Top Law Schools

Hello everyone,

I am trying to decide between Emory or UIUC. However, as an international student, I honestly have no preference or experience regarding Atlanta and Chicago. Given that they are more or less peer schools, I'd like to hear your thoughts on which city you personally prefer to live in, and why.

Please note that money/debt is not an issue for me. Thus, attaining biglaw is also not a primary concern. Therefore, while appreciated, TCR "retake" would be a waste of a post. I simply would like to hear domestic students' views on each city.

Thanks very much!

Chicago. I would never live in the South.

You are aware UIUC Law is not in Chicago, right? Chicago is a little more than a 2 hour drive from the UIUC law campus which is located in Champaign-Urbana.

I just did the drive from Chicago to UIUC a couple days ago and it is almost 3 hours. Also, UIUC is in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by cornfields. It is a couple hours from Chicago, Indianapolis and St. Louis...

honeynutt wrote:I just did the drive from Chicago to UIUC a couple days ago and it is almost 3 hours. Also, UIUC is in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by cornfields. It is a couple hours from Chicago, Indianapolis and St. Louis...

you drive slow. It's closer to 2 hours than 3.

for someone international, chicago > atlanta, but atlanta >>>>>>> urbana/champaign

Betharl wrote:You are aware UIUC Law is not in Chicago, right? Chicago is a little more than a 2 hour drive from the UIUC law campus which is located in Champaign-Urbana.

Yes, I am very aware. More concerned about where I'd likely end up working.

.

ATL It's warmer. The food is better - if you like southern food. And I like southern hospitality.

rad lulz wrote:

Bronck wrote:Chicago. I would never live in the South.

Atlanta. I would never live in the North.

Could you guys give some reasons as to why you dislike the regions

I've lived in both--Atlanta for 8 years and Chicago for 3.

Atlanta has surprisingly good and diverse food options, but it's hard to compete with Chicago as one of the largest cities in the country. Atlanta is warm and sunny, but humid, while Chicago is cold and less sunny (it's not drab like say London, it's just the sunlight isn't as intense).

After living in Chicago for a few years, though, I have to say it's surpassed Atlanta in my mind. The downtown core is amazing. Compact, easy to get around without a car. Unlike Atlanta's, the public transit network is efficient and timely. It's totally feasible in Chicago to live a short walk or bus ride away from your work--in Atlanta you'll almost certainly have to commute. Don't underestimate how terrible that is.

lobolawyer wrote:ATL It's warmer. The food is better - if you like southern food. And I like southern hospitality.

troll take your flame outside tyia. Chicago's food options are second only to NYC. Atlanta has a solid secondary food scene, it's better than most of its peers size-wise, like Cleveland, but you really cannot compare the options you'd get in a place with barely 400k residents vs. a place with 2.8 million.

However, I'd definitely take into consideration the 3 years you'd be living in a college town in the midst of cornfields. If you're not particularly a fan of such a setup, 3 years is a long time to hate your environment.

rad lulz wrote:

Bronck wrote:Chicago. I would never live in the South.

Atlanta. I would never live in the North.

This! Well, not the middle of the country north.... NYC is a different story for me.

It comes down to this, are you more adverse to COLD windy winters that last forever or HOT humid summers that also go on and on?

descartesb4thehorse wrote:

lobolawyer wrote:ATL It's warmer. The food is better - if you like southern food. And I like southern hospitality.

troll take your flame outside tyia. Chicago's food options are second only to NYC. Atlanta has a solid secondary food scene, it's better than most of its peers size-wise, like Cleveland, but you really cannot compare the options you'd get in a place with barely 400k residents vs. a place with 2.8 million.

However, I'd definitely take into consideration the 3 years you'd be living in a college town in the midst of cornfields. If you're not particularly a fan of such a setup, 3 years is a long time to hate your environment.

Obviously you do not understand the implications of metropolitan area population. Atlanta's is 5.5 MILLION which is a far cry from the actual city population. By that same logic San Diego is a MUCH bigger city than San Francisco. Atlanta is still not as big as Chicago but unless you are a fan of brats the food is MUCH better in Atlanta.

Chicago - particularly if you have independent wealth. I'm not sure about the cost difference in the two cities, but I think Chicago is more expensive. Me personally, I can't take the hot humid summers, and I've always lived in the northeast. I prefer large cities. So I would definitely take Chicago.

Atlanta. The people are nicer. The weather is better. Sweet Tea.

Chicago is of greater legal centrality/importance, but you said you didn't care about that...

Honestly, your two choices are quite the opposites. Hopefully you get enough responses to help you out

Atlanta, 100% nicer place, nicer people, easier time getting a job, better school connections

The two cities are really night and day in terms of physical layout. Atlanta is basically a suburban city. Very spread out, rare to see people walking on the street, Downtown, Midtown and Buckhead (to a certain extent) are the only dense parts and really only feel "urban" along Peachtree Street and within a couple blocks of it. It's mostly single-family homes and small apartment complexes, with shopping in small strip malls off major streets. You will need a car to get to 75% of what you will want to do. Still there are some very nice neighborhoods in the city, good food, art and music, a surprising diversity of people and cultures, etc. Atlanta has been *the* go-to city in the southeast for some time now (with apologies to Charlotte, Nashville, etc.), so it's attracted interesting people from the region as well as from across the country and the world over the last 20 or so years.

