Chicago-Kent v. Depaul v. Loyola chi v. Wisconsin

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )

What school should i go to?

Chicago-Kent w/ 20k
40
61%
Deapul w/ 16k
0
No votes
Loyola w/ 16k
9
14%
Pray to get off the waitlist at Wisconsin
17
26%
 
Total votes: 66

RUM
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 5:46 pm

Chicago-Kent v. Depaul v. Loyola chi v. Wisconsin

Postby RUM » Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:00 pm

Wisconsin -- Sticker as of now

Chicago-Kent -- 20k/yr @ 3.2 stipulation or 10k/yr @ 3.0 OR 12k/yr no stipulation

Depaul -- 16k/yr @ 3.25 Stipulation

Loyola -- 16k/yr @ 3.25 Stipulation


So anyone have any comments on what they would choose? Right now i've been trying to get off of the waitlist at Wisconsin, and am leaning towards Kent as far as the other schools go. I want to practice in Chicago eventually. Any thoughts, comments, insights? Besides the money I'm not sure whats making me lean towards Kent but yeah I am indecisive.
Last edited by RUM on Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
BarbellDreams
Posts: 2256
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:10 pm

Re: Chicago-Kent v. Depaul v. Loyola chi v. Wisconsin

Postby BarbellDreams » Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:07 pm

If you want to practice in chicago you need to go to the cheapest of the schools you got into in the area assuming retaking isnt an option.

RUM
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 5:46 pm

Re: Chicago-Kent v. Depaul v. Loyola chi v. Wisconsin

Postby RUM » Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:10 pm

Cool agreed, and yeah no retake cause i need to get out of my job.

RUM
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 5:46 pm

Re: Chicago-Kent v. Depaul v. Loyola chi v. Wisconsin

Postby RUM » Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:35 pm

Any other thoughts? Any one know how easy it is to keep a 3.25 at any of these schools?

StacyStrong
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:41 pm

Re: Chicago-Kent v. Depaul v. Loyola chi v. Wisconsin

Postby StacyStrong » Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:07 pm

i think loyola has a 90% retention rate


This is what they said to me when I asked about it (my stipulation is a 3.0 though)

"At Loyola University Chicago, you will retain your scholarship if you obtain a cumulative GPA of 3.00 or above after your first year. As a result of this liberal policy, over 90% of our award recipients retain their scholarships. If you do fall below a 3.0, you will continue to receive one half of your scholarship, and if you later raise your GPA back above 3.0, your full scholarship will be reinstated. "

credence023
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 11:23 am

Re: Chicago-Kent v. Depaul v. Loyola chi v. Wisconsin

Postby credence023 » Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:16 pm

Chicago-Kent. I had a chance to visit all three schools and Kent is easily the most impressive in terms of their faculty and their library. Although some people say Loyola has a better reputation in the Chicago area, I still think Kent would be a better choice. Plus, Kent just moved up 19 spots in the rankings and they offer a guaranteed externship after your first year...(if you acknowledge the rankings)

User avatar
RockyIII
Posts: 138
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 8:38 pm

Re: Chicago-Kent v. Depaul v. Loyola chi v. Wisconsin

Postby RockyIII » Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:17 pm

RUM wrote:Chicago-Kent -- 20k/yr @ 3.2 stipulation or 10k/yr @ 3.0 OR 12k/yr no stipulation


Are you sure you have those numbers right?

Why would they offer you 2k more a year with no stipulation over an option with a stip?

RUM
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 5:46 pm

Re: Chicago-Kent v. Depaul v. Loyola chi v. Wisconsin

Postby RUM » Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:24 pm

YEs those numbers are right i just wrote them in a confusing manner. Chicago kent actually offered me two different packages. One scholarship package with stipulations where i get 20k if i keep a 3.2 but if i fall below that but keep a 3.0 i still get 10k a year, OR a whole different option of 12k a year no stipulations. I was very surprised by this, and hadn't hear of anything like it. I think the 20k option is just too much money to pass up, but 12k w/o having to worry about grades would be nice too.

thanks again every one for the comments i appreciate it

RUM
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 5:46 pm

Re: Chicago-Kent v. Depaul v. Loyola chi v. Wisconsin

Postby RUM » Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:33 pm

StacyStrong wrote:i think loyola has a 90% retention rate


This is what they said to me when I asked about it (my stipulation is a 3.0 though)

"At Loyola University Chicago, you will retain your scholarship if you obtain a cumulative GPA of 3.00 or above after your first year. As a result of this liberal policy, over 90% of our award recipients retain their scholarships. If you do fall below a 3.0, you will continue to receive one half of your scholarship, and if you later raise your GPA back above 3.0, your full scholarship will be reinstated. "



Thats good to know i'm visiting this tuesday, and loyola made that list of 50 schools that put graduates in the top 250 law firms. Also, i double checked and my scholarship is just like you said with the 3.0 and 50% bit.

