Page 1 of 1

Penn vs chicago

Posted: Thu May 18, 2017 5:23 pm
by tartan2016
For those of you who were admitted to both, I would really appreciate your feedback on why you chose one over the other.

Re: Penn vs chicago

Posted: Thu May 18, 2017 5:39 pm
by existentialcrisis
Money should probably be the most important factor. Chicago is worth more in a vacuum, but not a ton more.

What are your goals?

Re: Penn vs chicago

Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 1:04 am
by tartan2016
existentialcrisis wrote:Money should probably be the most important factor. Chicago is worth more in a vacuum, but not a ton more.

What are your goals?


My goal is to clerk, and then work in biglaw (tax or derivatives). Small chance I would consider teaching far down the road, but not sure if that's possible if I don't go into HYS.

Re: Penn vs chicago

Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 6:10 am
by cavalier1138
tartan2016 wrote:
existentialcrisis wrote:Money should probably be the most important factor. Chicago is worth more in a vacuum, but not a ton more.

What are your goals?


My goal is to clerk, and then work in biglaw (tax or derivatives). Small chance I would consider teaching far down the road, but not sure if that's possible if I don't go into HYS.


Go to the cheaper option or to Chicago if costs are equal. Also, why do you want to clerk if your goal is tax law?

Re: Penn vs chicago

Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 2:19 pm
by jbagelboy
cavalier1138 wrote:
tartan2016 wrote:
existentialcrisis wrote:Money should probably be the most important factor. Chicago is worth more in a vacuum, but not a ton more.

What are your goals?


My goal is to clerk, and then work in biglaw (tax or derivatives). Small chance I would consider teaching far down the road, but not sure if that's possible if I don't go into HYS.


Go to the cheaper option or to Chicago if costs are equal. Also, why do you want to clerk if your goal is tax law?


yeah, this. I'm not sure clerking is relevant for either of your desired practice areas (especially not derivatives). Clerking is really only relevant for litigators.

And "HYS" don't magically open up the possibility of becoming a law professor. Chicago produces nearly as many, and some years more, per capita academic track persons. The ability to enter academia depends largely on your other qualifications (a PhD, significant publications or research experience in a related field, ect.) and how well you do in school; with Yale as one exception, someone that could succeed in becoming a law professor at one top school could do so at another one.

Re: Penn vs chicago

Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 3:08 pm
by WheninLaw
Money and location are important here, they are very different cities.

I valued Chicago at about 5-10k more a year when I was deciding.

Re: Penn vs chicago

Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 3:19 pm
by pointplace
I chose Penn with $110k in scholarships over UChi with $60k! Pretty excited and confident about my choice! If you want to hear my thoughts about them feel free to reach out.

Re: Penn vs chicago

Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 3:45 pm
by cavalier1138
WheninLaw wrote:Money and location are is important here, they are very different cities.


Fixed that for you.

Re: Penn vs chicago

Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 3:54 pm
by carsondalywashere
cavalier1138 wrote:
WheninLaw wrote:Money and location are is important here, they are very different cities.


Fixed that for you.

What about in terms of wanting Chicago vs. NYC big law?

Re: Penn vs chicago

Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 4:47 pm
by cavalier1138
carsondalywashere wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
WheninLaw wrote:Money and location are is important here, they are very different cities.


Fixed that for you.

What about in terms of wanting Chicago vs. NYC big law?


For Chicago, Chicago is a better choice. For NYC, I'd say that either one is probably good. But that wasn't how the initial point about location was phrased. The relative qualities of Chicago vs. Philadelphia are completely meaningless compared to the cost of attendance at each school.

Re: Penn vs chicago

Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 6:02 pm
by carsondalywashere
cavalier1138 wrote:
carsondalywashere wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
WheninLaw wrote:Money and location are is important here, they are very different cities.


Fixed that for you.

What about in terms of wanting Chicago vs. NYC big law?


For Chicago, Chicago is a better choice. For NYC, I'd say that either one is probably good. But that wasn't how the initial point about location was phrased. The relative qualities of Chicago vs. Philadelphia are completely meaningless compared to the cost of attendance at each school.


Definitely; was just curious

Re: Penn vs chicago

Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 7:46 pm
by KissMyAxe
jbagelboy wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
tartan2016 wrote:
existentialcrisis wrote:Money should probably be the most important factor. Chicago is worth more in a vacuum, but not a ton more.

What are your goals?


My goal is to clerk, and then work in biglaw (tax or derivatives). Small chance I would consider teaching far down the road, but not sure if that's possible if I don't go into HYS.


Go to the cheaper option or to Chicago if costs are equal. Also, why do you want to clerk if your goal is tax law?


yeah, this. I'm not sure clerking is relevant for either of your desired practice areas (especially not derivatives). Clerking is really only relevant for litigators.

