So I just got accepted to Loyola Chicago (off the waitlist) and Chicago Kent with the seemingly popular contingent scholarship (10k/yr with a 3.25 or 6k yr flat). Loyola is offering no money thus far. How do the two compare? Kent is higher in ratings, but I'm sure Loyola has advantages that I don't know about. Does anyone have any useful information? I'm looking towards a career in public interest law or possibly lobbying (specifically for women's rights). Would also like to clerk.
Kent is better, all around. I believe a lot of people in Chicago think Kent is underrated. That school produces excellent, hard-nosed attorneys. I would choose Kent w/o the money. Considering you are getting money at Kent makes the decision a no-brainier, frankly.
I completely agree...no contest. I have visited Kent and sat in on their classes. I also did much research on the school, as it was one of my "safeties". Kent is almost as good as Illinois, if people in Chicago are to be believed. I liked it...certainly felt like a top-30 school to me. The instructors are fantastic and the staff is really cool.
In comparison to Loyola, Kent's building is much nicer and the location is cooler. After all, Loyola is just a few blocks from NU. Do you really want to spend three years looking at and envying the snotrags from NU Law, eating lunch at the same McDonald's with them? lol. Also, Loyola doesn't tell you that the building is kiddieland. That's right, undergrads take classes in the building, and it gets loud. It just isn't the environment you want to be in. At Kent, you feel like you are working at a law firm instead of going to school. The classrooms are nice, the location is right by the Chicago River and Union Station. Kent has the pimpest moot court room ever!
Look, if you can't get into Chicago, NU or Illinois (or Notre Dame, which is, geographically, a lot closer to Chicago than most people realize), you go to Kent; it's that simple.