Top Law Schools

.

While DFW is cheaper, living in the SMU/Highland Park area would generally be as expensive as Chicago most likely. otherwise it's honestly best to wait to answer this question til after your retake though. If these two end up your options, it'd be helpful to know more about your situation such as type of law you want to practice, why not Kansas, etc. Good luck in Feb! Many of us will be there retaking as well.

Gotta do better on the retake. Good luck.

The salary data you're citing is very flawed because it's self-reported.

And it depends on where you want to practice. You get similar outcomes from both schools. The big difference is geographic placement. Visit both and pick whichever you like more.

Your parents rock. A few points more and UIUC will likely be free. Maybe they'll buy you a super nice car then.

SMU is too expensive, imo. But that doesn't mean I'd take UIUC at that price either.

Dirigo wrote:The salary data you're citing is very flawed because it's self-reported.

And it depends on where you want to practice. You get similar outcomes from both schools. The big difference is geographic placement. Visit both and pick whichever you like more.

Your parents rock. A few points more and UIUC will likely be free. Maybe they'll buy you a super nice car then.

I think you're overstating the problems with self-reported salary data. I would take the salaries serious, but look at them in the context of how many people responded.

jenesaislaw wrote:

Dirigo wrote:The salary data you're citing is very flawed because it's self-reported.
And it depends on where you want to practice. You get similar outcomes from both schools. The big difference is geographic placement. Visit both and pick whichever you like more.
Your parents rock. A few points more and UIUC will likely be free. Maybe they'll buy you a super nice car then.

I think you're overstating the problems with self-reported salary data. I would take the salaries serious, but look at them in the context of how many people responded.

Okay. Let me rephrase. The data isn't flawed. The inferences one is likely to make from the data are likely to be flawed.
It's a nuance people without a discerning eye are unlikely to pick up on.
Better?

I'd take that salary data very seriously. It's over 80% reporting. Elections have been called with fewer %s...
edit - over 75%. Data should be solid.

These are extremely comparable schools, albeit serving different regions. If you truly have no preference as to where you work, go for the cheaper COA and slight bump in biglaw+FC chances (assuming those are your career goals) at Illinois.

Dirigo wrote:The salary data you're citing is very flawed because it's self-reported.

Disagree in terms of upper limits. I highly doubt those who don't report have salaries above $80,000. Those with high salaries will report them because it makes them look good. Therefore, in terms of looking at "51% of graduates have a salary of >60,000" you can be sure that that number is rather accurate. As far as I can tell LST includes the non-reported in those percentage.

Of course, that means that the other 49% are much lower, reported or not. So keep that in mind

pamphleteer wrote:These are extremely comparable schools, albeit serving different regions. If you truly have no preference as to where you work, go for the cheaper COA and slight bump in biglaw+FC chances (assuming those are your career goals) at Illinois.

Going to either with a goal of "biglaw+FC" isn't a very good move. Also, someone from Kansas would be way behind the 8 ball trying to get Dallas big law.

I don't know much about the Chicago market but I wouldn't choose SMU here.

The Dark Shepard wrote:

Dirigo wrote:The salary data you're citing is very flawed because it's self-reported.

Disagree in terms of upper limits. I highly doubt those who don't report have salaries above $80,000. Those with high salaries will report them because it makes them look good. Therefore, in terms of looking at "51% of graduates have a salary of >60,000" you can be sure that that number is rather accurate. As far as I can tell LST includes the non-reported in those percentage.

Of course, that means that the other 49% are much lower, reported or not. So keep that in mind

I didn't report my salary to SMU because I'm lazy.

Don't go to SMU if you're not from Texas...

BigZuck wrote:

pamphleteer wrote:These are extremely comparable schools, albeit serving different regions. If you truly have no preference as to where you work, go for the cheaper COA and slight bump in biglaw+FC chances (assuming those are your career goals) at Illinois.

Going to either with a goal of "biglaw+FC" isn't a very good move. Also, someone from Kansas would be way behind the 8 ball trying to get Dallas big law.

I don't know much about the Chicago market but I wouldn't choose SMU here.

Yeah fair enough but insofar as BL+FC is a reasonable proxy for desirable employment outcomes as a whole, Illinois seems to have an edge.

star fox wrote:Don't go to SMU if you're not from Texas...

Are Texas ties that important?

Okie25 wrote:

star fox wrote:Don't go to SMU if you're not from Texas...

Are Texas ties that important?

It's a pretty insular market. Especially Dallas.

Okie25 wrote:

star fox wrote:Don't go to SMU if you're not from Texas...

Are Texas ties that important?

They are important almost everywhere. But yeah, definitely in Texas. Going to SMU might be somewhat of a tie but I wouldn't chance it if you haven't lived in DFW (or at least Texas) before law school.

In my opinion, it comes down to whether you prefer to start your career in Texas or in Illinois.

Okie25 wrote:

star fox wrote:Don't go to SMU if you're not from Texas...

Are Texas ties that important?

Texas pride is a real thing.

I think Texas ties are oversold as a necessity for Dallas (and even moreso for Houston, but we're talking SMU here). The Dallas employers I spoke with seemed more concerned that Texans from Houston/Austin/San Antonio would eventually bolt back to their old home than they were that out-of-staters needed stronger ties. I have lots of friends who's first trip to Texas was LS-related, but got jobs that might be expected for someone of their LS performance, but that's just anecdata. (Disclosure: I'm from Texas so my experience is all second-hand.)

Dallas has a pretty big transplant population (I'd say roughly close to 98% transplants). Plus, there is this assumption that "why wouldn't you want to be in Texas?" So you'll have a tougher time of it than a natural Texas citizen, but not as bad as you would in Austin or San Antonio.