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

[98765432]

And while geography could influence your vote, don't let it be personal geographical ties or  your vote won't have value for others.  (i.e. Chicago may indeed get a bump if you like the Midwest, and the voting might reflect that, but if your ex-husband and his wife are at Penn but your best friend is at Chicago, that type of stuff won't be helpful in determining the better school from the point of view of LSDers.

Every year on this site--I've been around a long time -- people will debate this stuff.  So here is a chance to simply tally votes.

[Somewhere]

Not so subtle Penn trolling.

[98765432]

Yeah, I keep searching to see if anyone is talking about Penn, but they're not.  I guess I've got to start my own discussion.

For those of us already committed to a school, this is about all we can do.

[Cabra]

It's true, people don't seem to talk as much about Penn as other places...
I'd love to hear why you chose Penn. I know their interdisciplinary stuff is pretty neat...what did it for you?

[Lindbergh]

Penn and Chicago are not in the same league, regardless of what USNews says.  Chicago is a legitimate Top 5 schools in most respects, and is arguably better than Stanford in many respects.  Penn is a borderline top 10 program -- a great school, but apparently a cut below CCN.

[Cabra]

You may be right, Lindbergh, but people seem talk more about Michigan, Boalt, UVA...than Penn, and Penn is definitely comparable to those schools.


 

[Cabra]

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.

The faculty blog (http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/) supports your argument for the most part. Very interesting research, but most of it seems to fit the same economic/thought frame. Where's the academic diversity? Maybe they just need some new bloggers...

Speaking of, it peeves me a little to see that of the 12 contributing faculty bloggers, all are male and all but one are white...

Still the fact that Sen. Obama taught constitutional law there gives Chicago a few points in my book. :p

[Lindbergh]

You may be right, Lindbergh, but people seem talk more about Michigan, Boalt, UVA...than Penn, and Penn is definitely comparable to those schools.

Personally, I'd also disagree with that assessment.  The top publics have higher rep ratings, better faculties, better clerkship placement, and better academic placement than Penn.  UM and UVA are also both more national.

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

[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. 

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 ...

Personally, I would argue that Chicago simply has a more rational, balanced approach to the issue of law and economics, while most other top law schools are heavily biased towards more liberal, socialistic interpretations of law.

Obviously, if someone's a flaming liberal, they might not want to hear the other side, but I doubt anyone would be shut down at UC -- there's still plenty of liberals there.  (I think Obama even taught there.)

Finally, employment would not be an issue from UC, regardless of your academic background.  It's not like most UC grads go into economic analysis. 

[Cabra]

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...