Columbia v. Chicago

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
bloodonthetracks
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Postby bloodonthetracks » Tue May 11, 2010 11:30 pm

jt1341 wrote:Basically the choice is not going to get any easier from this thread because they are both amazing schools! i would choose Chicago just because small class size and i have heard (word of mouth, no significant data) that it places better employment %

Anyways, at least let us all know what school you have chosen??? when are you planning on making your decision by? (when do you have to decide by?) and which way are you currently leaning?


yeah, i'm not expecting this thread to decisively sway me either way. i'm mostly interested in learning as much as i can about the differences between the schools. i have to decide in a few days.

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Postby dresden doll » Tue May 11, 2010 11:30 pm

miamiman wrote:
bloodonthetracks wrote:
Voyager wrote:Dude. RIGOR sucks. Anyone I run into who attends or once attended U. Chicago describes the academic experience there as hyper competitive, stressful and awful.


i figured this would come up. it should be said that i've also seen numerous people on this forum vehemently defend the school from this reputation.


Even as a Chicago 0L, I find it hard to believe Chicago put 80% into big firm SAs this year.

And I know that AA isn't trying to imply that in posting the % but I do think OCS was.


The figure does seem suspect. I've heard reports ranging from 2/3 to 3/4, but 4/5 seems high. (Not that I wouldn't want to believe it.)

User avatar
AngryAvocado
Posts: 776
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:22 pm

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Postby AngryAvocado » Tue May 11, 2010 11:35 pm

miamiman wrote:
bloodonthetracks wrote:
Voyager wrote:Dude. RIGOR sucks. Anyone I run into who attends or once attended U. Chicago describes the academic experience there as hyper competitive, stressful and awful.


i figured this would come up. it should be said that i've also seen numerous people on this forum vehemently defend the school from this reputation.


Even as a Chicago 0L, I find it hard to believe Chicago put 80% into big firm SAs this year.

And I know that AA isn't trying to imply that in posting the % but I do think OCS was.


I find it hard to believe myself, but if the numbers for NYU and CLS at ~70% are accurate, I wouldn't be shocked if Chicago (because it's both smaller than those two and the big dog in its market) was actually around 80%. It does seem too good to be true, but when you consider the fact that >70% of the class of 2009 ended up V50 firms (according to the law school transparency project report), it's not that ridiculous. I really do think the small size is paying dividends right now for Chicago and SLS relative to their peers.

User avatar
AngryAvocado
Posts: 776
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:22 pm

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Postby AngryAvocado » Tue May 11, 2010 11:43 pm

imchuckbass58 wrote:
AngryAvocado wrote:
Edit: The verbage was actually "Approximately 80% of 2Ls have accepted (not received) offers with firms that conducted interviews last fall, and of the remaining 20%, many are holding out for public interest, government, and fellowships that come later in the Spring." So, it appears that perhaps even more than 80% actually received offers if what she's saying is correct.


This could mean lots of different things, most of which do not indicate a fair comparison to CLS' stats.

To clarify, CLS' stats are only for EIW, which is August OCI. They are also only accepts, not offers received. In addition there was Fall OCI (separate, in september - mid-sized firms and gov't), and several firms (Orrick comes to mind) that held off on fall recruiting and picked up a couple of people as late as December by calling up the school and asking for the resumes of people who were still looking for jobs.

I am not familiar with Chicago's recuriting process, but the 80% figure could mean 1) just August OCI, 2) August OCI plus later fall OCI, or 3) anyone who got a firm job by any means during the fall. Only the first would be comparable.


This is a good point. The way it was stated ("80% have accepted firm offers from firms that interviewed at the school in the Fall") leaves open the possibility that students could have attained offers after OCI and still be counted.

User avatar
jsarna1
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:14 pm

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Postby jsarna1 » Wed May 12, 2010 1:47 am

Chicagoans will defend their city in comparison to NYC any day! We resent our "Second City" designation!


Ummm Second City is in reference to the rebuilding of Chicago after the Great Fire, not any secondary status to NYC.

As far as this thread is concerned, I'm WL at both schools and I love them both. I really don't think you can go wrong here. BigLaw favors NYC, weather, social life, etc. as well, but faculty I would say is in Chicago's favor. Good luck, and whatever you choose will be awesome!

User avatar
Regionality
Posts: 789
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Postby Regionality » Wed May 12, 2010 1:55 am

jsarna1 wrote:
Chicagoans will defend their city in comparison to NYC any day! We resent our "Second City" designation!


Ummm Second City is in reference to the rebuilding of Chicago after the Great Fire, not any secondary status to NYC.

