|
Linguica posted:You've passed the New York and Missouri bars, and assuming you can reacquaint yourself with the MBE topics, you should be fine. It's not really the material so much as fitting in learning everything all over again while spending 80 hours a week in the office.
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 05:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:48 |
|
|
sigmachiev posted:I want to say the elite high school --> better undergrad sounds like a crock, but here's the thing: I come from a family that never went to college or stressed that stuff in the slightest. I went to a public HS and I had a good SAT and GPA and sports and poo poo, but I applied to exactly three schools: UW, NYU and USC. I applied to NYU and USC only because a chick I was into said she did. Sure, I had heard of Harvard, but I had no idea about good schools like Duke and Johns Hopkins. And I really had no clue whatsoever about this prestige idea. I love UW and everything with me and higher ed has worked out pretty darn good so far, but if those elite high schools do offer something, it's information on more possibilities after you're done there. I think that has value. The vast, vast majority of people I know who went to Ivy and near-Ivy league schools went to private high schools, especially "academy" type ones. I'd guess more than half the people I know at law school overall went to some form of private school. As someone who went to a tiny rural high school like Slyfrog, I can attest that you really have very few options coming out of those places. No one from my high school went to school out of state; our counselor's office didn't even have materials to apply anywhere not in Michigan. From my class, one girl went to U of M, maybe 4 people from my class went to Michigan State, a couple more went to Michigan Tech, and a few rich kids went to lovely private schools. The rest either went nowhere or to Central/Western/Eastern-type places university. There's a very distinct perception that you can't get out, which doesn't help things either. I slacked like crazy in high school, showing up when I felt like it, never did homework, because I had it in my head I'd never be able to pay for college or even knowing what kind options (and opportunities for aid) there were out there. I can't speak to preparedness for college; I annihilated undergrad, but 95% of my knowledge didn't come from my high school education. Napoleon I fucked around with this message at 06:48 on Dec 20, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 06:44
|
|
|
Holland Oats posted:I'm posting from Butler right now. The work ethic at Columbia is insane and it's somehow sucked me in. I never used to be this way. 1Ls study in Butler? You poor, poor souls.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 06:54
|
|
|
Forever Zero posted:http://www.economist.com/node/17723223?story_id=17723223 They fly out potential masters and PhD candidates out to do interviews. Candidates have no tuition and get paid to be TAs, so they have no debt. There's a enough of a market that pretty much everyone has jobs, even if it is just crappy post-doc stuff. Eventually, you get tenure somewhere, work for monsanto, or work for govt. Admittedly, you have to be able to get into a Ph.D program and get through it, but if you do, it seems pretty decent. You have to be willing to live in such exiting places as Riverside county or College Station though. So yeah, if you have a bio background, be an entomologist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 09:50
|
|
|
Napoleon I posted:The vast, vast majority of people I know who went to Ivy and near-Ivy league schools went to private high schools, especially "academy" type ones. I'd guess more than half the people I know at law school overall went to some form of private school. It is bad at inner-city, non-magnet high schools as well. My high school graduated around half of the attendees, and most of those went into trades, not on to college. One of the girls I graduated with had three kids at the time of graduation. (I admire her persistence, but that is not usually a formula that leads to the ivy league). I lost a few classmates to murder, both as a victim and perpetrator. Most of those who went to college went to local commuter state colleges. Many of those who went to college failed out of college, and very very few made it to post-grad education. Bad education, bad counselors, and a general, overall feeling that ivy league was something for rich people, not for us.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 12:24
|
|
|
SlyFrog, your wife sounds pretty awesome, any chance she'll be single soon? Edit: wait, is she employed? Edit2: how do you feel about poly relationships? entris fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Dec 20, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 15:15
|
|
|
Napoleon I posted:As someone who went to a tiny rural high school like Slyfrog, I can attest that you really have very few options coming out of those places. No one from my high school went to school out of state; our counselor's office didn't even have materials to apply anywhere not in Michigan. From my class, one girl went to U of M, maybe 4 people from my class went to Michigan State, a couple more went to Michigan Tech, and a few rich kids went to lovely private schools. The rest either went nowhere or to Central/Western/Eastern-type places university. There's a very distinct perception that you can't get out, which doesn't help things either. I slacked like crazy in high school, showing up when I felt like it, never did homework, because I had it in my head I'd never be able to pay for college or even knowing what kind options (and opportunities for aid) there were out there. What's up rural Michigan buddy! I went to public high school in Allendale, where Grand Valley State University is located; so you can guess how high our guidance counselor aimed for people. (And yes, that's where I got my bachelor's degree) In ninth grade, which would have been about 1991, I wrote a short story for English that made the English teacher march me to the office and demand that I be enrolled in some sort of college level Creative Writing course. They did that for me, and I was encouraged by a small group of teachers there, but in general I could tell even at that age that they had no idea what to do with kids like me. There were a few of us that were basically allowed to roam the halls for four years as long as we showed up to turn in our work. Nearly everyone I went to high school with still remains in or near that lovely small town, even some of the smartest people I have ever known. Working at factories or in the service industry or what have you. It's depressing. I wish public schools were less wildly varied in their quality. Here in the Chicago suburbs my kids now go to a great school that encourages them in all sorts of ways we never had (5th grade band? awesome!), but that is tempered by the fact that people in the neighborhood keep voting down property tax increases so we have to pay more and more out of pocket for stuff. I have paid close to a grand for various things for both kids this year, including mandatory "fees" collected by the school every year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 16:15
