Fark-o-vision wrote:Yeah, I think the thing everyone is overlooking is the stipulation that he wants to end up in Chicago. That's a pretty ambiguous word, really. I mean, I want to end up in Los Angeles, but if I got a full ride from Yale would I take it over Stanford? Absolutely. If a DC or New York firm offered me 190K would I take it over 145K in LA? Absolutely. Because although I would prefer to stay in LA, my want isn't that great. For others, when they say they want a place, that means they need a reasonable assurance that they'll end up there. Some people I know would take 60K in LA over 190K in New York (and before it blows up, I know there are probably even more people for whom the reverse is true).
Just depends on how big that want is.
Yah, this is what I was trying to say. Mich probably is slightly better for most chicagobiglaw but if you're like most law students, at the end of the day the 6 figure job in one city is better than the 45 k job in your preferred market. Penn gives you the best.shot at gainful employment and isn't too far behind Mich.
Hell, I know.medians w chi biglaw offers.
Dude, how many pro-Penn and anti-Michigan thread trolls are you currently working on? This is ridiculous, and I honestly doubt anybody believes a word out of your mouth after your "Penn > Illinois FR > Michigan for Chicago" crap. You do realize that people remember the things you write, correct? You are probably in the running for the least credible person on these boards. Enough about you, though - a couple quick points:
1.) Penn does not give you the best shot at gainful employment. If you want to go into this, see my extensive discussion with Rayiner from a previous thread. Michigan could place just as easily into NYC biglaw if it wanted, but our students self-select into significantly more difficult and desirable markets. If Penn students did the same, or if Michigan students flocked to our fallback market (yes, NYC is the "safety" market for OCI) in droves like Penn students do, you'd be hard pressed to find any discernible difference. I'm not claiming that Michigan has an advantage here, but it certainly isn't hurting, despite this stupid self-reinforcing idea that has caught on as popular "knowledge" on TLS.
2.) Are you claiming that Penn is equally as good of a choice as Michigan for Chicago? Here are the numbers of attorneys at some of the most selective Chicago firms:Sidley:
Michigan - 26
Penn - 8Kirkland:
Michigan - 65
Penn - 6Mayer:
Michigan - 46
Penn - 19Latham:
Michigan - 16
Penn - 2
Penn is a great school, but Penn does not best Michigan for Chicago. As for the OP, the issue of Michigan vs. Illinois comes down to which type of risk adverse you are: debt adverse, or striking-out adverse. That's a personal choice, and either one could be a great decision. I'd echo the sentiments of others and say that you should bring the scholarship to the attention of both Michigan and Penn. Congrats on being in the position to be making this choice!