Penn vs. Chicago Poll

[If you were accepted to both schools and were given equal money, which would you choose?]

If you were accepted to both schools and were given equal money, which would you choose?

Penn

 29 (30.9%)

Chicago

 65 (69.1%)

Total Members Voted: 93

[Lindbergh]

I think Penn is basically a niche school for people who really want to attend a northeastern Ivy, and don't get into HYSCCN.

Or people looking for a joint jd/mba from the Wharton school...

Good point.  Wharton is arguably the best b-school in the country/world.

[Lindbergh]

I personally would vote against Chicago because of the EXTREME association with one particular branch of economic and public-policy theory which the law school enjoys. If you're into that field ("Dear Ms. Rand: You are right about everything. Dumb people should die. Law is about killing all but the top tier of the human population so that the Weltanschauung can succeed. I personally get to pick who is a member of that top tier.") then go right ahead, but if you're not then I think the constant showings of "Fountainhead" are going to get on your nerves. ("Dear Mr. Friedman: You are right about everything. The free market is perfect, and is a force for nothing but good 100% of the time. Law is about killing ...").

Heh. A little personal bias showing through, I guess. 

You're obviously joking/exaggerating here, but you do seem a little confused about what law & econ is really about.  My understanding is that L&E is basically about using the law to obtain results that maximize economic efficiency, and, therefore, overall prosperity.  In other words, avoid the waste of resources, make sure they're efficiently allocated, etc.

Clearly, weatlth maximization shouldn't be the only focus of the law -- moral justice should be as well.  However, the more prosperous an economy, the more wealth is left over for wages, jobs, and social welfare programs.  So it would seem that all schools should take these issues into consideration, regardless of ideological orientation.  (Those with environmental concerns should also, of course, be focused on efficient resource allocation & use.)

[....,,.,]

I've only been at UChicago for about a week, but I think it's safe to say that all of the stereotypes about UChicago (extremely conservative, big focus on law and economics, academically intense students) are completely ridiculous.  Most students here (probably 2/3 just based on anecdotal evidence) lean Democrat/left.  Last year when I was applying I saw some UChicago student say something like "UChicago is probably 70% left, 30% right, as opposed to most law schools, which are 90% left, 10% right."  That seems to be the case to me, at least as far as I can tell after a week of meeting people. 

The law and economics thing I can't comment on too much yet, but it also seems to be a ridiculous exaggeration.  I have absolutely no background in economics (I was an education major, took no economics classes) but I have had no problem keeping up the very few times we have talked about anything related to economics.  I think the "law and economics" thing is a huge misconception - both what exactly that means, and how prevalent it is at UChicago.  But again, it's early so we'll see.

As for the students...I've visited Penn Law 3 times in the past year, and I've visited almost every other T-14 school.  As you will all see during admitted student weekends, the stereotypes about student bodies just aren't true, at least as far as I could tell.  It's the first week of classes, and there are definitely a couple people you could tell a few hours a day in the library, but the overwhelming majority of us have been spending most of our time going out, watching football, going to the gym, relaxing, etc.

I remember last year a lot of naive 0Ls applied to NYU, Penn, etc. but not Chicago because they were scared of all of these stereotypes. (I almost didn't apply to UChicago for these reasons).  All I can say is don't take my word for it, and definitely don't listen to people who comment about the environment at schools they've never been to.  Come see for yourself and make your own decision.

[Cabra]

Thanks for the insider info, Bosco. I definitely plan to apply and visit Chicago if they choose to accept me.

There's no way I'm letting a student body stereotype influence my choice of schools.
That said, I don't really care about the political leanings of the student body so much as I care about that of the faculty, and Chicago undoubtedly attracts more scholars interested in the relationship between law and economics than other law schools do.
That might not seem to matter in a constitutional or criminal law class, but the L&E lens can color everything. Still, that could be a really interesting and challenging...

[Somewhere]

I personally would vote against Chicago because of the EXTREME association with one particular branch of economic and public-policy theory which the law school enjoys. If you're into that field ("Dear Ms. Rand: You are right about everything. Dumb people should die. Law is about killing all but the top tier of the human population so that the Weltanschauung can succeed. I personally get to pick who is a member of that top tier.") then go right ahead, but if you're not then I think the constant showings of "Fountainhead" are going to get on your nerves. ("Dear Mr. Friedman: You are right about everything. The free market is perfect, and is a force for nothing but good 100% of the time. Law is about killing ...").

Heh. A little personal bias showing through, I guess. 

Seriously, Chicago is indeed reputed to be a great school, and as Lindbergh says is legitimately in the top 5, while Penn is a slight level lower, I think. But Chicago has SUCH a heavy bent on ONE side of an open debate, that I'd be worried for several reasons. First, if I didn't have a good background in Economics (just the basics, not biased to either side of the debate) I would be concerned that many law-related opportunities (including eventual employment) would be closed to me. Second, if I didn't agree with the particular side of the debate that they're taking at that school, I'd be worried that even good work done by me might be treated poorly.

