I was in the same boat had to do all my own recruiting. Ended up with a bunch of call backs and offers

I hope u are ee or chemical though

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1418617&forum_id=2#16002460)

did a patent job fair...got no CBs out of it though

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1418617&forum_id=2#16003629)

EE hot as shit right now

CS: nobody wants. no one is patenting code. Anything even remotely involving code is thrown to an EE who knows the physical manifestation backwards and forwards.

Physics: not so much no one is patenting light or magnets, again this gets thrown to an engineer preferably an EE

Chem: dont need a PHD by any stretch, could even be a detriment and no firm wants to throw a 38 year old with three kids into the pot with a bunch of 26 year olds. they are horrible about taking orders and getting their shit done.

i would put a 1st a MS or BS Chem and then farther down the line a Bio or physics major. this is all for mostly pharmaceutical work but can do mechanical etc.

thats why mech E and civil E dont get hired as much, really anyone with a science degree( Chem or EE) can look at a machine and prosecute the patent and even more competent to litigate it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1418617&forum_id=2#16009706)

CS people can usually learn enough to litigate most computer/electronics patents; EEs are preferable, but there just aren't enough to fill the demand.

Physicists are just very well-rounded. They usually have decent software knowledge, and of course knowledge of electricity & magnetism. Indeed, they can be better than EEs in certain EE-dominated fields, e.g., optics/lasers, semiconductors. That said, they are poorly equipped to deal with some other hot EE topics, e.g., signal processing, systems & controls, and computer architecture.

You don't need a PhD in Chem/Bio to litigate, but trying to break into prosecution without it is very difficult. And in no universe is a BS in Chem/Bio > BS in Physics.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1418617&forum_id=2#16013264)

Agree EE is better than anything else.

CS is not nearly as good, that being said to get hired they have to go through all the EE's then get to you, which are all the CS people so you have to have some nice work experience or have some other relevant experience or you are screwed.

Physics majors >>CS but not EE's again as above they are going to hire all the EE's then go to the physcis majors and then to the CS majors with whatevers left as you go down the list it gets harder and harder to get a job with a CS degree.

Bio is almost completely useless as it essentially a glorified English major. but they do seem to get hired

chem works best with pharma work, even better if you have work experience and can read GC/MS and ICP data. So you have a better chance of getting hired with a Chem major rather than a bio/CS.

In the universe of pharma work is chem>>>physics. particularly useful are organic chemists. breaking into prosecution with a BS is going to be near impossible especially a chem patent but doing it if you have been assigned a pros file it is not that hard, it just sucks and is boring.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1418617&forum_id=2#16024903)

In the future I will have to list my major as (bio) CHEMISTRY.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1418617&forum_id=2#16013516)