Law School Discussion

Loyola vs. Chi-Kent Hypothetical

Re: Loyola vs. Chi-Kent Hypothetical
« Reply #10 on: December 25, 2007, 05:54:47 PM »
Sure some student will land jobs after doing internships and through "connections" made during school, but not a whole lot of the best jobs. Many legal internships in law school are unpaid, and the organizations and employers (non-profits, judges, legal aid, solo practitioners, in-house legal depts., etc.) often cannot hire students after graduation due to their lack of experience or simply because the employer doesn't have the budget to hire new attorneys each year.

Sorry, but grades matter a whole lot for the best jobs: large firms, federal government positions, etc. Even the Cook County state's attorney prefers students in the top half of class.

The Chicago job market is pretty competitive...ask anyone who actually has any familiarity with it.

Any difference between Loyola / Kent / DePaul is marginal at best in placement. The are not heavy hitters by any stretch of the imagination. No one cares about marginal differences in ranking between schools ranked outside of the top 25 or so besides naive pre-laws that think that stuff actually matters.

Re: Loyola vs. Chi-Kent Hypothetical
« Reply #11 on: December 26, 2007, 11:22:28 AM »
overall, kent has to be thought of as the better choice. better location, better facilities, better faculty, better career prospects. etc. if the money they're offering is the same, go with kent

Re: Loyola vs. Chi-Kent Hypothetical
« Reply #12 on: December 26, 2007, 11:42:50 AM »
I picked Loyola over Kent --- but $$ was a little better for me at Loyola.

I'd look at classes at both schools and see which one you would rather be at as a student - plain and simple.
I think you'll find the classes are a little smaller and much more conversational at loyola, and their location is really nice. Also their scholarships are easier to keep!! At Kent I think you generally need a 3.25 and at Loyola a 3.0 --- plus loyola's curve / median gpa is significantly higher...

There are a couple things I like about Kent... I think their students and administration might be a little more ambitous career-wise wheareas Loyola is a little more homely and laid back. Also, I found Kent's clinical opportunities and specializations to be more interesting... but conventional wisdom told me not to lean so heavily on those things as a 0L.

In terms of potential for job prospects, there is no real difference --- but I'd say check em both out and go with your gut.


  • ****
  • 600
    • View Profile
Re: Loyola vs. Chi-Kent Hypothetical
« Reply #13 on: December 26, 2007, 03:26:41 PM »
^^ Do you know what the curve/gpa differences are between them? They're still neck and neck overall for me...

Re: Loyola vs. Chi-Kent Hypothetical
« Reply #14 on: December 26, 2007, 04:03:52 PM »
There is no real difference between Kent/Loyola/DePaul.  Maybe go with Kent if you have IP credentials, DePaul/Loyola if you want to work for a personal injury firm or for the local government, but I don't see the difference.

The important thing about these schools is almost no one could benefit from going to any of them without a hefty scholarship.  They have a lot of alums in insurance defense, but it's hard to find a decent-paying insurance defense job right after bar passage unless you're in the top third/half or so or maybe you look good and interview real well.  The Chicago job market is tough.

Some bigger Chicago firms might go a tiny bit deeper into Kent than say DePaul.  But when the difference is between 10% and 15% (and that's stretching it) who cares?

For purposes of working in small-law practice areas, it doesn't matter where you go to school.  If you're interested in this type of school you might have an interest in family law.  If so, I'd even go to Marshall with lots of $$ over paying like 20K/year for DePaul on a scholarship.

And ALL these schools will scheme up ways to take your scholarship away.  They will stop at nothing.