This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - IPFreely
Pages: 1  3 4 5 6 7 ... 11
« on: November 01, 2010, 03:58:44 PM »
You might be getting a great education and I think any ABA school provides you with the basic tools to succeed. To me paying 11k for cookies and beer (oh wait they took it away) is a bit of a rip-off .
... paying ungodly amounts of money for a piece of paper that does not guarantee anything and in your case some cookies seems like a rip-off to me.
You keep forgetting the brownies, man. They're awesome. But last week they substituted caramel apples (with or without peanuts) since it was Halloween.
This week I think I'll stock up, just in case they pull that "oh, it's a special occasion, here's something different!" crap again. Bastards.
« on: November 01, 2010, 03:54:19 PM »
Some IP firms do not require a engineering background, but strongly desire it.
Then they are doing IP lit or soft IP. Patent prosecution requires it- full stop.
Correct. This is not a shades-of-gray issue. A technical background an absolute requirement to take the USPTO registration examination.
That said, there are three ways to qualify: (1) ABET-accredited engineering or science BA/BS degree; (2) sufficient engineering/science coursework (28 to 32 credits, depending on subject) to get such a degree (usually used for CS programs since ABET was not in the business of accrediting them until relatively recently, but can be used if someone took a bunch of chemistry and then switched majors to art history); (3) FE (Fundamentals of Engineering) exam, which has its own engineering coursework requirements.
I disagree with Bigs' assertion that anyone with a CS degree is golden. IP firms still aren't hiring at anywhere near the pace they used to; the slowdown in R&D means correspondingly fewer patent applications.
« on: October 26, 2010, 07:22:58 PM »
I give your rant a 2/10, with major point deductions for logic failures, grammar, and sanity.
I agree, but with the caveat that no schooling is ever a safe bet. At the end of the day education is a rip-off no matter where you go, but it is a rip-off you have to deal with to even have a chance at doing anything.
You know what, that really isn't the case. Prior to 2008, most T1 law grads -- on the close order of 90% -- were getting jobs in the legal industry, or could have if they wanted to. IIRC, my school's employment rate was 97%, with 30% going to biglaw. Meanwhile, even then, plenty of T4 schools had 50% unemployment rates nine months after graduation.
In 2008, when I started 1L, full tuition at my T1 was $11,000 lower than what Golden Gate (T4) charged as its full rate -- $25K vs. $36K.
That's without taking scholarships into account. Also, tuition increases here are capped for continuing students; I think it's 5% per year. (Newly entering students get socked with whatever the latest and highest rate is, currently $36K. Sorry, folks.)
"A ripoff no matter where you go"? Hardly. I think I'm getting a damn good deal, even with new-grad hiring having fallen off a cliff.
What do you get for these thousands of dollars in tuition money[. . . .]
Well, we used to get beer, soda, and cookies every Thursday, but the university put a stop to the beer (liability concerns), so now it's soda and either brownies or cookies. The brownies are really good, though. I had three last week.
The professor you are paying to give you an education publishes their own book that you have to buy to succeed in their class.
With two exceptions, my profs haven't used their own texts for their classes. In one's class, he used his own book because it's the recognized best-in-field. In the other, they gave us free copies in PDF (and the text likely will be best-in-field, just as the treatise one of them wrote is a standard reference already).
The book is generally outrageously priced and then at the end of the year you get to sell it back for about 10 cents on the dollar and the school sells the same book for another outrageous amount of money to the next student.
You do know that you're allowed to sell your used textbooks directly to the next semester's or year's students, too, and to buy them from previous semesters' students, right?
« on: October 26, 2010, 06:42:13 PM »
The intro is so badly written that I have to wonder what the author's pedigree is. Also, going through all of those contortions just to avoid mentioning the commonly-accepted phrase "the Cravath model" seems a bit much -- which makes me wonder whether the author even knows the term. If s/he doesn't, well, that's another strike against the author's meaningful ability to discuss the subject. . . .
« on: October 26, 2010, 05:40:51 PM »
On top of that if I remember my 7th grade math properly you would be much more interested in the mean opposed to the median salary. Correct me if I am wrong, but MEDIAN would be like this if 7 salaries were reported as 25,000, 30,000, 35,000, 90,000, 100,000, 100,000 150,000, . The median salary would be 90,000. while the mean would be around 60,000. Reporting a median makes a school look a lot better if they can say 90,000 instead of averaging in people with very low salaries.
You fail at math.
You can create distorted data to argue for any of the three values -- mean, median, mode. In any typical salary distribution, median would be the best number to use. Unfortunately, we have that pesky bimodal distribution -- a consequence of the biglaw "we'll pay $160K to anyone we hire" salary-matching system -- that makes all of them equally useless.