|
|
|
nytimes posted:blah blah stuff about legal analysis of comic books. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/books/21lawyers.html?_r=1&hp
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 17:12
|
|
|
Petey posted:Right this is an example of what I mean. The differences are insane. It is not something that I realized as a lifelong public school kid. But the elite private high schools - you pay for them because yes, the education is good, but mostly because they will get your kids into Ivies, with prestigious private schools as the safeties. This is an interesting discussion that is predicated on the assumption that it is worth the extra money to send your kid to Harvard for undergrad rather than, for example, the University of Illinois. I'm not sure I buy this. Does it really give a student that much of a leg up to go to an elite undergrad institution? Clearly, it does for law school, but does it really matter as much where you go to college? It seems to me to be more important that you pick a useful major and get good grades. Edit: Maybe we are just a product of our respective environments. I live in DC now, and I definitely see more of an Ivy influence than I did growing up back in the Midwest. I also attended both public high school and public undergrad. Revolver fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Dec 20, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 18:59
|
|
|
Okay the super high school/super college/elitism chat has been fun and all but I'd like to offer a change to SCOTCH CHAT - I've been becoming more fond of quality whiskey and want to solicit recommendations. Nothing under 60 a bottle (this will be a gift I also enjoy). So far my favorites are Ardbeg and The Glenrothes, but I'm still novice so I invite all suggestions on what I need to taste and get for others and myself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 19:54
|
|
|
stingray1381 posted:This is an interesting discussion that is predicated on the assumption that it is worth the extra money to send your kid to Harvard for undergrad rather than, for example, the University of Illinois. I'm not sure I buy this. Does it really give a student that much of a leg up to go to an elite undergrad institution? Clearly, it does for law school, but does it really matter as much where you go to college? It seems to me to be more important that you pick a useful major and get good grades. Like I said above, I think the most valuable part about attending an elite institution for undergrad is that you're going to be surrounded by lots of people talking about things like banking, consulting, grad school, professional school and making jokes about Bear Stearns. Now whether that's desirable/you want to start wearing Top-Siders with no socks is up to you, but you're definitely going to learn a lot from a kid whose entire extended family works at GS.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 20:12
|
|
|
yo that site got me through my conlaw exam Anyway I just got done getting the poo poo kicked out of me by Copyright, and now somehow I'm half done with law school
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 20:21
|
|
|
Residency Evil posted:Like I said above, I think the most valuable part about attending an elite institution for undergrad is that you're going to be surrounded by lots of people talking about things like banking, consulting, grad school, professional school and making jokes about Bear Stearns. Now whether that's desirable/you want to start wearing Top-Siders with no socks is up to you, but you're definitely going to learn a lot from a kid whose entire extended family works at GS. Is that worth the added debt though?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 20:31
|
|
|
stingray1381 posted:Is that worth the added debt though? When you factor in financial aid, MIT ended up being almost as cheap as in-state Penn State for me (cheaper, perhaps? It's been a while). And of course this is only purely anecdotal, but if you're never exposed to friends with much much nicer things with parents who have fancy jobs, you're much more likely to be satisfied being "only" an engineer making 70k/year. If the expensive education allows you information/access to companies that exclusively recruit at a handful of schools, and allows you to land a job with one of those companies, then yes, that debt may be worth it. Now obviously not everyone that graduates is going to land a sweet job with JPM or GS starting at 70k with a bonus and then be making well into the 6 figures 2 years after graduation. Nevertheless, if you look at the link posted above there does seem to be a solid return on some of the better schools. That still doesn't mean that going to Dartmouth, studying Art History, and not doing anything else is going to land you a better job than an EECS grad going to UIUC in-state. For reference, my undergrad debt ended up being just over 20k. In fairness, my parent's income increased significantly in that time period, so the financial aid office expected them to contribute, but if it had stayed the same I would have graduated with an almost identical loan burden. I realize this sounds kind of douchey, but this is the law school thread sooooo
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 20:53
|
|
|
stingray1381 posted:Is that worth the added debt though?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 21:02
|
|
|
I'm probably going to end up paying $15,000 per kid per year for kindygarty-8th and then $25,000 for high school so private school can basically tongue my rear end in a top hat
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 21:15
|
|
|
sigmachiev posted:SCOTCH CHAT - I've been becoming more fond of quality whiskey and want to solicit recommendations. Nothing under 60 a bottle (this will be a gift I also enjoy). So far my favorites are Ardbeg and The Glenrothes, but I'm still novice so I invite all suggestions on what I need to taste and get for others and myself. Lagavulin 16.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 21:21
|
|
|
I think the public v private HS discussion is a bit of a red herring - it seems to be more a comparison of good HS to crappy HS, public vs private notwithstanding. I went to a horrible private school. I went to UIUC and that was probably the most prestigious school anyone in my class attended.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 21:23
|
|
|
gvibes posted:I think the public v private HS discussion is a bit of a red herring - it seems to be more a comparison of good HS to crappy HS, public vs private notwithstanding. I went to a horrible private school. I went to UIUC and that was probably the most prestigious school anyone in my class attended. And by contrast here there are public high schools like Oak Park/River Forest and New Trier where they have plenty of money from all the rich people with families who live in the neighborhood and seem to never vote down a property tax increase. Those are some pretty awesome public schools. Of course there are plenty of Chicago Public High Schools ten miles away where the kids write with sticks dipped in shoe polish and the toilets haven't flushed since the Carter administration, too...
