Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LFalcon]

I have a BS in chemistry, three years work experience as a chemist and a MS in chemical engineering.    I live in Seattle, WA and would attend LS school here.  I have a husband and can not/do not want to relocate for LS or a job in the foreseeable future.

Thoughts on which is a better position, patent agent or attorney?  I have heard attorney's can do more and make more, but what is the downside of this?  What are the benefits of being an agent (do not need to pay for law school, do not need to give up three years of paid work while attending LS full time, etc.)?

Thanks for the input.

[khazzah]

Thoughts on which is a better position, patent agent or attorney?  I have heard attorney's can do more and make more, but what is the downside of this? 

Your post suggests you already know the answer. Namely, law school has an immediate cost (ie, costs of school itself) plus opportunity cost (ie, lost income).

As another difference, attorneys work more than agents. Their billable/billed minimums are often higher than agents, and they have non-billables on top of that which either agents don't have at all, or aren't considered as important for agents.

Generally speaking, agents are paid less than attorneys, even adjusting for the reduced hours.

[patentatt]

On another note, law school and the state bar exam preparation will provide essentially zero advantage over a motivated patent agent.  Agents can study and learn the law just as well as law students, especially considering how the bloated legal education system keeps pumping out unneeded, poorly trained lawyers.  Virtually nothing that I do was learned in law school or preparing for the bar exam.  It was based on years of doing patent prosecution (work that is indistinguishable between agents and lawyers), and reading the law, rules, and MPEP on my own, as well as attending CLE.

[TXPATLAWYER]

Go to law school and become a patent attorney. It will be worth it. And if you really want to make money, stay away from prosecution, litigation is where it's at.

[MYK]

One issue is whether you can find work as a patent agent in Seattle, given your chemistry background.  I could be mistaken, but I don't think there's much demand for chem there.

[LFalcon]

Thanks everyone for the input. 

Thoughts on which is a better position, patent agent or attorney?  I have heard attorney's can do more and make more, but what is the downside of this? 

Your post suggests you already know the answer. Namely, law school has an immediate cost (ie, costs of school itself) plus opportunity cost (ie, lost income).

As another difference, attorneys work more than agents. Their billable/billed minimums are often higher than agents, and they have non-billables on top of that which either agents don't have at all, or aren't considered as important for agents.

Generally speaking, agents are paid less than attorneys, even adjusting for the reduced hours.

I have an idea of the ups and downs, but am really looking for people who have actually "been there."  I am leaning towards going to LS because I think, in general, the education can be very valuable.  Of course, I can learn a lot on my own, but let's face it -- there are a number of opportunities that can arise in a life time (in my next 40-50 years of working) with a law degree.  I really enjoy science and engineering, but I can see myself pursuing something else sometime in the next few decades. 

Also, the two law schools in Seattle are actually pretty cheap (I have a scholarship to the more expensive one) and will leave law school with "only" $60,000 in debt (my husband has a good job...).  I more concerned with the lost income from the three years I'll be in school full-time.

On another note, law school and the state bar exam preparation will provide essentially zero advantage over a motivated patent agent.  Agents can study and learn the law just as well as law students, especially considering how the bloated legal education system keeps pumping out unneeded, poorly trained lawyers.  Virtually nothing that I do was learned in law school or preparing for the bar exam.  It was based on years of doing patent prosecution (work that is indistinguishable between agents and lawyers), and reading the law, rules, and MPEP on my own, as well as attending CLE.

I understand  I can get the knowledge relevant to patent law with out law school.  But what about the professional opportunities that come (or may not?) with the JD?

Go to law school and become a patent attorney. It will be worth it. And if you really want to make money, stay away from prosecution, litigation is where it's at.

I moved to Seattle from TX (I'm assuming that's where you are) -- if I were living in Houston, I wouldn't have  all the same concerns I have now...

One issue is whether you can find work as a patent agent in Seattle, given your chemistry background.  I could be mistaken, but I don't think there's much demand for chem there.