You want transparency in this situation, the only way you can get it is to show a breakdown that separates biglaw out. Something along the lines of "x% got biglaw jobs; of the remaining y%, the median salary is $NN with a standard deviation of $X."
« on: October 26, 2010, 12:04:25 PM »
I also think schools should offer a couple bar prep classes during the third year that you can take. Save everyone money on bar-bri.
Go to Wisconsin, practice in Wisconsin. Problem solved.
« on: October 26, 2010, 12:01:50 PM »
I seriously doubt this will ever happen. Just look at the number of "should I go to law school" threads that have surfaced lately where the OP is either old or seeking to get into a T3 or T4. Despite my warning, the warning of others, logic, and (apparently) their own instinct, they choose to go. Going to a T1-T2 was a good bet before 2007... it's not now. Certainly, going to a T3 or T4 was never a good bet unless you had a full (or near full) scholarship. Some of these people wanting to go to T3s and T4s in this economy need to get their heads examined - at the least, their decision shows a complete lack of judgment.
« on: October 26, 2010, 11:57:09 AM »
Who the hell goes to Harvard for an engineering degree anyway? MIT FTW.
« on: October 26, 2010, 11:53:54 AM »
This is a problem that should not be ignored.
I doubt I'd make enough to pay both mortgages but I really don't want to let money deter me from pursuing my goal.
Don't be silly. He's smart and unique. He'll get a full tuition scholarship, they'll even pay him a stipend for gracing their hallways. The bank will forgive his mortgage, maybe even chip in for the water bill. He won't be one of those losers with no job and $150,000 in law school debt dragging him down like concrete overshoes on a Mafia tattletale.
Seriously, do you know what your LSAT is yet, and how generous your target school is with scholarships?
« on: October 23, 2010, 11:53:07 AM »
The quoting got hosed in your reply, Bigs. I think I've fixed it, but if any of the below is misattributed, PLMK.
An elderly person is probably a lot more likely to speak to a more senior person than a 30 year old hotshot. Being young and from a top school is not always the best situation. It is about 90% of the time, but a 30 year old kid will not understand the importance of writing a will for their kids particularly if they do not have any. There are just so many things that a 60 year old person can relate better with a 60 year old to. So regardless of the legal experience that an older graduate has the more able they will relate.
What better person than an elder?How about a 30yo who graduated law school at 25, worked for a firm specializing in elder law for five years, and then started her own practice? You know, some kids really do love their grandparents, right? Not everyone wants to stick their parents in a nursing home, seize power over their parents' retirement savings, and then go off to pre-spend their inheritance.
If you want to work at the Chinese Embassy someone who has lived in China and speaks Mandarin and has a freshly minted J.D. from a tier 4 school will probably be more sought after than a 24 year old white guy from Nebraska who graduated from Harvard. People relate better to their own and are more comfortable discussing important things with someone similar to themselves. It is not ALL ABOUT PEDIGREE AND BEING YOUNG. Generally speaking it helps, but there are times when a good pedigree etc can work against you.
The OP at 62 years old if they want to go to law school they know the risk. They have been through a lot more than me thats for sure I am 25 and have a lot to learn about everything. A degree from Harvard cannot or any type of education is unable to provide you with the wisdom that 30 years of REAL LIFE gives you. I am sure the OP has thought it out and knows the risks. She may or may not succeed in a legal career and it will be harder to recoup the investment at 62 years old, but it can be done. I don't think anything the OP said was illogical and she came her seeking some basic advice and people start questioning her intelligence and just saying she is illogical and that makes no sense.
At 62 years old the traditional summer associate route will probably not be open to you. You may have to hang up your own shingle and at 65 will you be willing to start your own business that is a lot to ask, but it can certainly be done. Or you might be able to to join a small firm and the bottom line is their options and in general being 62 will not be an advantage, but in certain instances it can be. Particularly if elder law is exactly what you want to do. Good Luck to the OP whatever they decide.
Those are all good points too. Understand, I'm not trying to argue her out of it -- my earlier attempt at a reply (which got lost when my 60-minute login expired before I hit "submit") noted, as did you, that she's old enough to decide for herself. On the other hand, she has a lot more responsibilities to think about, too.
However, I do think she's being unreasonable when she intends to find a job, work two years, and then tell the firm to kiss her ass as she runs off to go into competition. I sure wouldn't hire someone if I knew of that plan.
Also, at 65/66, I really couldn't even call it "age discrimination" for a firm to refuse to hire her solely because she's that old -- and just starting out with a newly-printed degree. At some point, it is simply economically unreasonable to expect a firm to provide training and mentoring to a new attorney -- even one doing elder law who can "relate" to seniors' problems really well. There are plenty of semi-retired attorneys, with a few decades of legal practice behind them, who can do the same thing.
Pages: 1  3 4 5 6 7 ... 11