Type on Apr 14^th, 2005, 10:16am

WalMart is reported to recently be offering around $70K for entry-level pharmacists. That's WalMart, ladies and gentlemen, the big box retailer famous for paying nearly nothing to its employees. If WalMart starts at $70K, you can imagine that pharmacist salaries elsewhere are significantly higher.

PT

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by Jonathan on Apr 14^th, 2005, 10:27am

Maybe they get an employee discount as well.

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by guest on Apr 14^th, 2005, 11:32am

A lot of the pharmacies and hospitals are offering around $50/hour. $50/hr*40/hrs/week*52weeks=$104K/year + signing bonus etc.

Of course the image some people think of does not justify this salary, however, you really have to know alot to get into the field.

You can see an example of the curriculum at the website below.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/pharmacy/pharmd/programs/dr_pharmacy.html

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by guest on Apr 14^th, 2005, 11:42am

Pharmacist salaries are available at the site below

http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_compresult_national_HC07000011.html

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by it makes sense on Apr 14^th, 2005, 2:37pm

PharmD's make so much money because there is a demand for them in the marketplace. Unlike law in which schools pump out lawyer after lawyer and flood the market, pharmacists are smart in that their industry regulates the numbers in their profession...Only so many are accepted into schools each year...

I wish I would have been smart and gone to pharm school. The hell with the law. Ill take a 40 hour work week and 140K a year anyday

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by Guest on Apr 14^th, 2005, 2:37pm

Pharmacies are cash cows, and with an aging population the Walgreens (Rite-aids, etc) seem like they are popping up on every other block with their drive-thru windows. Three new Walgreens have been built in my little town in the last 2 years alone. God forbid Americans should have to get out of their car to pick up their drugs!

And they can't have people that don't know what they are doing handing out all these medications. Their liability is just too large, and the price of paying $100K for a qualified pharmacist is peanuts to these companies - just pass it on to the consumer. Ah, the beauty of patents ... if you have it and they need it then you can charge what you want...

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by melwrc on Apr 15^th, 2005, 3:00am

Pharmacists make good money, but the numbers people throw out are well above average. Checking around various salary report sites, 98k for cash + bonuses is the 75th percentile for ALL pharmacists. Starting is 60-70k typically. At one point in the mid-90's, I remember hearing the urban myth that pharmacists made 150k-250k.
IP law can do just as well on a per hr basis, but allows you to make more if you want to work it. Being a pharmacist doesn't seem to require any creativity or provide variety. Sure, writing patents and OA responses can be tedious, but there are all sorts of different issue popping up.

In the end, with little variance, salary is commensurate with the number of people that want the job and can do the job. Jobs that nobody wants and few can do have great pay. Easy desirable jobs get crappy pay. The patent side of IP falls somewhere in the middle of the spectrum on the desire, but only so many good engineers end up becoming good lawyers. That's why the median salary for patent work compares so nicely to the other legal fields.

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by ha ha on Apr 15^th, 2005, 7:25am

melwrc seems to be out of date with his information. From my own experience (of which melwrc has none), 60-70k may have been the staring salary 5-6 years ago. It is very common for employers (hospitals and pharmacies) to pay >$50 an hour and offer sign on bonuses from $5-10K. And when working more than the usual 40 hours a week it is easy to make much more.

The demand has risen substantially and as a result the pay just keeps going up.

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by Peter Foss on Apr 15^th, 2005, 12:02pm

Thanks for all the input everybody. I'll think I'm going to apply to Pharmacy schools after I get my M.S. Good luck to you all.

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by melwrc on Apr 15^th, 2005, 3:42pm

As I said, my info came from salary report sites (e.g. salary.com), not personal experience. For any one looking at a career path, hard evidence is more reliable than tales of big bucks that come easy. Yes, pharmacists make good money, but don't think that you are going to make big bucks easy because someone says they have a friend that has a cousin dating a pharmacist...and she makes 250k yr while working 40 hrs a week. Look at the salary surveys, be honest with yourself about where you think you would fall on the curve, and don't pick a career based on the 95th percentile, unless you are just that awesome and are psychic.
And definitely don't make life decisions based on anonymous postings on a board.

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by Reality on Apr 15^th, 2005, 4:17pm

melwrc you are missing the boat entirely. This is not a rumor heard heard three degrees away. It is reality. You should call some of the pharmacy schools around your area and ask what the recent graduates are getting offered. It is likely that they are getting 3-4 offers making around $50/hour for each graduate. As a matter of fact, 8-9 years ago some schools were guaranteeing that you would make no less than $70k a year upon graduation. And that was 8-9 years ago.

It is likely that the "urban legends" that you heard about pharmacists making $250k a year were probably true when they owned their own stores. Many pharmacists who had their own pharmacies (before the walgreeens, rite aid, eckard and vons explosion) were making $200-300k and more a year. Of course this was not everyone and you had to own your own store but that is why it was a desirable profession.

