Top Law Schools

Decision I can make: Rum & Coke v. Vodka tonic

Decision I can't make: attend UW Madison at full OOS tuition (165k after 3 yrs) or Chicago-Kent with 20k/yr with a 3.25 stip. (133k after 3 yrs)


Willing to work in both areas and I feel they both place well in Chicago and their respective areas, UW is the best school in Wisconsin, which i like. Madison v. Chicago, Chicago clearly wins, but Madison is a great college town. The Kent money is enticing, but by no means guaranteed, and UW has always been a tier 1 school yet isn't ridiculously better than Kent. Also, I'm great at helping others make big decisions but horrible when I have to do it myself.

Your infinite wisdom is greatly appreciated

No takers?

This is a tough one- I would be nervous taking that scholarship to Kent given the 3.25 stip. I love Wisconsin too, but full OOS seems a bit much.

If you lose the scholly at Kent, how much more are you looking at? Wisconsin has some reach in Chicago as well.

I'm almost a 2L at Kent so I'm partial ;) However, I can guarantee that it will be almost impossible to maintain a 3.25 especially with the amount of pressure during 1L year. Also, keep in mind that Kent curves to a 2.9.

Thanks for the response and votes, I'm definitely leaning towards UW because if I loose the scholarship at Kent I'd be paying about 170k total. I don't think UW has a huge edge in prestige or anything like that but there is an edge, and I think I'm more prepared to study in a college town atmosphere than in downtown chicago. It's just hard to turn down a scholarship, but i think it will be very hard to keep.

Wisconsin is the better option. However, it still isn't a very good one. Which means retake/reapply is the best option.

rebexness wrote:I'd say UW- can you get in state for your 2nd/3rd year?

I think Wisconsin is a very difficult state to get IST for.

OP: How are you going to service a ~165K debt coming out from either of these schools?

I think both are good schools, but without in-state or scholarships they are not worth it.

scammedhard wrote:OP: How are you going to service a ~165K debt coming out from either of these schools?

I think both are good schools, but without in-state or scholarships they are not worth it.

It's a great question, and I've really had to think hard about doing it, but my job options right now are pretty dismall, and really there is only one way to become a lawyer. I have already retaken the LSAT and i improved by 5 points so i feel i'm at least in a better situation than if i didn't retake. I did have a full ride at john marshall but too high of stips to go there. I'm going to pay them off over my life time and accept indebtedness to pursue the career I want.

Also, i can't get in state tuition, wisconsin is very particular about that. Only way to do it is if you are living in wisconsin for at least a year prior to attending school.

Thanks again for the feedback everyone, I appreciate it.

Tough choice.

While neither is really worth the amount you will owe, UW is the better option.

Aberzombie1892 wrote:Tough choice.

While neither is really worth the amount you will owe, UW is the better option.

+1

plus no bar exam from wisc

dood wrote:plus no bar exam from wisc

If you work in Wisconsin.

To echo some earlier posts, to the OP: it will be very difficult to service W's debt without biglaw.

How many people coming out of Wisco get biglaw? 17-20% right? Not great odds if you're taking on that much debt.

I feel dirty saying all this given Wisconsin will probably be my first choice when I apply next year, though at least I have reciprocity tuition.

minnbills wrote:

dood wrote:plus no bar exam from wisc

If you work in Wisconsin.

To echo some earlier posts, to the OP: it will be very difficult to service W's debt without biglaw.

How many people coming out of Wisco get biglaw? 17-20% right? Not great odds if you're taking on that much debt.

I feel dirty saying all this given Wisconsin will probably be my first choice when I apply next year, though at least I have reciprocity tuition.

wat do u me "IF"? i hope u like beer, brats, and the brewers.

minnbills wrote:

dood wrote:plus no bar exam from wisc

If you work in Wisconsin.

.

If you go to University of Wisconsin theres a very high chance thats where you'll be working

dr123 wrote:

minnbills wrote:

dood wrote:plus no bar exam from wisc

If you work in Wisconsin.

.

If you go to University of Wisconsin theres a very high chance thats where you'll be working

right, thats what i mean by "hope u like beer, brats, and the brewers"

which is not necessarily bad. working at foley or quarles bradley making $145K in milwaukee = u RICH.

UW.

As many ppl have indicated, Wisconsin is definitely the better choice given your current options (IMO).

dood wrote:

minnbills wrote:

dood wrote:plus no bar exam from wisc

If you work in Wisconsin.

To echo some earlier posts, to the OP: it will be very difficult to service W's debt without biglaw.

How many people coming out of Wisco get biglaw? 17-20% right? Not great odds if you're taking on that much debt.

I feel dirty saying all this given Wisconsin will probably be my first choice when I apply next year, though at least I have reciprocity tuition.

wat do u me "IF"? i hope u like beer, brats, and the brewers.

Am I wrong? Obviously the chances are you'll be working there. But it's still if.

1) There is a HUGE difference in many regards between the two schools--Wisco is viewed as the best school in Wisconsin (Madison and Milwaukee markets) and overall is a much much much better university. Kent--is in a severely over saturated market and plays tenth fiddle to Chicago, NU, Michigan, Harvard, Notre Dame, Wash, Minn, Wisco, Iowa, etc etc etc.....good luck getting any kind of legal job paying over 45K from Kent

2) Your cost isnt much different--in the end 30K difference for your entire education is not really much at all when you are already going to be paying 130k+

3) Kent loads all of their 3.25 scholly stipulations into the same section during 1L guaranteeing that only a certain percentage will be able to maintain and guaranteeing that you would be in a section with many of the top applicants enrolling....

I would disagree that there is a "HUGE" difference between the two schools. Kent is a quality school and in many ways underrated/underranked. Wisconsin may have an edge in prestige, but it is not a huge edge. The negative of Wisconsin besides the tuition is its inability to place well in Chicago. If you're fine with working in Wisconsin, go there. Otherwise, Kent may be worth looking into for purposes of practicing in Chicago.

You have a MUCH better placing in Chicago from Wisconsin--no doubt about that! Only chance at anything from Kent is Chicago (maybe 5% get biglaw)--top 20% from Wisconin or more have a very good chance at biglaw in Chicago--many choose to stay in Wisco though becasue that is where they are from and want to practice---Kent is a TTT---just about anybody or any firm in Chicago will confirm

Snape wrote:You have a MUCH better placing in Chicago from Wisconsin--no doubt about that! Only chance at anything from Kent is Chicago (maybe 5% get biglaw)--top 20% from Wisconin or more have a very good chance at biglaw in Chicago--many choose to stay in Wisco though becasue that is where they are from and want to practice---Kent is a TTT---just about anybody or any firm in Chicago will confirm

Not true. Lots of Wisconsin grads have trouble placing in Chicago. Overall, Kent is the better choice for Chicago but whether it is the better choice if your goals do not involve practicing in Chicago is a different question.