Yes, this is a huge concern.  I have been in contact with a few people regarding this...I'm hoping I can rely on my MS and record of being able to learn and adjust to new material.  I've been told that many employers are more concerned with that then with the actual degree (though they prefer engineering over sciences...)?  *Any thoughts on this would be very helpful!!*

[MYK]

Also, the two law schools in Seattle are actually pretty cheap (I have a scholarship to the more expensive one) and will leave law school with "only" $60,000 in debt (my husband has a good job...).  I more concerned with the lost income from the three years I'll be in school full-time.

You got a scholarship to UW?  Or is SU more expensive now?  (Strange given their relative rankings, but possible since UW is a state school.)

I know a few SU grads, and they have a good network in Seattle.  Try to find some of their grads who are working in IP law and talk to them.  If it's UW, I'd just say to go there.

One thing about scholarships -- find out if it's contingent on grades, and if so, what the cutoff is.  Also find out if all scholarship studens are lumped into the same section.  Some schools offer big discounts up front, but then you find out that you're in direct competition with every other student on scholarship, and only 50% of you will get to keep yours after the first semester or the first year.

[plex]

I would be very worried about law school ever paying off, if you never plan to leave Seattle.  Seattle is not a large IP market, it isn't non-existent, but it is not large either.  It is not a heavy chem/bio area of the country.  You don't have a Phd.  The only way law school is going to have a very good chance of paying off, is if you do really well.

If you were willing to relocate, that would be a different story, I would not be nearly so pessimistic.

[LFalcon]

So, will the fact that I have a MS is in chemical engineering from UT really matter?  Or will the employers only be concerned with the BS in chemistry? I know without a PhD in chem/bio you can't do much.

[Oh, Crud]

So, will the fact that I have a MS is in chemical engineering from UT really matter?  Or will the employers only be concerned with the BS in chemistry? I know without a PhD in chem/bio you can't do much.

Hi.  Thesis or non-thesis? 

What follows may be waaay out of date, since I did my ChE back in the early 90's.  But back then, an MS in ChE was more or less regarded as a consolation prize for someone who needed to drop out of a PhD program.  More so for non-thesis MS.  This mindset may also have been limited to the Midwestern ChE programs (Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan etc.).  But note UT is certainly as well thought of as these programs, so that's to your benefit.  Okay, let's assume arguendo that this bias no longer exists, except amongst crusty Midwestern old farts, and move on.

Other considerations.  Did you have a particular focus for your BS Chem?  And what was involved in your MS ChE?  Did you pick up the P-Chem (thermo and quantum mechanics) that many BS Chem programs do not cover?  What about heat & mass transport/transfer?  Unit operations?  And were there any other classes you had to satisfy as foundational additional pre-reqs to enter an MS ChE program as a chemist?

I am asking all these questions because I've never worked with someone who made your transition (MS in ChE from BS Chem) and I'm trying to think like someone who may want to hire someone who thinks like a ChE.  For me, there'd be the concern that your MS ChE is just a gloss atop the pure chemistry, and that there are fundamentals missing.  If that is untrue, a good focused resume and cover letter could help calm those qualms.  So depending on how the answers to questions like the above come out, I think the MS ChE can help, and it certainly helps that it's from a very good ChE school.

Finally, echoing some of the others above.  "Only" $60K in debt can be a crushing load for a young family, particularly given the uncertain economy.  Some toss-outs (aka "unsolicited advice") to consider.  One thing is, take a careful look at the amount of debt the financial aid office folks are kindly willing to let you take on, in relation to how much you actually need to take.  You may find there's a considerable gap that can be filled with current income vs. taking on quite so much debt and all its evil concomitants.  Please skim these boards for "debt" and see how many posters in the last few years have a lot of regret about the amount of debt taken on.

Also, it seems from your earlier posts that you are already employed.  Have you considered entering the evening section of your chosen schools (assuming they have such) and continuing to work?  The trade-off might be something like an extra year of law school but no debt, assuming your income atop your husbands can swing it.  Are you working as a chemist or a ChE?  Or other?  If working as a scientist/engineer, does your company have a patent department?  If so, I'd guess you could wangle some informational interviews from its members, get their thoughts on all the questions you're asking above in addition to the research you're doing here.