And "HYS" don't magically open up the possibility of becoming a law professor. Chicago produces nearly as many, and some years more, per capita academic track persons. The ability to enter academia depends largely on your other qualifications (a PhD, significant publications or research experience in a related field, ect.) and how well you do in school; with Yale as one exception, someone that could succeed in becoming a law professor at one top school could do so at another one.


Pretty much this. I'd choose Chicago in a vacuum, and be willing to pay a bit more, but not a tremendous amount (Maybe $7,500 a year difference max?). Both are fantastic schools and will get you Biglaw, though obviously Chicago (which can definitely get NYC) does best in Chicago, and Penn (which definitely can get Chicago) does best in NYC.

Chicago wins on your other goals. I agree a clerkship won't be especially helpful to you as a tax or derivatives guy, but if you just want the experience, Chicago is better for clerkships. Bagel is especially correct about the point about being a professor. There really is no such thing as HYS, when it comes to legal academia. Yale is way out in front with about three times as many faculty placements as anyone else, but I'd argue that the second best school for academia is actually Chicago, which typically has less candidates on the market, but a higher percentage than Harvard. And Stanford's behind NYU as well. I also think Chicago is going to continue to become more impressive. But even though Chicago is fantastic, I don't think for your goals that it's that much better justify a large difference in the price tag.

Re: Penn vs chicago

Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 9:31 pm
by landshoes
I don't know that Penn does better than Chicago in NYC. Those of us who were actually interviewing for NYC had a ridiculously high rate of callbacks and offers. Most of my NYC-focused classmates had multiple V5 offers to choose from (and usually ended up going to DC anyway, ha).

Re: Penn vs chicago

Posted: Sat May 20, 2017 7:40 pm
by chargers21
Not the same schools, but I chose Duke over Chicago for a 60k difference in scholarship. Money and location were the ultimate deciding factors, considering the similar placement ability and that I don't want NYC or even Chi much

Re: Penn vs chicago

Posted: Tue May 23, 2017 6:56 pm
by WheninLaw
cavalier1138 wrote:
WheninLaw wrote:Money and location are is important here, they are very different cities.


Fixed that for you.


While secondary to cost, I think it is crazy to ignore location. Law school is three years, being somewhere you like is important. Like, do you live in the middle of nowhere right now because it is cheapest? Of course not. Location matters.

Re: Penn vs chicago

Posted: Tue May 23, 2017 7:35 pm
by cavalier1138
WheninLaw wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
WheninLaw wrote:Money and location are is important here, they are very different cities.


Fixed that for you.


While secondary to cost, I think it is crazy to ignore location. Law school is three years, being somewhere you like is important. Like, do you live in the middle of nowhere right now because it is cheapest? Of course not. Location matters.


Sure. Location matters with regards to career, especially when you're not going to a school with national reach. It means nothing when you're talking about three years (which is nothing).

I'm not in the middle of nowhere because the school that offered me the best shot at my goals with a good financial aid package isn't in the middle of nowhere. If Michigan had offered me a full scholarship, I'd probably be in Michigan, even though I would never, ever, not in a million years want to live in that state. Not going to Chicago because it's not worth the price difference is smart. Not going to Chicago because you don't like the cold is idiotic.

Re: Penn vs chicago

Posted: Tue May 23, 2017 8:06 pm
by michlaw
cavalier1138 wrote:
WheninLaw wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
WheninLaw wrote:Money and location are is important here, they are very different cities.


Fixed that for you.


While secondary to cost, I think it is crazy to ignore location. Law school is three years, being somewhere you like is important. Like, do you live in the middle of nowhere right now because it is cheapest? Of course not. Location matters.


Sure. Location matters with regards to career, especially when you're not going to a school with national reach. It means nothing when you're talking about three years (which is nothing).

I'm not in the middle of nowhere because the school that offered me the best shot at my goals with a good financial aid package isn't in the middle of nowhere. If Michigan had offered me a full scholarship, I'd probably be in Michigan, even though I would never, ever, not in a million years want to live in that state. Not going to Chicago because it's not worth the price difference is smart. Not going to Chicago because you don't like the cold is idiotic.


On behalf of the State of Michigan I would like to thank you for your pledge. We will bravely try to soldier on. It will be difficult because to function properly everybody needs an as___le. Pure Michigan.

Re: Penn vs chicago

Posted: Tue May 23, 2017 8:08 pm
by cavalier1138
michlaw wrote:On behalf of the State of Michigan I would like to thank you for your pledge. We will bravely try to soldier on. It will be difficult because to function properly everybody needs an as___le. Pure Michigan.


On a separate note, what is it about living in Michigan for any amount of time that turns everyone into such a goddamn cheerleader for the state? We get it. You have cherries and lakes.