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 21:51
|
|
|
What are the pros and cons of whiskey v scotch v brandy v cognac? I'm trying to pick one to explore more heavily but can't afford to just buy all of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 22:04
|
|
|
Well for starters, Scotch is a kind of whiskey and Cognac is a kind of brandy so you've solved half your problem right there. drat liquor noobs. Phil, take care of this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 22:14
|
|
|
True story: last weekend me and a buddy drank 3/4 of a bottle of JW Blue Label in one sitting. It was ok I guess
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 22:26
|
|
|
entris posted:SlyFrog, your wife sounds pretty awesome, any chance she'll be single soon? No, no (but by our choice, given that I make more than enough to feed the family, she is actually currently self-studying to start off a career as a professional), and hell no. Two chicks at one time - cool. Two dicks at one time (or two dicks spaced apart in time) - not cool. As for Scotch chat, Laphroaig. I don't give a poo poo about how many years it's aged in a cask or whether it was swished around in the mouths of young virgins before being stored away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 22:37
|
|
|
Gibbis trying to talk about jury nullification and drug laws. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3375093
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 22:53
|
|
|
Defleshed posted:Well for starters, Scotch is a kind of whisky and Cognac is a kind of brandy so you've solved half your problem right there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 22:54
|
|
|
qwertyman posted:Gibbis trying to talk about jury nullification and drug laws. Haha GBS thinks Petey is a lawyer
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 23:11
|
|
|
NJ Deac posted:The partners at my firm recently got a bug up their rear end about having all of the associates finish their USPTO registration. Of the four of us studying to take it right now, three of us are using the PLI program (one of us bought the materials on eBay and saved a couple grand, I and another guy paid full sticker price, minus a partial reimbursement from the firm), and one is using Omniprep. Baruch Obamawitz posted:Having taken and passed the patent bar right after law school, I can confirm that this is the case (minus the week of studying). 1. Be a nerd under the age of 30 who can intelligently construct search strings based on unique phrases, if you are old or not a computer nerd ask one to help you (they don't need to know anything about patents or whatever) 2. Download the MPEP (individual PDFs for each chapter) and Acrobat 5 (it's what Prometric uses) and make your screen resolution tiny so your interface will be similar to what it is on the exam 3. Go here and spend a few hours walking through the 2003 repeats so you can be  and answer instantly when they give you a recognizable repeat question, this will also get you familiar with what to search for each subject4. Take the patent bar: Congratulations you've passed! Note the complete absence of "prep course" or "patent electives" or even "knowing jack poo poo about law and/or engineering" in this method. Elotana fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Dec 20, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 23:14
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Haha GBS thinks Petey is a lawyer I just vomited part of my crimpro outline on them. Let's see if anybody notices. Riidi WW posted:I would be really surprised to see a court throwing out a "Not Guilty" verdict because 'the jury did not in fact uphold the law' I would also be surprised if a trial court in Montana decided that double jeopardy didn't mean anything anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 23:22
|
|
|
nm posted:Uhm, yeah. . . . Scotch (and Canadian whisky, IIRC) is spelled without the 'e', whereas everything else is 'whiskey.' Edit: You were correcting him; read that wrong. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 23:25
|
|
|
nm posted:Uhm, yeah. . . .  Since I am an American I spell it "whiskey" when I say something like "Scotch is a kind of whiskey" because I am referring to whiskeys in general. If I was to say "Laphroaig is a good Scotch whisky" then I would use the alternate snobbish spelling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 23:29
|
|
|
Elotana posted:Holy crap your firm is wasting a lot of money After taking and passing the exam using a prep course, I'm going to half agree with you. In retrospect, I definitely don't feel I got $2500 worth of value out of the PLI prep course - that was a ripoff. For the price, I was expecting something at least as well put together as Barbri, which the PLI course definitely was not. On the bright side, the firm will be kicking back the cost of the prep course, so I don't really have much to complain about here. I'm not sure I'd agree the prep course was entirely worthless, though. It helped a bit knowing what sections of the MPEP to focus on and what to ignore, and there were quite a few repeat questions I saw in their software that weren't on the 02 and 03 practice exams. I thought the initial review of some of the concepts through the lectures helped make it easier to absorb the corresponding sections of the MPEP during the practice exams - the lectures definitely would have been helpful for someone with no background in patent law at all. The additional benefit definitely wasn't worth more than a couple hundred bucks, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 23:45
