Is it true that professional degrees and professional work is usually memorization rather than creativity and improvisation?
Less thinking more regurgitation?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Stupid thread
Even though I'm not on /vt/...
Nice thread anon
Yes, because the point of a professional is to learn and cram deeply rooted cultural advancements that were made for millennia, and which are quite sturdy, and manifest them. The point of a professional is for things to run smoothly and work out in the end as certainly as possible. The improvisation you listed on the other hand deals with a lot of novelty, and usually has a lot of sounding boards and more deliberate and stressful progression. Things aren't running smoothly, because they have to be figured out first. But that is a necessary sacrifice when dealing with novelty.
how would you correct my chart
over half of stem is CAS monkeys.
Lawyer, here, memorisation was only important during law school, in the courtroom it's all about improvising and how you present yourself, the client and his claim, admittedly, this depends on what you've memorized but still...
>lawyer is shitposting on IQfy
a likely story. and even if true, this is certainly telling of why this board sucks at math.
Haven't done math in almost 15 years but I'm still here to shitpost :^)
Patent attorney reporting in.
To join this profession, you need at minimum a master's degree. Many also have a PhD and done a few rounds as a postdoc.
In court or during oral proceedings you need to improvise. You can prepare for the case as much as you want but you can never know in advance what the opponents or the witnesses will say or do. To handle that you need to draw on a large foundation of theory and history but to win the case you need to improvise when the surprises some up, and surprises usually come up.
Before this I was a scientist and when you do experiments and presentations you also need to have the facts before you can improvise. Often there is no time to go back to the drawing board before continuing, you have to deliver there and then.
You can have all the knowledge and skills in the world, but if you cannot improvise to handle the situation before you, you will never go far.
I applied to work at a patent firm and they didn't take me
Sorry to hear that. Have you tried applying to your national patent office?
Also, what country?
Anon, I am an European that's going to get a large inheritance soon and I have a pharma idea that will use already existing research but isn't patented yet. Would you say it is prudent to patent this idea with my inheritance in the USA with a patent attorney in my country and then forward it to a patent broker to sell?
I think the inheritance might just about tightly cover the patent costs, but our country is kind of leftist, so I would still get by and pay for college without it.(i.e. college is free here) And
I don't really care for money, I just don't want to work, so I'm thinking of skipping to a small portfolio. But I heard at a dinner party with a pharma lawyer that pharma companies usually only take offers exclusively from professors after they conduct endless clinical trials, though that was a Swiss company.
Any word of advice? Am I just a naive youth or could I risk it?
(obviously can't disclose patent details, as that will mean someone could patent it before me)
(1/2)
>Anon, I am an European that's going to get a large inheritance soon and I have a pharma idea that will use already existing research but isn't patented yet.
You will have to check the laws, in some countries you are required to make the first filing in that country depending on residency and/or nationality.
>Would you say it is prudent to patent this idea with my inheritance in the USA with a patent attorney in my country and then forward it to a patent broker to sell?
Mostly the answer is no, for many complex reasons:
- your inheritance is unlikely to be sufficient for the process, but can be used to bootstrap a startup
- strictly speaking you cannot patent an idea, you have to reduce it to practice - what are the compounds, what are the ratios, what are the dosage regimes, what are the effects etc.
- preferably before filing but definitely withing 12 months of filing the priority application you need to have solid evidence of the efficacy of your pharma invention
- early proof of efficacy can be tests on mice, later on you need to work on other test animals until you are permitted to test on humans, and this is hideously expensive
- patent brokers were hot a few years ago but I hear less about them now, so most likely you need to take your early results to the big pharma companies
- you cannot sell an idea, but you can sell a patent portfolio with promising test results
Thank you!
Thanks
(2/2)
>I think the inheritance might just about tightly cover the patent costs, but our country is kind of leftist, so I would still get by and pay for college without it.
Patent cost is spread across many years with various deadlines, each having various cost. The initial application isn't too expensive but the testing will be and the national phase after the international (PCT) application will also be expensive.
>I don't really care for money, I just don't want to work, so I'm thinking of skipping to a small portfolio. But I heard at a dinner party with a pharma lawyer that pharma companies usually only take offers exclusively from professors after they conduct endless clinical trials, though that was a Swiss company.
Big Pharma changed over the years, from large in-house research labs for discovery to relying on academia for the discovery process. They still do other forms of testing. Scooping new discoveries with potential is important to them. And yes, relying on professors is a way to reduce the risk, which is immense.
>Any word of advice? Am I just a naive youth or could I risk it?
We are in a service industry, so you should look around various patent law firms to find one that you feel you can work with. Good personal chemistry is essential. A patent will last 20 years, a marriage lasts on average 8 years so you you have to be at least as choosy as when you got married. Call around to several patent law firms, most will give you an initial meeting without obligations to discuss the case and the cost but importantly how to work together.
You need a battle hardened patent attorney specialising in pharma, who will fight for you every inch of the way, because all big/valuable pharma patents are usually litigated. Since you are unfamiliar with this world you would also need one that will help you draw up a patent strategy.
>(obviously can't disclose patent details, as that will mean someone could patent it before me)
Correct.
Why don't you go ask doctors and lawyers your question and see what they say?
Take a few courses of medicine you'll know that it's pure memorization.
Law is just the medicine of humanities
But this assumes there is no improvisation in memory, when the creation of meaningful tokens is pure ingenuity or is at least as flexible as choosing words to speak with. What if you had to whip a dictionary out for every single word spoken. Even a cleverly structured dictionary which aids in this lookup primarily acts as a pigeonhole to engaging speech.
Having more information readily available as with good memory allows for better decision making on the fly. This would be synonymous with better improvisation than otherwise.
Philsophy falls under the humanities umbrella and I'd argue requires less rote memorisation than many STEM fields and a good amount of "improvisational" thinking, in the sense that you need to produce original ideas/argumentation, although you are given all the time in the world to refine those ideas unless it's an oral debate or something.