Lawstudents.ca

Has anyone applied to/got accepted to Law School with an engineering undergraduate degree?

Yes, engineering would probably result in a lower GPA. However, if one can manage a GPA of about 3.7 with a decent LSAT score, would having done an engineering undergraduate degree put one at a disadvantage in any manner?

No.

There are any number of engineering students in law school. A fair number gravitate towards some kind of IP, while the rest cover the field in terms of interest.

For all the angstyness over how it's hard to get a high GPA in engineering, there are going to be top students in every field. And it isn't the average students from any discipline who are going to law school. It certainly isn't a barrier, no, above and beyond the GPA question. And GPA, despite many claims from many quarters, is indeed an issue for everyone.

I hope you've got an eye on the ticker Diplock. Make the next one count.

I should have said: make the next two count, had I been speaking to you from the future before you made your 999th post at the UofT forum.

I did engineering and got in this year so i'll be starting in september. Plus at least if u go engineering u get a cool ring 2 show off

I got into a few schools now and am positive I will get into more, and I did engineering and had a GPA on the lower end. However I did combat the lower GPA with a breadth of extra curricular activies, so take from that what you will. There is definitely no disadvantage to taking that degree, most Law Schools look at all undergraduate degrees the same. Just enjoy your undergrad and do well and you should be fine. Oh, and don't forget to nail the LSAT

QFT. Diplock and I have some disagreements over how relevant success or lack thereof in engineering or the sciences is to success in law school, but (I think) we're in 100% agreement that you need a good GPA (and/or LSAT depending on how the school computes things) to get in, in the regular admission category, no matter what your program.

One law school dean mentioned in conversation that the admissions committee were instructed to take difficulty of program into account, but I would expect that would at best be a "tie-breaker" sort of thing, e.g. someone with a 3.7 in a double-specialist physics and chemistry degree with a minor in German literature from U of T would be admitted ahead of someone with a 3.7 in a B.A. major in [whatever] from U of [wherever].

I did engineering in my undergrad and am going to Law School this September.

What I liked in engineering is that the diminishing returns weren't as prevelant at the higher end of the grade spectrum.

I think the work is more difficult and requires a lot of effort, but the effort can take you farther into the 90's than other faculties.

English 70->80 is easier then Engineering 70->80, but Engineering 90->99 is MUCH easier then English 90->99.

Based on the gpa scale conversion, a move from 89->90 only adds 0.1 points, compared to a 79->80, which adds 0.4 points!

Therefore, the lower diminishing returns does not help you tremendously if your only goal is to get into law school (as an 82-87 is about equal in relative effort/difficulty in my opinion).

I wanted to add that I spoke with one of the administrative staff members during U of T's Welcome Day and was told that the engineering students frequently come out at the top of the class .

ERTW

Law Schools and Employers all view your Engineering Grades the same way as other fields. There is no curving or scaling as some suggested when comparing to other fields. How do you compare a 73% Engineering average from UWO to a 81% average from USask - I'm not trying to bash these schools, but there is no way from this to tell who will do better in law school. They just take the best LSAT?GPA average they can accept.

If you have an engineering background, it makes you a candidate for IP and Patent firms. These firms wont consider you at all if you dont have a Sciences/Engineering background. End of Story.

Alternatively, if you plan to practice in Non-IP law, you may have the burden of proving to the employer you dont want to do IP law and you want to do whatever it is they do. This may or may not be a small burden depending on the firm/interviewer.

Speaking from personal experience, I do have an engineering background. I received articling offers from all the firms I applied to that had IP or Patent Departments. I received 1/3 from firms with no IP department. I know for a fact that my application was immediately binned at some non-IP firms because of my engineering degree and work experience (very technical), I confirmed this with a friend of mine that worked there. This was because they felt that I would be picked up by an IP-related firm and they didnt' want to waste their energy/time interviewing me.

Hmm that last part sounds a little depressing. I am an engineer as well and am not interested in IP. Part of the reason I am doing the law degree is to get out of the technical jobs. Oh well. Just have to make that known I guess.

Don't be depressed at all. In fact I think having an engineering or science background is an advantage whether you want to do IP or not. You'll have opportunities and doors opened to you that others may not have.

First off, without having done work in IP, are you sure you want to write it off? Doing summers or articles with a firm that has an IP department will give you some experience do decide whether its something you really want to do. This type of work is more technical, black and white, and time manageable than other areas such as Family/Criminal (in my opinion), and as a specialized field could pay more than other areas down the road.

Additionally, many IP departments are a part of a big full service firm. In fact I am working at a full service firm, where IP is only a portion of the work I am doing. I am involved with other lawyers in areas such as insurance, business, tax, real property, and litigation, in addition to helping the IP department. The fact that I was hired largely based on my technical background does not limit me in the type of work I do for this firm. Since I am getting experience in many areas, there is greater opportunity to work in these areas down the road. There are many lawyers with Engineering or Science backgrounds, who end up practicing other areas of law. This is a good way to go about it and get a complete articling experience.

Here's my understanding so far: IP lawyers must have a background in science and/or engineering + IP law is a pretty large area of law, probably ever increasing, and must therefore require a non-trivial number of IP lawyers + those with a science/engineering background make up a relatively small portion of law graduates = IP law job bonanza for those with the necessary background. I mean, doesn't cutting out the majority of law graduates from eligibility for a significant area of law mean employers have to be less selective? Can anyone enlighten my impression?

IP Lawyers DO NOT ABSOLUTELY NEED A SCIENCE BACKGROUND. Those are patent lawyers. IP lawyers ALSO deal with copyright, trademark, arts, media, advertising, etc. There are many firms that also hire non-science (and when I use science, I do not mean BSc in Chemistry... I'm talking at least MSc).

I spoke to firm reps when they were at my school. Every single IP firm or firm with an IP section told me that they hire people without a science degree. Of course there will be different ratios depending on the firm specialty, but I've heard of ratios as high as 50-50.

I'll give IP a shot. Hopefully in my summer jobs I will be exposed to it and then make an informed decision.

If I may chime in here, could this not be also due to how you presented yourself in said applications(courses, cover letter, why exactly you are interested in field X as opposed to IP)? I would assume a convincing cover letter as to why you are interested in say corporate law (or others) despite being from a tech background could play a large role.

Also maskedavenger, I think this varies based on firm to firm. I work for a fairly large firm and essentially all of our IP students/lawyers come from a sci-eng background. This may be different in other firms, however.

I did my undergrad in Engineering and I'm considering IP law.
But the thing is, I want to avoid patents and industrial designs. I'm more interested in trademarks and copyrights. I know a couple of trademarks lawyer and the majority of them did their bachelor in business.
I don't want to generalize, but do lawyers with a business degree have more chance to be hired in trademarks and copyrights?