UChicago over Harvard? Forum

[MichelFoucault]

Would it be silly to choose Chicago over HLS because of Chi's focus on Law and Economics? My interests are much more aligned with business and finance, and I would really like to do a JD/MBA if accepted at the right place.

But after reading more about Chicago's leadership and emphasis on law and economics, I wonder if it would make sense for me to choose them over Harvard.

Can someone with a strong interest in finance and economics get their "fix" as easily at HLS?

Thoughts appreciated.

[duckmoney]

Would it be silly to choose Chicago over HLS because of Chi's focus on Law and Economics? My interests are much more aligned with business and finance, and I would really like to do a JD/MBA if accepted at the right place.

But after reading more about Chicago's leadership and emphasis on law and economics, I wonder if it would make sense for me to choose them over Harvard.

Can someone with a strong interest in finance and economics get their "fix" as easily at HLS?

Thoughts appreciated.

It would be quite silly to choose Chicago over HLS because of their focus on law and economics. You're not going to law school for an academic thrill ride. You're going to get a job. As a rule, HLS has (slightly) better job prospects than Chicago, especially with regards to prestigious clerkships and top New York City firms.

That said, there are other reasons to consider UChicago over Harvard, such as better scholarship and proximity to the Chicago market. Job prospects, especially for biglaw, are not much if at all worse at Chicago because of the smaller class size. If those things interest you, then the added law and economics focus might be a bonus. But don't make your decision solely based on what you perceive of their academic focus.

[IAFG]

You seem to be conflating "law and econ" with a business law focus. That's... not what is going on down in Hyde Park.

[MichelFoucault]

You seem to be conflating "law and econ" with a business law focus. That's... not what is going on down in Hyde Park.

My apologies, I did use "business" and "finance" when I should have said economics.

I just read a paper by one of their professors on a subject in Law and Economics. And i studied economics in UG, so I know whats going down in Hyde Park.

[IAFG]

You seem to be conflating "law and econ" with a business law focus. That's... not what is going on down in Hyde Park.

My apologies, I did use "business" and "finance" when I should have said economics.

I just read a paper by one of their professors on a subject in Law and Economics. And i studied economics in UG, so I know whats going down in Hyde Park.

I hear what you're saying, but I think that you might be disappointed if you think that "law and econ" means much beyond a purely academic theoretical circlejerk. It's really not any sort of superior training for working in finance or business.
Now, if you're looking to extend the academic circlejerk of your undergrad economics education into law school, you may well be on the right track.

[MichelFoucault]

Would it be silly to choose Chicago over HLS because of Chi's focus on Law and Economics? My interests are much more aligned with business and finance, and I would really like to do a JD/MBA if accepted at the right place.

But after reading more about Chicago's leadership and emphasis on law and economics, I wonder if it would make sense for me to choose them over Harvard.

Can someone with a strong interest in finance and economics get their "fix" as easily at HLS?

Thoughts appreciated.

It would be quite silly to choose Chicago over HLS because of their focus on law and economics. You're not going to law school for an academic thrill ride. You're going to get a job. As a rule, HLS has (slightly) better job prospects than Chicago, especially with regards to prestigious clerkships and top New York City firms.

That said, there are other reasons to consider UChicago over Harvard, such as better scholarship and proximity to the Chicago market. Job prospects, especially for biglaw, are not much if at all worse at Chicago because of the smaller class size. If those things interest you, then the added law and economics focus might be a bonus. But don't make your decision solely based on what you perceive of their academic focus.

Those are very valid points. But if I were to push back a little bit, I might argue that their focus on studying law through an economic lense could increase my interest and motivation in studying, and therefore lead to better grades and overall educational experience, the former leading to better employment opportunities and the later just a better quality of life during law school.

Furthermore, how would the calculus play out if I knew with certainty that I ultimately would prefer to work in finance, given the fact that getting into Booth and doing a JD/MBA is more of a realistic possibility for me.

[MichelFoucault]

You seem to be conflating "law and econ" with a business law focus. That's... not what is going on down in Hyde Park.

My apologies, I did use "business" and "finance" when I should have said economics.

I just read a paper by one of their professors on a subject in Law and Economics. And i studied economics in UG, so I know whats going down in Hyde Park.

I hear what you're saying, but I think that you might be disappointed if you think that "law and econ" means much beyond a purely academic theoretical circlejerk. It's really not any sort of superior training for working in finance or business.
Now, if you're looking to extend the academic circlejerk of your undergrad economics education into law school, you may well be on the right track.

Fair point. I guess that type of academic circle jerking would make studying law more palatable for me, and I would hope to acquire more practical skills for finance in Booth doing a JD/MBA

[duckmoney]

I would also consider whether a JD / MBA would really be worth the extra year / $. The job prospects aren't significantly better than just having either a JD or an MBA for most people.

[Black-Blue]

The fact that you're interested in an MBA suggests that you are too practically minded to like Law and Econ. Law and Econ is all academic and has no relevance to law practice or business practice.

[sn20]

You seem to be conflating "law and econ" with a business law focus. That's... not what is going on down in Hyde Park.