RUM
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 5:46 pm

Re: Chicago-Kent v. Depaul v. Loyola chi v. Wisconsin

Postby RUM » Wed Mar 23, 2011 12:35 pm

Just reviving this thread to see if anyone else has any input. What if i got in at wisconsin? Worth going to UW at sticker over the other schools?

User avatar
Aberzombie1892
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 10:56 am

Re: Chicago-Kent v. Depaul v. Loyola chi v. Wisconsin

Postby Aberzombie1892 » Wed Mar 23, 2011 12:41 pm

RUM wrote:Just reviving this thread to see if anyone else has any input. What if i got in at wisconsin? Worth going to UW at sticker over the other schools?


If you are out of state, hell no.

Honestly, go with the guaranteed cheapest while keeping your debt low.

User avatar
aknecht
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 10:10 am

Re: Chicago-Kent v. Depaul v. Loyola chi v. Wisconsin

Postby aknecht » Wed Mar 23, 2011 3:01 pm

RUM wrote:Just reviving this thread to see if anyone else has any input. What if i got in at wisconsin? Worth going to UW at sticker over the other schools?


I wouldn't.

And even with Kent's recent jump in the ratings, I don't think I would go there. Their reputation among Chicago lawyers lags behind where it ranks according to USNews. Maybe in 15 years it will be considered on par with Loyola but, at that point, where you studied won't matter nearly as much. I'm going by what every Chicago lawyer has told me thus far. None have advised me to go to Kent even though Kent offered me more $$ than Loyola.

With all that being said, gddamn Kent's facility is super nice!

jelly
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:32 pm

Re: Chicago-Kent v. Depaul v. Loyola chi v. Wisconsin

Postby jelly » Wed Mar 23, 2011 8:31 pm

aknecht wrote:
RUM wrote:Just reviving this thread to see if anyone else has any input. What if i got in at wisconsin? Worth going to UW at sticker over the other schools?


I wouldn't.

And even with Kent's recent jump in the ratings, I don't think I would go there. Their reputation among Chicago lawyers lags behind where it ranks according to USNews. Maybe in 15 years it will be considered on par with Loyola but, at that point, where you studied won't matter nearly as much. I'm going by what every Chicago lawyer has told me thus far. None have advised me to go to Kent even though Kent offered me more $$ than Loyola.

With all that being said, gddamn Kent's facility is super nice!


Kent made the top 100 list of "Law Firms Rank Schools" in US News. I don't think its reputation is weak. Law firms do recognize it as a good school and from the attorneys I've talked to, many of them acknowledge the strength of Kent graduates and other aspects such as the legal writing program and the school's bar preparation. I have talked to attorneys who say they wish they had gone to Kent over the school they chose (Wisconsin, Loyola, etc.) because of factors such as the excellent legal writing program, IP program, bar prep, etc.

User avatar
jcunni5
Posts: 226
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Chicago-Kent v. Depaul v. Loyola chi v. Wisconsin

Postby jcunni5 » Wed Mar 23, 2011 8:38 pm

WI >>> kent, Luc > Depaul

WI may not be worth sticker but i think your employment opportunities would vastly improve, especially if you were open to practicing in WI. the chicago T2 aren't giving that much in scholly money and you'll still have 6 figure debt so I'd go to WI, there is so much competition in Chicago (which is hurting alot compared to some other markets) that i think having the wisconsin market as a backup would be nice especially since its the top school there and you wouldn't have to take the bar in WI either as long as you graduate

jelly
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:32 pm

Re: Chicago-Kent v. Depaul v. Loyola chi v. Wisconsin

Postby jelly » Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:03 pm

Paying sticker for Wisconsin to practice in Chicago (OP says they want to practice in Chicago) is not worth it. There is not enough difference between the schools in my opinion.

NoJob
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Chicago-Kent v. Depaul v. Loyola chi v. Wisconsin

Postby NoJob » Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:10 pm

Stay away from all of these schools. Wisconsin is the only school here that is not a complete joke.

User avatar
BarbellDreams
Posts: 2256
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:10 pm

Re: Chicago-Kent v. Depaul v. Loyola chi v. Wisconsin

Postby BarbellDreams » Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:41 pm

Going to Wisconsin to practice in Chicago makes no sense. At the absolute worst schools like Kent, LUC, DePaul place the same as Wisconsin in Chicago (though I guarantee you all three of those place better than Wisconsin does).