I think few other schools in the country are so heavily biased toward one side of a given open debate. I mean, what "economic theory" is Harvard law taught under? What "social science theory" is the foundation of all studies at Stanford? There's no answer to those questions for nearly every top-tier school except Chicago.

IMNSHO. But I'd be delighted to be disabused of any misapprehension ...

This is like the Billy Madison puppy who lost his way speech.

[....,,.,]

I personally would vote against Chicago because of the EXTREME association with one particular branch of economic and public-policy theory which the law school enjoys. If you're into that field ("Dear Ms. Rand: You are right about everything. Dumb people should die. Law is about killing all but the top tier of the human population so that the Weltanschauung can succeed. I personally get to pick who is a member of that top tier.") then go right ahead, but if you're not then I think the constant showings of "Fountainhead" are going to get on your nerves. ("Dear Mr. Friedman: You are right about everything. The free market is perfect, and is a force for nothing but good 100% of the time. Law is about killing ...").

Heh. A little personal bias showing through, I guess. 

Seriously, Chicago is indeed reputed to be a great school, and as Lindbergh says is legitimately in the top 5, while Penn is a slight level lower, I think. But Chicago has SUCH a heavy bent on ONE side of an open debate, that I'd be worried for several reasons. First, if I didn't have a good background in Economics (just the basics, not biased to either side of the debate) I would be concerned that many law-related opportunities (including eventual employment) would be closed to me. Second, if I didn't agree with the particular side of the debate that they're taking at that school, I'd be worried that even good work done by me might be treated poorly.

I think few other schools in the country are so heavily biased toward one side of a given open debate. I mean, what "economic theory" is Harvard law taught under? What "social science theory" is the foundation of all studies at Stanford? There's no answer to those questions for nearly every top-tier school except Chicago.

IMNSHO. But I'd be delighted to be disabused of any misapprehension ...

This is like the Billy Madison puppy who lost his way speech.

Mr. final_id, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

(somewhere - I caught your initial, not as nice response) 

[....,,.,]

Glad to hear the student body isn't as far gone as I'd thought it was. I'll ignore the pointless flames that miss my narrative frame and read only portions of my posts ...

To be clear, I read no portions of your posts.  I was just posting a funny quote from a movie scene that was mentioned.

[98765432]

A couple things from the OP.  Someone pointed out that people don't talk about Penn much around here.  How true.  Even Penn trolling seems to have turned into Chicago trolling.   

And why did I choose Penn?  I know very specifically what I want to study, and the faculty at Penn is stronger in that area than really anywhere.  I'm interested in immigration law and have read law review articles by Adam Cox (the guy who teaches immigration law at Chicago), Howard Chang (Penn), Yale-Lohre? (Cornell), Mark Tushnet (Georgetown), Sullivan?? (Texas), etc.  Other schools like Harvard, Columbia, Northwestern, and NYU don't really have anyone teaching immigration law regularly.  The rest of them don't ever get into theory or even advocacy, but instead they have some technical expert who could teach black-letter law excellently, but nothing more.

That isn't to say I had all these choices when I was choosing, but even if I had, I'd like to think that I wouldn't have been swayed by the prestige of other schools, because Chang really is exceptional among the immigration law professors teaching at the elite schools in the country.  (Ironically, to this thread at least, he has a Ph.D. in Economics from MIT and brings that perspective into his writing on immigration a lot).  If I had to choose a second choice among those I listed, it would be Chicago.  If I was willing to expand it a bit to look at UCLA, they have literally a dozen all-star faculty members that I would have loved to study from in this or related fields.  Michigan also has an excellent program for this sort of thing.

Ranking immigration programs, mostly based on professors and courses offered, I'd go with:
Penn
UCLA
Georgetown
Michigan
Chicago
Cornell
Something like that, but to be honest, I never looked into Yale because I didn't apply.

[Somewhere]

Seriously, Chicago is indeed reputed to be a great school, and as Lindbergh says is legitimately in the top
5, while Penn is a slight level lower, I think. But Chicago has SUCH a heavy bent on ONE side of an open debate, that I'd be worried for several reasons. First, if I didn't have a good background in Economics (just the basics, not biased to either side of the debate) I would be concerned that many law-related opportunities (including eventual employment) would be closed to me. Second, if I didn't agree with the particular side of the debate that they're taking at that school, I'd be worried that even good work done by me might be treated poorly.I think few other schools in the country are so heavily biased toward one side of a given open debate.
I mean, what "economic theory" is Harvard law taught under? What "social science theory" is the foundation of all studies at Stanford? There's no answer to those questions for nearly every top-tier school except Chicago.

IMNSHO. But I'd be delighted to be disabused of any misapprehension ...

Exactly what do you think economic analysis of the law is? I really would love to know where you get this idea that one theory seems to run our school.

[Cabra]

thanks retake, what you said is useful for me because immigration law is one of my main interests.

You're wrong about Harvard though (not that Harvard ever needed defending) --they've got 5 courses on Immigration and Asylum law offered this year and they've got a clinic on the subject too. And just last year they snatched prominent immigration/human rights prof Gerald Nueman from Columbia...
yeah, my crush on Harvard is just teeny bit bigger than my crush on Penn or Chicago...