As far as this thread is concerned, I'm WL at both schools and I love them both. I really don't think you can go wrong here. BigLaw favors NYC, weather, social life, etc. as well, but faculty I would say is in Chicago's favor. Good luck, and whatever you choose will be awesome!


That was the original reason the term came to exist, and since then it has evolved into meaning it is "second" to NYC...

http://www.chicagohistoryjournal.com/20 ... -city.html

User avatar
jsarna1
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:14 pm

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Postby jsarna1 » Wed May 12, 2010 2:28 am

Regionality wrote:
jsarna1 wrote:
Chicagoans will defend their city in comparison to NYC any day! We resent our "Second City" designation!


Ummm Second City is in reference to the rebuilding of Chicago after the Great Fire, not any secondary status to NYC.

As far as this thread is concerned, I'm WL at both schools and I love them both. I really don't think you can go wrong here. BigLaw favors NYC, weather, social life, etc. as well, but faculty I would say is in Chicago's favor. Good luck, and whatever you choose will be awesome!


That was the original reason the term came to exist, and since then it has evolved into meaning it is "second" to NYC...

http://www.chicagohistoryjournal.com/20 ... -city.html


Lol I know people try to use it that way... but I stand by my statement. :lol:

User avatar
Regionality
Posts: 789
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Postby Regionality » Wed May 12, 2010 2:42 am

jsarna1 wrote:
Regionality wrote:
jsarna1 wrote:
Chicagoans will defend their city in comparison to NYC any day! We resent our "Second City" designation!


Ummm Second City is in reference to the rebuilding of Chicago after the Great Fire, not any secondary status to NYC.

As far as this thread is concerned, I'm WL at both schools and I love them both. I really don't think you can go wrong here. BigLaw favors NYC, weather, social life, etc. as well, but faculty I would say is in Chicago's favor. Good luck, and whatever you choose will be awesome!


That was the original reason the term came to exist, and since then it has evolved into meaning it is "second" to NYC...

http://www.chicagohistoryjournal.com/20 ... -city.html


Lol I know people try to use it that way... but I stand by my statement. :lol:


pcch, are you one of those people that try to defend its "windy city" nickname as something other than the fact that it's windy as hell??????? I've heard it all..."politically windy" or the old "Chicago/Cincinatti city rivalry"...ITS WINDY!! That's why it's still called the Windy City! LOTS OF AIR MOVING FAST!

User avatar
of Benito Cereno
Posts: 748
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:40 am

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Postby of Benito Cereno » Wed May 12, 2010 4:38 am

,,
Last edited by of Benito Cereno on Mon May 17, 2010 7:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Voyager
Posts: 640
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Postby Voyager » Wed May 12, 2010 4:50 am

bloodonthetracks wrote:
Voyager wrote:Dude. RIGOR sucks. Anyone I run into who attends or once attended U. Chicago describes the academic experience there as hyper competitive, stressful and awful.


i figured this would come up. it should be said that i've also seen numerous people on this forum vehemently defend the school from this reputation.


LOL. Oh RLY? I don't.

The main problem is their point grading system.

sbalive
Posts: 399
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Postby sbalive » Wed May 12, 2010 9:09 am

Columbia really emphasizes the applications of law in business and government. There is very little legal theory, philosophy, law & economics, etc. going on. That's not to say there aren't people doing crazy impractical stuff -- but it's all within the realm of social or economic policy. I'm sure Chicago has its policy-oriented faculty as well, but it also has a lot of more theoretically-inclined faculty -- even the law & econ visitor we had from Chicago was interested in the Law as such and how courts make their decisions. This has an effect on what classes are like, and if someone's interested in doing scholarship and writing, it can have an even bigger impact.

As for class size, I have no idea what difference it makes, since obviously I've only had one kind of experience. I like meeting people, and I've met new people all year long and that'll probably keep happening next year. But, there might even be a weird paradox with a big class that tends to lead people to stay within their own smaller group (like how when you go to a party that has just too many people, you end up spending most of the night talking to the same people since it's so overwhelming). I think it's important when you have a big class to fight against the temptation to just stay with the same group of people you meet the first week in your section or whatever, but it's not too hard - there are lots of student organizations, and even the more academically focused ones are really social, and lots of good chances to meet a variety of people even if you hate everyone in your small section.

The thing about Columbia as a whole though is that it is very big. While the undergrad population is small, the grad population is huge. I think that's a positive, for example, Columbia has a wide range of different housing options, and Morningside Heights, while it's really residential, doesn't feel overwhelmed by undergrads who tend to stick to a few particular bars and restaurants. I also think it's easier to get downtown from Columbia than Chicago, especially if you're close enough to the 125th stop and can take an express; it's like 20 minutes to the Village.