Good luck to you.

[LFalcon]

 

So, will the fact that I have a MS is in chemical engineering from UT really matter?  Or will the employers only be concerned with the BS in chemistry? I know without a PhD in chem/bio you can't do much.

Hi.  Thesis or non-thesis? 

Other considerations.  Did you have a particular focus for your BS Chem?  And what was involved in your MS ChE?  Did you pick up the P-Chem (thermo and quantum mechanics) that many BS Chem programs do not cover?  What about heat & mass transport/transfer?  Unit operations?  And were there any other classes you had to satisfy as foundational additional pre-reqs to enter an MS ChE program as a chemist?

I am asking all these questions because I've never worked with someone who made your transition (MS in ChE from BS Chem) and I'm trying to think like someone who may want to hire someone who thinks like a ChE.  For me, there'd be the concern that your MS ChE is just a gloss atop the pure chemistry, and that there are fundamentals missing.  If that is untrue, a good focused resume and cover letter could help calm those qualms.  So depending on how the answers to questions like the above come out, I think the MS ChE can help, and it certainly helps that it's from a very good ChE school.

Finally, echoing some of the others above.  "Only" $60K in debt can be a crushing load for a young family, particularly given the uncertain economy.  Some toss-outs (aka "unsolicited advice") to consider.  One thing is, take a careful look at the amount of debt the financial aid office folks are kindly willing to let you take on, in relation to how much you actually need to take.  You may find there's a considerable gap that can be filled with current income vs. taking on quite so much debt and all its evil concomitants.  Please skim these boards for "debt" and see how many posters in the last few years have a lot of regret about the amount of debt taken on.

Also, it seems from your earlier posts that you are already employed.  Have you considered entering the evening section of your chosen schools (assuming they have such) and continuing to work?  The trade-off might be something like an extra year of law school but no debt, assuming your income atop your husbands can swing it.  Are you working as a chemist or a ChE?  Or other?  If working as a scientist/engineer, does your company have a patent department?  If so, I'd guess you could wangle some informational interviews from its members, get their thoughts on all the questions you're asking above in addition to the research you're doing here.

Good luck to you.

My MS is thesis based.  Thanks for the interest!  I attended grad school full-time and did research in reverse osmosis membranes with emphasis in polymers (polymers for the RO membranes).  I learned a lot about RO technology as a resource for cleaner energy, access to clean water water issues and polymers.  I worked with some great people from IBM, Dow, etc.  It was a great program that I really enjoyed.  My research advisors wanted me to stay on but I didn't want a PhD.  I prefer(ed) to spend the years after my MS getting a JD instead.   Loving a grad program is very different than loving the work you'll be doing afterwards.

I think this bias does exist, but it depends on where in the industry you are looking and who you ask.  I've worked for a consulting firm (and interviewed with many) and there is absolutely not bias -- actually, a PhD tends to count against you if you tell them you got it to advance your career (bc they don't really care about your research unless it is directly applicable to what they do).  For many jobs in engineering a PhD is practically useless.  Of course, anything research oriented would view it as a plus.

For my BS I minored in math, taking two P Chem classes with strong emphasis on both thermo and quantum mechanics (is it true that many BS chemistry programs don't cover this?  It would seem to me there would be a great deal lacking if not!).  I took transport phenomena (undergrad and grad level), etc., at UT.  I have a good Chem E foundation.  

I am considering going to LS part time...One of the schools I am looking at has a part time program, the other (better ranked) does not.  I am not currently employed.  We only recently moved to Seattle and I have been studying for the patent bar/taking time off before school/working as a private tutor.  I didn't want to start a full-time job here only to quit after less than six months.    At the time that we moved here I was not considering a part-time LS program...now that I am, I have started looking for a job here.

The debt is a huge concern.  I wrote "only" because I hear of the astronomical debt many lawyers have.  If debt were not a concern to me I don't think I'd have even started this thread!

Thanks again!