Its basically LUC>Kent>>>>>DePaul in the Chicago market. Keep in mind that all three of those are <<<<<UIUC/ND/WUSTL/NW/Chicago/all t14's/any other T30 that has Chicago as its primary market.

User avatar
dood
Posts: 1639
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:59 am

Re: Chicago-Kent v. Depaul v. Loyola chi v. Wisconsin

Postby dood » Wed Mar 23, 2011 11:01 pm

i talked to several partners about those schools in 2007, when i graduated from UW madison UG and first considered law school. this is before i knew about TLS or wtf a "t14" was.

anyways, i was considering the schools u named (in addition to NU, UChi, etc). i remember one conversation very clearly. i tell the partner i would love NU but wouldnt mind kent/depaul/loyola. the partner just kinda pauses and i can tell he is searching for something to say. finally he just says "to be honest, i would advise u not to go to law school if your only options are kent/depaul/loyola."

EDIT: i did not ask about WI b/c that was not on my list of law schools.

User avatar
aknecht
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 10:10 am

Re: Chicago-Kent v. Depaul v. Loyola chi v. Wisconsin

Postby aknecht » Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:53 am

NoJob wrote:Stay away from all of these schools. Wisconsin is the only school here that is not a complete joke.


wow really? don't even know where to start with that ignorant statement. If someone wants to practice in Chicago, you think Wisconsin is a better bet? It MIGHT have the same chances in Chicago as the Chicago schools (and that's on a good day).

and while Wisconsin places well, so do LUC and Kent (especially when you consider their USN ranking compared to Wisc): http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/law%20schools_charts_page12.pdf

so please refrain from blanket statements that have no information backing them up. If you want to practice in WI, sure go to Wisconsin to study but if you want to practice in Chicago (like the OP said), then you are on equal footing if not better off going to one of the lower ranked Chicago area schools (probably on a scholarship as opposed to sticker @ Wisc).

edit: even Barbelldreams agrees with me and he's the most honest and blunt person I've seen on TLS thus far.

and who is going to take the advice of someone with the screen name of NoJob?

midwestrocks
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:26 pm

Re: Chicago-Kent v. Depaul v. Loyola chi v. Wisconsin

Postby midwestrocks » Thu Mar 24, 2011 10:37 am

Wisconsin at sticker might be a better idea than the lower-tier Chicago schools. I don't know how well it places in Chicago, but it is a much better school (26 spots higher than Kent) and is well regarded in the midwest. Also, cost of living is so much lower in Madison than Chicago and if you can establish residency in WI tuition is dirt cheap. Madison is also one of the nicer places in the country to spend three years.

But if you're 100% set on working in Chicago then Kent would probably be the best option.

runnergal
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:15 pm

Re: Chicago-Kent v. Depaul v. Loyola chi v. Wisconsin

Postby runnergal » Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:56 pm

midwestrocks wrote:Wisconsin at sticker might be a better idea than the lower-tier Chicago schools. I don't know how well it places in Chicago, but it is a much better school (26 spots higher than Kent) and is well regarded in the midwest. Also, cost of living is so much lower in Madison than Chicago and if you can establish residency in WI tuition is dirt cheap. Madison is also one of the nicer places in the country to spend three years.

But if you're 100% set on working in Chicago then Kent would probably be the best option.


Madison's a cool city, but Chicago totally blows it out of the water. I would much rather be in Chicago than Madison. Also, Chicago's cold in the winters, but Madison is freezing/worse. As far as cost of living, Chicago can be pretty reasonable if you search around (there are some good deals that are similar to Madison cost of living), have roommates, or are willing to live in a smaller place. Commuting from the Chicago suburbs is also a cheaper option.
Neither school is top 25 so the difference in rankings means very little when you're talking about something like 35 v. 60. They're much closer to each other at that point.

User avatar
BarbellDreams
Posts: 2256
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:10 pm

Re: Chicago-Kent v. Depaul v. Loyola chi v. Wisconsin

Postby BarbellDreams » Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:40 pm

aknecht wrote:
NoJob wrote:Stay away from all of these schools. Wisconsin is the only school here that is not a complete joke.


wow really? don't even know where to start with that ignorant statement. If someone wants to practice in Chicago, you think Wisconsin is a better bet? It MIGHT have the same chances in Chicago as the Chicago schools (and that's on a good day).

and while Wisconsin places well, so do LUC and Kent (especially when you consider their USN ranking compared to Wisc): http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/law%20schools_charts_page12.pdf

so please refrain from blanket statements that have no information backing them up. If you want to practice in WI, sure go to Wisconsin to study but if you want to practice in Chicago (like the OP said), then you are on equal footing if not better off going to one of the lower ranked Chicago area schools (probably on a scholarship as opposed to sticker @ Wisc).

edit: even Barbelldreams agrees with me and he's the most honest and blunt person I've seen on TLS thus far.

and who is going to take the advice of someone with the screen name of NoJob?