Incidentally, I wasn't insulting the state, but rather stating my preference for living somewhere else. If that makes me an asshole, then I guess you can just fuck off.

Re: Penn vs chicago

Posted: Tue May 23, 2017 8:11 pm
by rpupkin
cavalier1138 wrote:
WheninLaw wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
WheninLaw wrote:Money and location are is important here, they are very different cities.


Fixed that for you.


While secondary to cost, I think it is crazy to ignore location. Law school is three years, being somewhere you like is important. Like, do you live in the middle of nowhere right now because it is cheapest? Of course not. Location matters.


Sure. Location matters with regards to career, especially when you're not going to a school with national reach. It means nothing when you're talking about three years (which is nothing).

Three of the best years of your adult life--when you'll have (relatively speaking) as much free time as you'll ever have until you retire--are "nothing?" Interesting take.

Re: Penn vs chicago

Posted: Tue May 23, 2017 8:14 pm
by cavalier1138
rpupkin wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
WheninLaw wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
WheninLaw wrote:Money and location are is important here, they are very different cities.


Fixed that for you.


While secondary to cost, I think it is crazy to ignore location. Law school is three years, being somewhere you like is important. Like, do you live in the middle of nowhere right now because it is cheapest? Of course not. Location matters.


Sure. Location matters with regards to career, especially when you're not going to a school with national reach. It means nothing when you're talking about three years (which is nothing).

Three of the best years of your adult life--when you'll have (relatively speaking) as much free time as you'll ever have until you retire--are "nothing?" Interesting take.


Yes. Is this really that controversial? Three years is nothing. It's the blink of an eye. And law school shouldn't be treated as a second undergrad, which, incidentally is where you have at least 4 years of as much free time as you'll ever have.

Re: Penn vs chicago

Posted: Tue May 23, 2017 8:22 pm
by rpupkin
cavalier1138 wrote:Yes. Is this really that controversial? Three years is nothing. It's the blink of an eye. And law school shouldn't be treated as a second undergrad, which, incidentally is where you have at least 4 years of as much free time as you'll ever have.

I don't know if it's controversial, but I think it's pretty dumb. Three years is a long time. We don't live to be 300 years old, and few get more than two decades of adult life with youthtful energy. Look, I'm not going to choose UCLA over Yale because I like Los Angeles better than New Haven, but I am certainly going to consider the city in which the law school is located as a factor in my decision.

I'm also not sure what your "second undergrad" comment is about. Most undergrad life is focused on campus. When you're in law school as a young adult, your social life will focus more on the city in which you live. Ignoring that factor seems bizarre to me.

Re: Penn vs chicago

Posted: Tue May 23, 2017 9:17 pm
by jbagelboy
rpupkin wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:Yes. Is this really that controversial? Three years is nothing. It's the blink of an eye. And law school shouldn't be treated as a second undergrad, which, incidentally is where you have at least 4 years of as much free time as you'll ever have.

I don't know if it's controversial, but I think it's pretty dumb. Three years is a long time. We don't live to be 300 years old, and few get more than two decades of adult life with youthtful energy. Look, I'm not going to choose UCLA over Yale because I like Los Angeles better than New Haven, but I am certainly going to consider the city in which the law school is located as a factor in my decision.

I'm also not sure what your "second undergrad" comment is about. Most undergrad life is focused on campus. When you're in law school as a young adult, your social life will focus more on the city in which you live. Ignoring that factor seems bizarre to me.


I agree location is important, and between schools like Penn and UChicago, Philadelphia versus Chicago is a fair consideration (not one that should outweigh cost or practice goals, but its high up there)

Re: Penn vs chicago

Posted: Wed May 24, 2017 5:15 pm
by WheninLaw
cavalier1138 wrote:
WheninLaw wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
WheninLaw wrote:Money and location are is important here, they are very different cities.


Fixed that for you.


While secondary to cost, I think it is crazy to ignore location. Law school is three years, being somewhere you like is important. Like, do you live in the middle of nowhere right now because it is cheapest? Of course not. Location matters.


Sure. Location matters with regards to career, especially when you're not going to a school with national reach. It means nothing when you're talking about three years (which is nothing).

I'm not in the middle of nowhere because the school that offered me the best shot at my goals with a good financial aid package isn't in the middle of nowhere. If Michigan had offered me a full scholarship, I'd probably be in Michigan, even though I would never, ever, not in a million years want to live in that state. Not going to Chicago because it's not worth the price difference is smart. Not going to Chicago because you don't like the cold is idiotic.


I agree with Jbagel and rpup, but just wanted to add that it is weird to say that three years is "nothing." I also don't understand disagreeing with my extremely limited point that it is rational to factor location into your decision.