[LFalcon]

I would be very worried about law school ever paying off, if you never plan to leave Seattle.  Seattle is not a large IP market, it isn't non-existent, but it is not large either.  It is not a heavy chem/bio area of the country.  You don't have a Phd.  The only way law school is going to have a very good chance of paying off, is if you do really well.

If you were willing to relocate, that would be a different story, I would not be nearly so pessimistic.

I am open to relocating, just not now.  I will attend LS in Seattle, and then I imagine working in Seattle would be best next step as I will have made contacts here.  After that, who knows. 

If I can make $100,000 out of LS with the expectation to advance (with a salary increase) over the next few following years, I will be satisfied.  Does this seem reasonable? I've been doing research on this, and it's hard to for me to find a direct answer...I was told by a guy working at Boeing and going to LS part time that I will have no problem finding a great job and that "employers will be coming to me" after I finish.  But I've also been told that it's not that simple...

[patentatt]

If I can make $100,000 out of LS with the expectation to advance (with a salary increase) over the next few following years, I will be satisfied.  Does this seem reasonable? I've been doing research on this, and it's hard to for me to find a direct answer...I was told by a guy working at Boeing and going to LS part time that I will have no problem finding a great job and that "employers will be coming to me" after I finish.  But I've also been told that it's not that simple...

How can you think it is reasonable to expect $100,000 starting, "with the expectation to advance (with a salary increase)", when:

One third of last year’s law school grads aren’t practicing law

Is it impossible?  No.  Do patent attorneys have (eroding) niche marketability?  Yes.  Should you expect that much money just for going to law school, in this economy?  In my view, when 1/3 of new law graduates are not even employed as lawyers, it is delusional to expect that kind of money.

Many of my fellow law school alums would be thrilled to work at the patent office, where you start making significantly less than 100k, but can quickly approach that level.

[LFalcon]

If I can make $100,000 out of LS with the expectation to advance (with a salary increase) over the next few following years, I will be satisfied.  Does this seem reasonable? I've been doing research on this, and it's hard to for me to find a direct answer...I was told by a guy working at Boeing and going to LS part time that I will have no problem finding a great job and that "employers will be coming to me" after I finish.  But I've also been told that it's not that simple...

How can you think it is reasonable to expect $100,000 starting, "with the expectation to advance (with a salary increase)", when:

One third of last year’s law school grads aren’t practicing law

Is it impossible?  No.  Do patent attorneys have (eroding) niche marketability?  Yes.  Should you expect that much money just for going to law school, in this economy?  In my view, when 1/3 of new law graduates are not even employed as lawyers, it is delusional to expect that kind of money.

Many of my fellow law school alums would be thrilled to work at the patent office, where you start making significantly less than 100k, but can quickly approach that level.

It's definitely not delusional.  Likely?  I don't know.   "One third of last year's LS grads" includes all grads -- not just those who have passed the patent bar and have gone to reasonably good LS.  I don't expect this to be an easy process, but I am sure my outlook is not as bleak as the kid straight out of college with a BA in English lit attending TTT.  No, I will not be attending T14, but I won't be that badly off.

I've gotten a significant amount of my info by going to superlawyers.com and finding attorneys who work in Seattle in patent law who attended the LS I have already been accepted to.  I look up their firms on http://www.infirmation.com/shared/insider/payscale.tcl?state=WA and find salary info for 1st year associates.   Salaries range from $95,000 to $130,00 for 1680 to 1850 hours billed (not respectively).  I'm not expecting a 40 hr work week.

Thoughts, anyone?  I've had job offers for $85,000 as an engineer...I know I can do well as an engineer, but not only would I top out at a relatively low salary, but I think I would actually enjoy my job more as a patent attorney than as an engineer.

Thanks!

[Cronous]

Many of my fellow law school alums would be thrilled to work at the patent office, where you start making significantly less than 100k, but can quickly approach that level.

It would be about a five year operation to become a primary and hit 115K then get your typical step increases for your future years.  Of course with OT, which I am sure they will turn on again, many examiners hit the federal pay cap of 155K.  Its a great setup if the PTO was your first employer straight out of undergrad.  Of course I am not sure they are keen on hiring new Chemistry examiners.