If you prefer a real capital-c City, then Chicago without a doubt. The population density of Chicago is about three times higher than Atlanta. It's much more of a classic urban environment (negotiable by walking/public transit, dense neighborhoods, etc.).

Other things will come into consideration too, mainly weather. Would you rather have horrible winters (Chicago) or horrible summers (Atlanta)?

JCFindley wrote:

descartesb4thehorse wrote:

lobolawyer wrote:ATL It's warmer. The food is better - if you like southern food. And I like southern hospitality.

troll take your flame outside tyia. Chicago's food options are second only to NYC. Atlanta has a solid secondary food scene, it's better than most of its peers size-wise, like Cleveland, but you really cannot compare the options you'd get in a place with barely 400k residents vs. a place with 2.8 million.

However, I'd definitely take into consideration the 3 years you'd be living in a college town in the midst of cornfields. If you're not particularly a fan of such a setup, 3 years is a long time to hate your environment.

Obviously you do not understand the implications of metropolitan area population. Atlanta's is 5.5 MILLION which is a far cry from the actual city population. By that same logic San Diego is a MUCH bigger city than San Francisco. Atlanta is still not as big as Chicago but unless you are a fan of brats the food is MUCH better in Atlanta.

Yes I do understand it, and by that metric Chicago has 8-10 million, depending on which source you're looking at. And Chicago has excellent food; I don't think I ever ate a brat for the years I lived there. There is such a wide variety from upscale to low-key, divey places, from Rick Bayless' Mexican to Nuevo Leon in Pilsen, from Spiaggia on the Magnificent Mile to Giordano's or Uno for Chicago-style pizza a few blocks away. Chicago has some of the best Thai, Brazilian, Vietnamese, Chinese, Spanish, Japanese, Ethiopian, etc. places that I've ever been to. The only place I've been that does it better in the US is really New York. And New York doesn't really have too many "local" dishes that are served all over the world either, but what it does is present the best of what is out there already.

I agree with the poster who said Atlanta feels very suburban, but I also don't think Chicago is completely on the other end of that spectrum. There are areas that are more densely populated, but it's a far cry from the cramped/expensive living that you face in NYC. I also find midwesterners endearingly nice, almost to a fault, and yes the size of Chicago will attract some that aren't like that, but on the whole it's very easy to form a community base even in a city that size, which is impressive. So I don't know who keeps saying "the people are nicer", but I have to disagree with that.

The main thing you need to think about is your taste in weather. The two areas have VERY different weather. Chicago is brutally cold (I'm talking damn single digits) and has very long winters (apparently it doesn't regularly get above the 50s until late May...that would kill me). Atlanta is going to essentially have the weather of whatever season it is (Fall is going to be temperate, Winter is going to be cold, Spring sunny, and Summer is going to range from sunny to really hot--90 degrees and higher at times). So I would think long and hard about that before you commit.

Why Chicago? It is as cold as a bastard and the city seems to be a rapidly untangling rustbelt economy. The population, employment opporuntites seem to be declining every year.

As for all the food responses, what kind of law student can afford to take advantage of highend international food?

hoosierball wrote:Atlanta, 100% nicer place, nicer people, easier time getting a job, better school connections

FTFY

See generally

rad lulz wrote:

Bronck wrote:Chicago. I would never live in the South.

Atlanta. I would never live in the North.

Atlanta. Can't Stand the Hawk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6C64Ntjs1s

JamesChapman23 wrote:Why Chicago? It is as cold as a bastard and the city seems to be a rapidly untangling rustbelt economy. The population, employment opporuntites seem to be declining every year.

As for all the food responses, what kind of law student can afford to take advantage of highend international food?

OP isn't going to school in Chicago; he was asking about postgrad QOL. Poster above is generally the most correct. It's the south vs. the north. One should be able to generally do enough research that one knows what one would enjoy.

descartesb4thehorse wrote:

JamesChapman23 wrote:Why Chicago? It is as cold as a bastard and the city seems to be a rapidly untangling rustbelt economy. The population, employment opporuntites seem to be declining every year.

As for all the food responses, what kind of law student can afford to take advantage of highend international food?

OP isn't going to school in Chicago; he was asking about postgrad QOL. Poster above is generally the most correct. It's the south vs. the north. One should be able to generally do enough research that one knows what one would enjoy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was almost certain that Chicago was in the midwest.

And here's an unbiased opinion from a Southerner for the OP. If it wasn't for the weather I'd pick Chicago. Chicago really saddens me. It has everything that I want in a living location (Low COL, great food, cool sports teams, diversity, ability to live in a HOUSE--cough cough unlike NYC, and great shopping. But the weather just ruins it. I think it's the coldest major metro area in the country).