I also love the running. I have no idea about Hyde Park, but with both Riverside Park and Central Park, Columbia's a fantastic place for runners.

miamiman
Posts: 1486
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:55 pm

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Postby miamiman » Wed May 12, 2010 9:24 am

AngryAvocado wrote:I find it hard to believe myself, but if the numbers for NYU and CLS at ~70% are accurate, I wouldn't be shocked if Chicago (because it's both smaller than those two and the big dog in its market) was actually around 80%. It does seem too good to be true, but when you consider the fact that >70% of the class of 2009 ended up V50 firms (according to the law school transparency project report), it's not that ridiculous. I really do think the small size is paying dividends right now for Chicago and SLS relative to their peers.


True...though the c/o 2009 did its OCI prior to the world collapsing upon itself (a point I know you readily acknowledge). Additionally, as I recall, Fern Port and Mr. T6 have ballparked the big firm SA figure at closer to 2/3. In light of the conflicts of interest OCS has in being truly transparent, I'm inclined to believe the figure is closer to 2/3 than 4/5 but, honestly, who knows -- and, at this point -- it's rather moot.

Sure hope it's 80% though. That'd be nice.

imchuckbass58
Posts: 1245
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:24 pm

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Postby imchuckbass58 » Wed May 12, 2010 10:14 am

sbalive wrote:Columbia really emphasizes the applications of law in business and government. There is very little legal theory, philosophy, law & economics, etc. going on. That's not to say there aren't people doing crazy impractical stuff -- but it's all within the realm of social or economic policy. I'm sure Chicago has its policy-oriented faculty as well, but it also has a lot of more theoretically-inclined faculty -- even the law & econ visitor we had from Chicago was interested in the Law as such and how courts make their decisions. This has an effect on what classes are like, and if someone's interested in doing scholarship and writing, it can have an even bigger impact.


This is a good point. Definitely agree with this.

User avatar
bloodonthetracks
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Postby bloodonthetracks » Wed May 12, 2010 10:45 am

again, thanks to everyone for the insightful replies.

a further consideration: i have a feeble understanding of economics (didn't take a single econ class in UG, though i had a few courses that dealt a bit with econ). from what i've heard, this may make the curriculum at chicago a little tougher on me. any merit to this? should i just read an econ textbook before i go to law school?

prefontaine
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 11:11 am

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Postby prefontaine » Wed May 12, 2010 2:24 pm

From what I have been told econ is brought up, but only simple concepts are used. So it shouldn't be anything to worry about.

Voyager
Posts: 640
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Postby Voyager » Wed May 12, 2010 3:06 pm

You are really over thinking this.

The curriculum at all of these law schools is very similar. You don't need an econ background to do well at Chicago. The difficulty of U. Chicago is not due to the curriculum but due to the way they grade and the retro paper chase teaching style... which is to say that they make it MORE painful and difficult than it has to be on purpose. I know several people who transfered the hell out of that place after 1L year. One was ecstatic to transfer to NYU. That student's mind was blown by the culture difference.

You might consider:

-Location. I dig Chicago MUCH more than New York despite the worse weather. It is a beautiful city... the only city that may be cleaner from my experience was Singapore and they beat people.

-Employment stats.

-The grading systems. I am telling you that U. Chicago's point grading system is demonic. It heightens competition by an order of magnitude. No longer are you just worrying about getting at least a B+ but you are ALSO worrying that YOUR B+ is better than the other guy's B+.

-U. Chicago faculty prides itself on its "rigor"... which is another way of saying that they put the students through additional pain for no good reason. Law school is, by and large, simply a check in the block on your way to gaining entry to the legal guild. All "rigor" does is result in unecessary hazing. The whole experience should be a year shorter anyway.

I mean, I would get it if U.Chicago's hazing program actually resulted in better employment stats.. but it doesn't. So why put yourself through that?

User avatar
bloodonthetracks
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Postby bloodonthetracks » Wed May 12, 2010 3:22 pm

Voyager wrote:You are really over thinking this.

The curriculum at all of these law schools is very similar. You don't need an econ background to do well at Chicago. The difficulty of U. Chicago is not due to the curriculum but due to the way they grade and the retro paper chase teaching style... which is to say that they make it MORE painful and difficult than it has to be on purpose. I know several people who transfered the hell out of that place after 1L year. One was ecstatic to transfer to NYU. That student's mind was blown by the culture difference.

You might consider:

-Location. I dig Chicago MUCH more than New York despite the worse weather. It is a beautiful city... the only city that may be cleaner from my experience was Singapore and they beat people.

-Employment stats.

-The grading systems. I am telling you that U. Chicago's point grading system is demonic. It heightens competition by an order of magnitude. No longer are you just worrying about getting at least a B+ but you are ALSO worrying that YOUR B+ is better than the other guy's B+.

