以下是引用polyester在2007-3-27 9:24:00的发言: I am surprised that your Harvard trained teacher thought there was little difference between law schools. Sure, most law schools offer similar curriculums, but in the quality of scholarship, schools do differ. Whether the law school professor has the practical skills as a lawyer is the least important thing to me. I care much more about the professor's insights and his/her influence on the legal community. Knowing what law is may help you in your summer internship, but all the details you learn in the law school will probably be obsolete in five years.
I know it may sound too idealistic, but very few people can plan their career as lawyers at the beginning. Why limit your options at the time when you enter law schools? Why choose such a narrow scope when you know nothing about law or the legal practice? When you spend so much time arguing about the costs and benefits of being a patent lawyer, why not talk to more people who have different career paths? Even if you graduate from a tier-2 law school, is practicing law in US your only option?
谢谢poly大侠的指点 呵呵,我知道在我的帖子里面流露出太多的功利的想法,钱啊,cost/benefit什么的,我也不是说要盯住patent而关上别的门,我何尝不知道做patent 比较枯燥而做别的可能更有意思更让人感兴趣呢.但是象我这种出身中部农村,小时候挨过饿,大学靠奖学金和打工度过, 上有在家乡的父母,中有妻子,下有未来的孩子的人,当这么多人指着你的时候, 就不能不把生存放在兴趣前面. 这就是为什么我反反复复问有关patent方面问题的原因. 无非就是我觉得以我的背景patent可能对于我来说相对容易找工作一点,在以后要是找不到别的方面工作的时候想确认一下是不是比较有可能把patent作为一个保底来付清债务和承担起对家庭的责任. 呵呵,这里城市孩子居多,可能很难理解我的想法. |