So I've been pretty lucky this cycle, and have been admitted to a number of great law schools. My numbers, for reference are 3.60s/175. I was accepted at GULC, Penn, Michigan, Duke, UVA, GW, Columbia, NYU, BU, and BC. I did my undergrad in Washington, DC, but am originally from Massachusetts. I would like to live and practice in Boston, as my entire family is situated in the northeast. I'm very torn at this point about where to attend law school. I know the conventional wisdom is to either attend the highest ranked school you get into (especially if it's a national t-10) or, all the schools are comparably ranked, the regional school where you want to practice. I have basically narrowed my decision to Columbia and BC. I know their rankings are pretty disparate, but would I really be crazy to turn down Columbia in favor of BC (which, is giving me $20k/yr in scholarship)? Any thoughts/opinions you have would be very much appreciated - please just be respectful.
Obviously I've got a horse in this race. That said, I think that CLS v. BC at $20k/yr should be CLS, no contest. If you said Michigan, Penn, UVA or NYU at $20k/yr it would be different, but that amount of scholarship probably does not cover the spread in post-graduation opportunities between CLS and BC. I don't agree with the conventional wisdom in all cases and sometimes it does make sense to take the money at a lower-ranked school. This does not appear to be one of those cases, however. It would be closer if you said CLS v. BC full-ride.