-U. Chicago faculty prides itself on its "rigor"... which is another way of saying that they put the students through additional pain for no good reason. Law school is, by and large, simply a check in the block on your way to gaining entry to the legal guild. All "rigor" does is result in unecessary hazing. The whole experience should be a year shorter.

I mean, I would get it if U.Chicago's hazing program actually resulted in better employment stats.. but it doesn't. So why put yourself through that?


thanks for the response. granted, i may be over-thinking this. i'm just trying to get as much info as i can.

User avatar
doyleoil
Posts: 631
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:59 pm

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Postby doyleoil » Wed May 12, 2010 3:37 pm

Might I suggest to future contributors to this otherwise useful discussion...a moment's pause to consider whether you actually have the personal experience to write something that people should take seriously might be just what the doctor ordered before you spew a bunch of hollow nonsense

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Postby d34d9823 » Wed May 12, 2010 3:43 pm

doyleoil wrote:Might I suggest to future contributors to this otherwise useful discussion...a moment's pause to consider whether you actually have the personal experience to write something that people should take seriously might be just what the doctor ordered before you spew a bunch of hollow nonsense


Might I suggest to future contributors that no sentence should contain this many clauses?

AppsAbound
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 12:04 am

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Postby AppsAbound » Wed May 12, 2010 3:46 pm

"As for Chi - I actually live in the smack middle of downtown. I will admit my general hatred of Midwest and desire to get out after 7 years in the region have a lot to do with my hatred of the city. That said, NYC >>>>> Chi, [strike]touristy or no touristy areas[/strike]. Sorry. :)"

Smack middle of downtown=touristy.
I don't know too many Chicagoans who spend much time just downtown outside of work and the occasional happy hour event. Sorry.

User avatar
bloodonthetracks
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Postby bloodonthetracks » Wed May 12, 2010 3:51 pm

AppsAbound wrote:"As for Chi - I actually live in the smack middle of downtown. I will admit my general hatred of Midwest and desire to get out after 7 years in the region have a lot to do with my hatred of the city. That said, NYC >>>>> Chi, [strike]touristy or no touristy areas[/strike]. Sorry. :)"

Smack middle of downtown=touristy.
I don't know too many Chicagoans who spend much time just downtown outside of work and the occasional happy hour event. Sorry.


TITCR

User avatar
doyleoil
Posts: 631
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:59 pm

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Postby doyleoil » Wed May 12, 2010 3:56 pm

d34dluk3 wrote:
doyleoil wrote:Might I suggest to future contributors to this otherwise useful discussion...a moment's pause to consider whether you actually have the personal experience to write something that people should take seriously might be just what the doctor ordered before you spew a bunch of hollow nonsense


Might I suggest to future contributors that no sentence should contain this many clauses?


this isn't fucking nietzsche crafting witticisms for the ages here - if you got the message, my work is done - if not, you're probably not that smart

User avatar
Regionality
Posts: 789
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:13 am

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Postby Regionality » Wed May 12, 2010 4:01 pm

doyleoil wrote:
d34dluk3 wrote:
doyleoil wrote:Might I suggest to future contributors to this otherwise useful discussion...a moment's pause to consider whether you actually have the personal experience to write something that people should take seriously might be just what the doctor ordered before you spew a bunch of hollow nonsense


Might I suggest to future contributors that no sentence should contain this many clauses?


this isn't fucking nietzsche crafting witticisms for the ages here - if you got the message, my work is done - if not, you're probably not that smart


woah.

User avatar
doyleoil
Posts: 631
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:59 pm

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Postby doyleoil » Wed May 12, 2010 4:12 pm

Regionality wrote:
doyleoil wrote:
d34dluk3 wrote:
doyleoil wrote:Might I suggest to future contributors to this otherwise useful discussion...a moment's pause to consider whether you actually have the personal experience to write something that people should take seriously might be just what the doctor ordered before you spew a bunch of hollow nonsense


Might I suggest to future contributors that no sentence should contain this many clauses?


this isn't fucking nietzsche crafting witticisms for the ages here - if you got the message, my work is done - if not, you're probably not that smart


woah.


you're right, shouldn't have derailed a good thread - i just get impatient when people talk authoritatively about a culture they know jack shit about

User avatar
Mr. Matlock
Posts: 1360
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 6:36 pm

Re: Columbia v. Chicago

Postby Mr. Matlock » Wed May 12, 2010 4:16 pm

doyleoil wrote:
Regionality wrote:woah.


you're right, shouldn't have derailed a good thread - i just get impatient when people talk authoritatively about a culture they know jack shit about

You've been missed doyleoil!!!!!! :D

Now, getting my ass outa' this thread!




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: erinkh and 4 guests