Just want to qualify the bolded section.

The Chicago legal market is currently one of the worst in the nation. Schools like LUC/Kent/DePaul will be outplaced by T30's such as ND, WUSTL and UIUC and the entire T14. Thats a LOT of students getting jobs in an oversaturated market before you even get a shot at an interview. That said, the alumni networks from all of these schools is till pretty decent and saying that going to any of them is a waste is not quite correct. Assuming low debt and no desire for biglaw, any of these 3 schools can get you a decent job assuming above-median grades. Top 10% at LUC and Kent even have a shot at biglaw (notice how I said shot, nothing like this is guaranteed from these schools).

However, taking out 6 figures of debt from any of these schools is a horrible investment. People in the Chicago market are literally fighting for 40k jobs right now. These schools have decent job prospects, but nothing too substantial, and nothing worth taking out 6 figure for in an oversaturated market with at least 17 schools outplacing you.

User avatar
aknecht
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 10:10 am

Re: Chicago-Kent v. Depaul v. Loyola chi v. Wisconsin

Postby aknecht » Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:43 pm

BarbellDreams wrote:
aknecht wrote:
NoJob wrote:Stay away from all of these schools. Wisconsin is the only school here that is not a complete joke.


wow really? don't even know where to start with that ignorant statement. If someone wants to practice in Chicago, you think Wisconsin is a better bet? It MIGHT have the same chances in Chicago as the Chicago schools (and that's on a good day).

and while Wisconsin places well, so do LUC and Kent (especially when you consider their USN ranking compared to Wisc): http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/law%20schools_charts_page12.pdf

so please refrain from blanket statements that have no information backing them up. If you want to practice in WI, sure go to Wisconsin to study but if you want to practice in Chicago (like the OP said), then you are on equal footing if not better off going to one of the lower ranked Chicago area schools (probably on a scholarship as opposed to sticker @ Wisc).

edit: even Barbelldreams agrees with me and he's the most honest and blunt person I've seen on TLS thus far.

and who is going to take the advice of someone with the screen name of NoJob?


Just want to qualify the bolded section.

The Chicago legal market is currently one of the worst in the nation. Schools like LUC/Kent/DePaul will be outplaced by T30's such as ND, WUSTL and UIUC and the entire T14. Thats a LOT of students getting jobs in an oversaturated market before you even get a shot at an interview. That said, the alumni networks from all of these schools is till pretty decent and saying that going to any of them is a waste is not quite correct. Assuming low debt and no desire for biglaw, any of these 3 schools can get you a decent job assuming above-median grades. Top 10% at LUC and Kent even have a shot at biglaw (notice how I said shot, nothing like this is guaranteed from these schools).

However, taking out 6 figures of debt from any of these schools is a horrible investment. People in the Chicago market are literally fighting for 40k jobs right now. These schools have decent job prospects, but nothing too substantial, and nothing worth taking out 6 figure for in an oversaturated market with at least 17 schools outplacing you.


right, thanks for that. What I meant was that you are frequently a reality check on things.

LAguy33
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 5:14 pm

Re: Chicago-Kent v. Depaul v. Loyola chi v. Wisconsin

Postby LAguy33 » Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:50 pm

While we're talking about Loyola chi, what're yall's opinion on incurring about $83,000 in total debt from Loyola?

There's also a chance I can get that down to about $65,000. Obviously $65,000 is a lot better than $83,000 but considering I'm from the South, I don't have a very good idea of the job market in Chicago and the feasibility of paying those loans back.

For example, for an $83,000 total, loan calculators say a minimum salaries of $115,000 (10 yr.), $89,000 (15 yr.) and $76,000 (20 yr.) are necessary. Thoughts?

RUM
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 5:46 pm

Re: Chicago-Kent v. Depaul v. Loyola chi v. Wisconsin

Postby RUM » Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:56 pm

Hey thanks everyone for the feedback, it's been exactly what i need to think about. I just got accepted at Madison today, and the excitement has me thinking hard about UW despite the money. Also to spark a little more debate and clarify, I have thought about practicing in wisconsin. I do have some family and friends in the madison area, clearly being form the chicago burbs i think chicago a much better place than the cheesehead-land but would like practicing in either place. Not to mention that UW is the best school in the state and Chicago-kent is, well, not.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: tinafeyclone and 3 guests