My apologies, I did use "business" and "finance" when I should have said economics.

I just read a paper by one of their professors on a subject in Law and Economics. And i studied economics in UG, so I know whats going down in Hyde Park.

I hear what you're saying, but I think that you might be disappointed if you think that "law and econ" means much beyond a purely academic theoretical circlejerk. It's really not any sort of superior training for working in finance or business.
Now, if you're looking to extend the academic circlejerk of your undergrad economics education into law school, you may well be on the right track.

Fair point. I guess that type of academic circle jerking would make studying law more palatable for me, and I would hope to acquire more practical skills for finance in Booth doing a JD/MBA

HBS FTW.

[Corwin]

You seem to be conflating "law and econ" with a business law focus. That's... not what is going on down in Hyde Park.

My apologies, I did use "business" and "finance" when I should have said economics.

I just read a paper by one of their professors on a subject in Law and Economics. And i studied economics in UG, so I know whats going down in Hyde Park.

You should spend some time with Posner's text. A used copy of an older edition is quite cheap.

[Corwin]

You seem to be conflating "law and econ" with a business law focus. That's... not what is going on down in Hyde Park.

My apologies, I did use "business" and "finance" when I should have said economics.

I just read a paper by one of their professors on a subject in Law and Economics. And i studied economics in UG, so I know whats going down in Hyde Park.

I hear what you're saying, but I think that you might be disappointed if you think that "law and econ" means much beyond a purely academic theoretical circlejerk. It's really not any sort of superior training for working in finance or business.
Now, if you're looking to extend the academic circlejerk of your undergrad economics education into law school, you may well be on the right track.

Fair point. I guess that type of academic circle jerking would make studying law more palatable for me, and I would hope to acquire more practical skills for finance in Booth doing a JD/MBA

Their points are actually pretty bad. Economic analysis of the law is fundamental to the thought process of at least two of the most prominent CoA judges alive today.

[bdubs]

If real "law and economics" is your thing, an MBA is not the way to get exposure to it. You need to go into a PhD program.

I'm doing a JD/MBA and have interest in a law and econ area, but I have no illusions that I'm actually going to be doing any real economic theory work as an MBA student. You may be able to audit a few PhD courses, but not enough to give you the tools you would need to do any real work in the academic field (it is primarily an academic field, not a practical one). Reassess your goals and then look at programs.

Also, the extra year is a huge negative aspect of both Chicago and Harvard's JD/MBA programs.

[dood]

simple answer: from pure objective POV, u prolly should go to harvard.

but if u have a huge boner for coase, posner and easterbrook, sure why not, take some classes with dem and like u said, the subjective differences may be much more advantageous to ur specific life and career goals.

that being said, as many pointed out, law and economics is very academia focused...might serve u well in understanding government policy & how the world REALLY works, but not really that helpful for practical finance career.

anyhow just so u know too, harvard school of thought often very at odds from the originlist MACRO economics approach pioneered at chicago. but there is an equally big following of said school of thought, and even posner has admitted that the housing crisis kinda fucked the foundation idea of "rational actors". so if u go to harvard u'r still gonna get a quality education on law and economics.

i dont think u can really go "wrong" with either choice, good luck bud.

[dood]

Their points are actually pretty bad. Economic analysis of the law is fundamental to the thought process of at least two of the most prominent CoA judges alive today.

i agree with u on this, and also many many legal scholars, including some of the most prominent policy makers on the hill, etc look to this shit. but to a pure finance career, im not sure would be that useful, u know what i mean?

[IAFG]

Their points are actually pretty bad. Economic analysis of the law is fundamental to the thought process of at least two of the most prominent CoA judges alive today.

What does that have to do with working for financial giants?

[Jaeger]

Would it be silly to choose Chicago over HLS because of Chi's focus on Law and Economics? My interests are much more aligned with business and finance, and I would really like to do a JD/MBA if accepted at the right place.

But after reading more about Chicago's leadership and emphasis on law and economics, I wonder if it would make sense for me to choose them over Harvard.

Can someone with a strong interest in finance and economics get their "fix" as easily at HLS?

Thoughts appreciated.

It would be quite silly to choose Chicago over HLS because of their focus on law and economics. You're not going to law school for an academic thrill ride. You're going to get a job. As a rule, HLS has (slightly) better job prospects than Chicago, especially with regards to prestigious clerkships and top New York City firms.

That said, there are other reasons to consider UChicago over Harvard, such as better scholarship and proximity to the Chicago market. Job prospects, especially for biglaw, are not much if at all worse at Chicago because of the smaller class size. If those things interest you, then the added law and economics focus might be a bonus. But don't make your decision solely based on what you perceive of their academic focus.

http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/tag/nlj-250/


Self selection aside, I would say you're fine with whichever locale. Call me crazy, but I would choose Chicago over Harvard, but most of that probably has to do with my New Yorker inherent hatred of all things Boston.

[Ronburgandy2468]

Ummm...
Indiana Jones went to University of Chicago.
So that should settle it.

