Hi everyone,
I was wondering if pharma practices at firms prefer law students with a science background. Or does it not really matter, since pharma practice is really more about tort actions than understanding the drug/medical device.
I’d really appreciate your thoughts!
I interviewed with one of the top pharma law firms in the country and was pretty much told that it’s a minor boost. It’s something they will look at as a plus, but they aren’t going to bend over backwards to justify taking you over someone with better grades or from a better school. The science needed during lit is “learnable” enough to wear it is not a major selling point (though as I said, it may be a minor boost to put you over someone with similar grades and school without the science background).
More info on your specific background would help.
It depends on the part of their practice you are trying to go into.
IP/Patent = Yes
Everything Else = It is a plus but not mandatory.
2nd anon here
Yep. Although with patent lit it is, again, more of just a plus on your resume instead of a must.
OP here. Thanks for all of your replies guys.
I am interested in pharma work relating to product liability, not really IP lit.
So far it seems like it’s not that big of a factor.
I’m asking because I want to know how to form my interview answers. Ie, should I keep bringing up my technical background or is that just going to make me look weird (if it’s not an important component of the practice).
I’m still confused about your technical background. Chem? ChemE? Bio? Any grad work? Relevant w/e?