You may even want to take a look at your local paper and see how many ads there are for pharmacists. The reality is that there are just not enough out there for the demand.

It is just a fact that the pharmacy profession has taken off. Pharamcists should be paid this way for the amount of school it takes (look at the previous posts for the USC curriculum description). And from experience I can say it is much more rigorous than law school .

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by Reality on Apr 15^th, 2005, 4:21pm

Just to clarify.

Each graduate is probably getting 3-4 offers each and each offer is probably paying around $50/hr.

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by melwrc on Apr 16^th, 2005, 3:41pm

I'm not sure whether guest, ha ha, and reality are the same person or not. For "reality" in particular, if you have law school and pharmaceutical science, what are you doing now? The numbers below are "apples to apples" except for NALP because salary.com didn't have entry level.

The earlier salary report on pharmacists was for the entire range of those with the pharmacist title, regardless of experience. Become a manager and this is what you get. http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layoutscripts/swzl_compresult.asp?jobcode=HC07000269&jobaltername=Pharmacist+Manager&jobtitle=Pharmacist+Manager&narrowdesc=Healthcare+%2D%2D+Practitioners&narrowcode=HC03&zipcode=&metrocode=&searchtype=2&geo=U%2ES%2E+National+Averages

If you want to see entry level for patent attys, go to www.nalpdirectory.com with "intellectual property" as the practice area. Do well at a respected law school, and get easily over a 100k. For example, I'm at University of Houston Law Center, which is ranked around 50th-60th. The patent firms are offering as low as 80k to top 35% and as high as 125k to top 10%. These are BASE salaries for billing the MINIMUM hrs. With the carrot represented by getting as much as 35% of your bill rate (br~$200/hr) for extra hrs, you will most likely be tempted to work a bit extra, and at big firms it will be a requirement for moving up the ranks.
For the 5-8 yr, this is the pay using the same survey.
http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layoutscripts/swzl_compresult.asp?jobcode=LE11000027&jobaltername=Level+III+Patent+Attorney&jobtitle=Patent+Attorney+III&narrowdesc=Legal+Services&narrowcode=LE01&zipcode=&metrocode=75&searchtype=2&geo=Houston%2C+TX

Get greater than 8 yrs experience and this is it.
http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layoutscripts/swzl_compresult.asp?jobcode=LE11000028&jobaltername=Level+IV+Patent+Attorney&jobtitle=Patent+Attorney+IV&narrowdesc=Legal+Services&narrowcode=LE01&zipcode=&metrocode=75&searchtype=2&geo=Houston%2C+TX

I work at a fairly small firm, but those that worked here as agents through law school (FT work, PT school) are making around 200k. That's with 4-5 yrs agent experience at graduation. Firms looking to poach our recent graduates offer greater numbers. A yr and a half as an agent, half way through law school, and I'm getting the entry level pharmacist pay.

One big caveat with being a patent atty, if you have a technical degree at a low ranking school, you will have a hard time finding a job. It's not for lack of demand, it's that firms won't think that you can do the job, and clients demand strong technical abilities for the sky high bill rates. Get a 3.0 or better at a top 25ish school, and you will make excellent money and be primed to do well at law school because it will seem easy after the hard earned undergrad. The high pay comes from the % of the population that has the ability, education, and knowledge of how great an option patent law can be. There just aren't enough qualified people relative to the demand, and that's been the situation for a long time. Yes, the number of hrs you work will be greater, but your hourly rate will be equal or greater than all but the rarest pharmacist.

For pharmacists, the pay is coming from demand relative to the current supply, but demand comes and goes over time. Just ask all the IT people that flooded the market in the late 90's in response to the growing demand. As a pharmacist, you can be pretty certain that the demand will be there bc of the baby boomers. I can't comment on the supply because I have never looked into how hard it is to get into a school and how many schools are out there. I'll leave that research to you.

Don't base your choice on how many postings you see in the local classifieds. Patent firms don't advertise in newspapers because that's not the place to find qualified applicants.

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by Wiscagent on Apr 17^th, 2005, 7:14am

Here's some free advice. Remember, you tend to get what you pay for.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Apparently some individuals participating in this discussion, who are considering their career opportunities are focused on their potential income far more than the type of work they will be doing for the next 40 years or so. In my experience, lifestyle decisions - where to live, with whom to live, with whom to be friendly, whether or not to have children, the type of work you do, participation in community affairs, personal hobbies and habits - all will have greater impact on your feelings of success, personal satisfaction and happiness than your income.

Obviously, some minimum income is necessary to live decently. In the United States, most attorneys, patent agents, pharmacists, engineers, and scientists, meet this threshold. And unless you are fabulously financially successfully you will never have as much money as you would like, regardless of your profession. I encourage you young people making career decisions to consider what type of work would you like to do. Speak to some pharmacists, some patent attorneys, some practicing engineers and scientists – develop a better understanding of what they do for 35 – 70 hours per week.