[TaipeiMort]

I promised myself I wouldn't troll Harvard versus Chicago threads anymore. However, I cannot help myself.

First, whoever said that law and economics has no business application is uninformed. If you are already at a good econ level (where you understand the microeconomics underlying price, marketing strategy, and finance, and the macroeconomics underlying the monetary and banking system), then law and econ at Chicago will add some significant elements to your business education when it comes to macro decision making, especially at leadership, policy, and strategy levels. Also, if you go to Chicago law, you have some pretty awesome (4) non-law school econ/business electives you can take. It is awesome to walk through school and be able to drop in on Posner 1 and 2, Epstein, Easterbrook, Baird, Helmholz, Fischel, Levmore, etc. (and Ronald Coase, but he is isn't on campus much) as well as the best economists on the planet just across the street who will be willing to work with you an indepndent research courses at the drop of a hat.

Second, Harvard does not have better job opportunities than Chicago. Chicago places similarly into top-level A3 and Supreme Court clerkships, especially weighted toward conservative/ fiscally conservative justices. If you get a top GPA at Chicago, you have Epstein and a few other faculty members essentially feeding you into awesome clerkships. Additionally, Chicago's class size makes getting a job easier at the median-bottom because there are only 180 people looking for biglaw jobs each year. Harvard has too many people and more of them get screwed. Furthermore, Chicago has twice as many partners per-capita as Harvard, so if you are a networking type, you should be able to leverage this to your advantage.

Third, Chicago's faculty is different than Harvards. Chicago's faculty is pretty baller and undiluted. I mean, what other faculty has 5 current and former deans serving on it? The people are passionate for what they do. Harvard has a lot of churn because they bring in lots of young academics from other schools who are academically proven but pedagogically unproven who are in and out in a couple of years. They need to stock the ranch to teach their gigantic herd somehow This is why some people refer to Harvard's academic quality as "diluted." I mean, if you end up getting into all of the great Harvard prof's classes you are good. If not, you are not getting a real "Harvard" education, kind of like when you are in a huge section in undergrad math and some Chinese TA with a thick accent teaches you 3 days a week. Alternatively, a buddy of mine had the following professors in two quarters at Chicago: Easterbrook, Wood, Posner, Posner, Stone, Epstein, Helmolz.

People will hate, but their only rationale for Harvard will be lay prestige and conventional TLS wisdom. Empirics are against them. Don't hate them, they were just born that way.

Also, if you like driving to Taco Bell and being shot at, Chicago is for you.

[bjsesq]

ITT: retardmort makes his triumphant return and ignores math to make his points. Please feel free to go away again, Mort.

[IAFG]

First, whoever said that law and economics has no business application is uninformed. If you are already at a good econ level (where you understand the microeconomics underlying price, marketing strategy, and finance, and the macroeconomics underlying the monetary and banking system), then law and econ at Chicago will add some significant elements to your business education when it comes to macro decision making, especially at leadership, policy, and strategy levels.

...so if you're going to go into business as a policymaker? I don't think you know what you are talking about either.

[rayiner]

First, whoever said that law and economics has no business application is uninformed. If you are already at a good econ level (where you understand the microeconomics underlying price, marketing strategy, and finance, and the macroeconomics underlying the monetary and banking system), then law and econ at Chicago will add some significant elements to your business education when it comes to macro decision making, especially at leadership, policy, and strategy levels.

This is completely ridiculous. Finance in practice has almost nothing to do with theoretical economics. Its much more closely related to accounting, mixed in with market psychology.

[nsbane]

I see this as essentially a choice between a law school of rigorous thought, and Harvard.

[TaipeiMort]

First, whoever said that law and economics has no business application is uninformed. If you are already at a good econ level (where you understand the microeconomics underlying price, marketing strategy, and finance, and the macroeconomics underlying the monetary and banking system), then law and econ at Chicago will add some significant elements to your business education when it comes to macro decision making, especially at leadership, policy, and strategy levels.

...so if you're going to go into business as a policymaker? I don't think you know what you are talking about either.

No, but as a business exec you are tasked with negotiating an increasingly unfriendly and regulated operating environment, where understanding repercussive effects which changes in the operating landscape have upon corporate activity is essential. This is even more important in heavily regulated industries where administrative policy is nuanced, and is many times reflective of interest group capture. In these cases, not understanding the economic policy rationales which underlie particular elements of public choice, and adjust strategically may be an absolute death knell to an otherwise healthy company. For example, look at how being anticipatory to changes in national economic policy and beaureacratic action by Goldman enabled them to profiteer within the recession in ways which many of their American and Euro peers were not.

I mean, in the less-free-market system that we are working in at this point, many in academic and professional circles are admitting that Porter's 5 forces analysis for competitive strategy really needs to be upgraded to incorporate a sixth element, government regulation. This contributes to why many CEOs and GCs are currently being expected to negotiate legal policy nuance when directing their company.

[kwais]

I saw the thread title, and I thought, Mort will be in here arguing that Harvard's faculty is diluted. He never disappoints.