|
|
|
NJ Deac posted:After taking and passing the exam using a prep course, I'm going to half agree with you. In retrospect, I definitely don't feel I got $2500 worth of value out of the PLI prep course - that was a ripoff. For the price, I was expecting something at least as well put together as Barbri, which the PLI course definitely was not. On the bright side, the firm will be kicking back the cost of the prep course, so I don't really have much to complain about here. See if your state gives CLE credit for Patent Bar prep. Many do, and that makes the $$ and time almost worthwhile despite the Patent Bar being a test of reading comprehension and google-fu that does not require such extensive preparation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 23:49
|
|
|
sigmachiev posted:Okay the super high school/super college/elitism chat has been fun and all but I'd like to offer a change to I like Bunnahabhain and I'll second Lagavulin but I drink Evan Williams (it's not Scotch) when I want something nice but not too nice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 23:51
|
|
|
NJ Deac posted:I'm not sure I'd agree the prep course was entirely worthless, though. It helped a bit knowing what sections of the MPEP to focus on and what to ignore, and there were quite a few repeat questions I saw in their software that weren't on the 02 and 03 practice exams. God Tier: 700, 2100 High Tier: 600, 1200, 1400 Mid Tier: 200, 500, 800, 900, 1500, 2200 Low Tier: 100, 300, 400, 1300, 1800, 1900, 2000, 2300, 2500 Not Tested: 1000, 1100, 1600, 1700, 2400, 2500, 2600, 2700
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 23:54
|
|
|
Elotana posted:Thing is once you take 50 or so practice questions you've already got an idea which sections are gonna be tested. I dunno - I felt I was still learning stuff that was helpful after finishing the 02/03 exams and working on practice questions in the PLI software. Might just be me trying to rationalize the time spent doing the prep course, though. I definitely felt like I had overstudied coming out of the exam. I am going to respectfully disagree that chapter 1800 is low tier though; I had at least 10 questions dealing with PCT bullshit on my exam.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2010 00:01
|
|
|
There's always a ton of PCT bullshit but most of it isn't actually in 1800, since 1800 governs the functioning of the actual treaty but the questions are mostly about how the USPTO treats PCT filings for prior art or critical dates on our end. 2136.03 was where I ended up for at least three different PCT questions.
Elotana fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Dec 21, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2010 00:08
|
|
|
Elotana posted:This turned out to be accurate! Here's how you pass the patent bar y'all (Linguica put this in the OP): You can usually put your candidate answer verbatim in the search box and if you get a hit, it's the answer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2010 00:13
|
|
|
Elotana posted:Thing is once you take 50 or so practice questions you've already got an idea which sections are gonna be tested. I think 1000 was tested when I took it, but that's pretty much the difference between an appeal and a petition. I'm surprised 2500 wasn't tested. Pop quiz: what's the period for response to a notice of non-compliant amendment given because the applicant cancelled all their original claims and filed new claims in an RCE filed six months after the final rejection? edit: re: PCT, the happiest day as an examiner was the day they started farming out the ISRs to contractors. edit2: MPEP 1701 sucks w/r/t posting on the internet WhiskeyJuvenile fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Dec 21, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2010 00:18
|
|
|
Elotana posted:There's always a ton of PCT bullshit but most of it isn't actually in 1800, since 1800 governs the functioning of the actual treaty but the questions are mostly about how the USPTO treats PCT filings for prior art or critical dates on our end. 2136.03 was where I ended up for at least three different PCT questions. I had at least 4 questions regarding the U.S. as a competent receiving office, a couple about corrections in an international application/article 19/34 amendments, and a couple about the requirements for entering the U.S. national phase/demand - all of which I found answers for in chapter 1800.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2010 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:48 |
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Haha GBS thinks Petey is a lawyer I don't even know who that poster is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2010 00:20
|
|