As your reading this note, I’m sure that some of you are thinking, “Thanks for the advice old guy, but show me the money!” Well, life isn’t as simple as that. These salary data are neither particularly accurate, nor relevant to you as an individual.

I looked at the salary links at http://swz.salary.com/ for Pharmacist Manager and Level III Patent Attorney and I compared those data to the American Chemical Society (ACS) salary survey information. The ACS salary comparison program asks demographic and job information, then spits out salary ranges. I entered that I graduated in 1990, I have a PHD, I work in a law firm with fewer than 50 employees, and I work in Fargo, ND; Chicago, IL; San Francisco, CA; Birmingham, AL; or Washington, DC. (By the way, none of this information is my actual, personal information.) The ACS data are different than the swz.salary information.

The ACS data show a person with these credentials and at the 75th percentile of income earning $122,642 in Fargo, the swz.salary figure for the same situation is very close: $121,536. According to the USPTO, there are only 6 patent attorneys in the whole state of North Dakota; so what is the significance of those numbers?

In Chicago the 25th percentile according to the ACS is $86,565, but according to swz.salary the number should be $118,275, 37% more. The ACS doesn’t separately ask if you have a law degree - does Chicago have a higher fraction of patent agents working at lower salaries than elsewhere in the country?

Consider that AT BEST, these salary data are a snapshot of salary taken within the past year or so of those actually working. These data have little relevance for (1) will you find a job and be regularly employed for the next 4 decades, and (2) what incomes will be 20 or 30 years from now.

Income is important, but don’t let the apparent dollars be the dominant factor in your career decision.

Richard Tanzer

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by reality on Apr 18^th, 2005, 7:26am

Am and have been a successful patent attorney and I agree that the earning potential is much more with the legal profession. The comments are not comparing which which profession is better but merely stating what the facts are out there. If someone likes pharmacy then that is fine. I chose the law because I find that it is more creative and interesting.

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by Patent_Type on Apr 18^th, 2005, 9:04am

In light of the recent posts on this topic, I repeat what I posted earlier:

on 04/13/05 at 10:28:32, Patent_Type wrote:

Be a pharmacist:

1) Regular, manageable hours
2) Great pay
3) Low stress
4) A sense that you are making a positive contribution

Your family will thank you for it.

PT

Nobody even is suggesting that pharmacists make more than patent attorneys. Only that the lifestyle is quite nice for a pharmacist.

PT

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by melwrc on Apr 18^th, 2005, 10:00am

I'm curious to see over the next 10 or so years if pharmacy schools open up the flood gates to meet the demand.
Peter, if you go forward with becoming a pharmacist but are still interested in IP, make sure that you keep current with pharmaceutical science beyond what is required for you job. It'll make you more desirable in IP should something happen down the road to screw up the supply/demand balance.

Granted, in patent law, we all have to hope that the patent system never gets fixed in a way that reduces billables too significantly.

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by Peter Foss on Apr 19^th, 2005, 2:04pm

Thanks for all the great discussion on this post! I'm still finding my way and have been talking to quite a few people in both areas. I suspect I'll think things over the summer and possibly job shadow a pharmacist for a while in town here. My friends brother is a patent attorney for a firm in Seattle so I'm going to give him a call as well. I just have to feel things out. I'm leaning hard toward Pharmacy because I can pay off my student loans right away and if I want to continue into law school I can, but I can't really do it the other way around.

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by csc77 on Apr 28^th, 2005, 9:22pm

I will get my Ph.D. in the Science and Engineering of Materials (interdisciplinary focused on material science and physics) in December. I have an undergraduate degree in Physics and a Masters degree in Material Science. I am interested in the career path of a patent attorney. I have done some research online and it appears that a jd degree is the next step...is that correct? If so, what is the best method of choosing a school? I would like to work full-time and attend law school part time. Thanks in advance!

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by melwrc on Apr 29^th, 2005, 3:55pm

Your choices are already limited by wanting to go PT. Many law schools do not have a PT program.

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by Isaac Clark on Apr 29^th, 2005, 4:19pm

Deciding to go part time does limit your choices, but not
necessarily fatally. There are a few top tier schools
with evening programs. Emory in Atlanta and some schools
in DC for example.

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by csc77 on Apr 29^th, 2005, 4:58pm

Thanks for the input. If I chose to go full time, a similar question arises which is, what is the best criteria for choosing a school that foucses on a patent/intellectual property? I have read that it is as if not more mportant to graduate at the top of the class, than to simply graduate from a top tier school. Also, after graduating with a jd degree, does my Ph.D. have a strong influence on being able to find a position as a patent attorney? Thanks!

Title: Re: another science guy?
Post by Isaac Clark on Apr 29^th, 2005, 5:41pm

I don't think the number of IP or patent courses offered by
a law school is an important consideration. Unless you feel
that taking such courses would result in better grades, I'd
recommend making a choice on the basis of the general
strength and reputation of the law school.