People use prestige as a shorthand, and very few lawyers that I know of actually keep track of which lower-ranked schools have invested in their IP programs of late....
Second, even if potential employers might appreciate the value of a particular IP specialty program, the clients who hire those lawyers might not....
[A]nyone urging strict reliance on the IP sub-rankings operates with a flawed and unstated assumption: That the substance of your legal education — i.e., which courses you take — matters more to employers than vague notions of school prestige. Applicants, particularly those poised to drop $200k on a degree, desperately want this to be true. It’s not. While having a few more patent law courses under your belt might seem like a good way to get a leg up, you’ll get a far bigger (and more lasting) leg up by choosing a top overall school.
Eureka! This would seem to be an affront upon the ranked and respected programs at Santa Clara, Cardozo, American, New Hampshire, and IIT/Chicago-Kent.
The person who wrote this is allegedly a big-firm patent attorney. So the real question becomes this: why is a scientist, a clinician trained in the rigorous scientific method, perpetuating the prestige-craving? Why is he not spreading awareness of those "lower-ranked schools" that have excellent IP programs - there's practically one in every major metro area! Why does his devotion to scientific truth not translate into a desire to hire entry-level IP lawyers with superior knowledge and training instead of random Columbia grads? Wouldn't a REAL scientist believe in knowledge and not what the uninformed masses believe?
Here's a better question: who would you rather believe, a well-ranked law school that has graduated scores of scientists into thrilling IP jobs, or one scientist who had a lunchroom chat at the office?
Yeah. In other news, there's (probably?) still time to enroll in Santa Clara, Cardozo, American, New Hampshire, and IIT/Chicago-Kent!