Proof Your School And Grades Matter

<p>The below description is from a job currently being advertised. In addition to five years of experience, they WANT, TOP TIER SCHOOL and STRONG UNDERGRADUATE RECORD</p>

· 5 plus years of patent prosecution experience<br>
· Member of a state bar (CA preferred) and admitted to practice before the Patent and Trademark Office
· J.D. with excellent academic credentials and top tier school
· Applicants must have a strong undergraduate academic record
· Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Physics Degree or other technical background
· Desire to work at a cutting-edge technology firm
· Excellent oral and written communication skills
· Demonstrated ability to work efficiently, prioritize workflow, meet demanding deadlines, and manage multi-dimensional projects in a fast-paced environment<br>
· Ability to work both independently and with a diverse set of personalities in a team oriented environment</p>

<p>Law jobs are among those which are thought to be among the most school-prestige-conscious; the level of school-prestige-consciousness varies considerably over different types of jobs.</p>

<p>When they say "J.D. with excellent academic credentials and top tier school," it seems pretty clear they're referring to a top tier law school.</p>

<p>And notice when they say "strong undergraduate record," they don't connect that with "top tier school."</p>

<p>Finally, maybe I'm reading too much into this, but they're asking for "excellent" academic credentials at the law school level, but a "strong" undergraduate record. To my mind, "excellent" is better than "strong"; they don't want major deficiencies at the undergrad level, but at the law school level they want someone who excelled at a top law school.</p>

<p>So no, this doesn't say you need to have gone to an elite college or university as an undergrad to get serious consideration for this job. If you did well as an undergrad , got into a top tier law school and excelled there, they may be interested. But since pretty much everyone who gets into a top tier law school will have done very, very well as an undergrad, the undergrad piece of this is pretty much a throw-away.</p>

<p>I agree, bclintonk. I do not see that they're asking for top-tier undergrad.</p>

<p>Parent1986, with all respect, this is a blinding flash of the obvious. Law is one of those professions where there is a real hierarchy in terms of what employers want. They're asking for a top tier law school, not a top tier undergrad. The two may be linked, but it's not as though they are going to reject the top tier excellent-performer law school based on his undergrad, because by definition he did well in undergrad to get into the top tier law school. If this is supposed to be some kind of "gotcha" proof that at every turn, an elite undergrad matters, it doesn't prove your point at all.</p>

<p>I'm not trying to be a smart rear but everyone I know who went to a top tier law school, went to a top tier undergrad. Is it common for a person to go to a top tier law school after graduating from a non top tier undergrad? Again I am really asking because I have friends that are sending their daughter to a non top tier to save money then they plan for her to go to a top tier for law.</p>

<p>I also found it interesting that they are looking for someone with five years of experience and are still interested in the applicants school and undergraduate performance.</p>

<p>How many times have we heard that only your "first job" cares about your school and grades? More than one attorney has said this to me and I think it also applies to other professions. Performance on the job is what is claimed to matter by many.</p>

<p>Also, just because this company is asking for these credentials, doesn't mean they will find or hire such an applicant.</p>

<p>It looks to me like this is not a true job advertisement, but rather a case of "we have to advertise this open position, but we already have the candidate that we want for it". As soon as this firm has passed whatever the minimum number of days is that is required to make it look like a search is going on, the person they have on hold will be the one who is hired.</p>

<p>^^^^Could be. It is advertised on the company's website. I was looking at engineering jobs being advertised, and ran across it.</p>

<p>I have no clue as to the definition of 'top tier' undergrad.</p>

<p>Each year that I have taught at U Iowa, we have sent students to top 15 law schools. And this is just from the college of bushiness.</p>

<p>Is Iowa top tier undergrad?</p>

<p>^^^^^ did it list salary, working hours, and a contact in the state's employment office? those are dead giveaways that the jobs are part of a green card application process (hapless engineer turned lawyer :)). The strong undergrad record could be because the candidate in question went to night school for law...</p>

<p>so-called "labor certification" job ads are easy to spot.</p>

<p>^^^^^ but then, 5 years experience would only mean someone who was unfortunate enough to be stuck on an H-1B visa... Not likely. Most labor certification ads don't ask for 5 years experience.</p>

<p>Parent, right now lawyers are a dime a dozen. Top firms (and I would hope that some firm looking for a TOP tier education is a top firm willing to pay top dollar) can call the shots.</p>

<p>I know a number of mighty successful lawyers who went to top law schools and they did NOT go to top tier undergrad schools. In fact, I also know a number of mighty successful lawyers who did not go to top tier law schools...but they did very well where they did attend.</p>

<p>^^^I would be surprised if attorneys with undergrad degrees in engineering are that plentiful. Hence, turbo's observations.</p>

<p>Interesting comments Turbo93. I didn't view the qualifications with a global perspective. This is a global company.</p>

<p>They are looking for a patent lawyer. Most patent lawyers have engineering or science/math undergraduate degrees. It is not uncommon for students from non-top tier undergraduate schools to attend top tier law schools. Admission to law school is primarily based on GPA (regardless of where it comes from) and LSAT score. Check out the websites for several T-14 law schools; undergraduate schools represented in a given class are often listed.</p>

<p>I just did that runnersmom. 261 institutions were represented at Harvard in 2010-2011. I did a quick copy and paste from a section...</p>

<p>Fort Hays State University
University of Dallas
Franklin and Marshall College
University of Delaware
Furman University
University of Florida
Gallatin School of Individual Study
University of Georgia
George Fox University
University of Houston
George Mason University
University of Illinois - Urbana
George Washington University
University of Iowa
Georgetown University
University of Kansas
Georgia Institute of Technology
University of Kentucky
Georgia State University
University of Mary
Gonzaga University</p>

<p>It used to be if they got 80% of what they asked for they would hire them. That was before the internet could get you 1000 resumes in 1 hour. Add in the general economy and the oversupply of lawyers and recruiters are looking for everyway to discourage questionable candidates from clogging their in boxes. Or course the result is more resumes in the old in-box because at some point candidates just stop reading the ads and hit send.</p>

<p>I'm not surprised Haystack. My S (Chicago '07) is at HLS (Class of 2013) and has often talked about the diversity of undergraduate institutions represented.</p>

<p>Essentially ALL patent lawyers have engineering or science degrees. You can't get admitted to the patent bar, much less have five years of patent prosecution experience, without proving your engineering or science education (or passing the Fundamentals of Engineering exam).</p>

<p>The other important bit of context is that relatively few patent lawyers come out of "top tier" law schools. My top tier law school class of 170 produced maybe 5 patent lawyers, none of whom were anywhere near the top of the class. (Although in all honesty I think there is probably a little bulge in the population of 30-something patent lawyers with good credentials right now. The tech stock crash of 2000-2001 sent a whole bunch of qualified engineers to law school, including top tier law schools, and those are precisely the people who would have 5-8 years of patent prosecution experience at this point in their careers.)</p>

<p>So it's not easy at all for a firm to find a patent lawyer with a good academic record from a top tier law school. This announcement is very picky, and probably a bit of wishful thinking.</p>

<p>And, yes, in the legal world where you went to law school matters much, much more than where you went to college matters in any world (on this continent, at least).</p>

I'm not trying to be a smart rear but everyone I know who went to a top tier law school, went to a top tier undergrad.


<p>Top tier law grad here and, although there were many top tier undergrads in my law school class, by no means did everybody come from those universities (myself included).</p>