Chicago vs LSE


I have been admitted to the University of Chicago and LSE. On a purely academic and professional perspective, which one would you recommend?

Than you for your help
I have been admitted to the University of Chicago and LSE. On a purely academic and professional perspective, which one would you recommend?

Than you for your help
quote
Good Gosh
do you want to practice in the us or the uk, or go back home? if it is either of the latter two, i'd go for lse personally..
do you want to practice in the us or the uk, or go back home? if it is either of the latter two, i'd go for lse personally..
quote
Medland
Chicago LLM definitely trumps an LSE Msc (bases on the info you gave in another thread).

I prefer the LSE LLM to the Chicago LLM because at the former you are in a class with only graduate students.
Chicago LLM definitely trumps an LSE Msc (bases on the info you gave in another thread).

I prefer the LSE LLM to the Chicago LLM because at the former you are in a class with only graduate students.
quote
Interalia
I prefer the LSE LLM to the Chicago LLM because at the former you are in a class with only graduate students.


Arn't JDs technically graduate students as well? They did have to do an undergraduate degree before going into law school :).

Seriously though, I personally wouldn't put much weight in the fact that in chicago the JDs are doing their first law degree. I did my LLM in a North American Law School and - even though I technically took the same courses that the JDs took - the intellectual rigour of these courses by far surpassed anything I was exposed to during my undergrad law degree. If anything I think the North American system is more interesting because there's a lot more emphasis on interdisciplinary work - chicago for e.g. is known for its work in law and economics - as compared to the UK unis. Personally, I think being exposed to inter-disciplinary perspectives makes one a better lawyer because you can see where your corporate client for e.g. is coming from.
<blockquote>I prefer the LSE LLM to the Chicago LLM because at the former you are in a class with only graduate students. </blockquote>

Arn't JDs technically graduate students as well? They did have to do an undergraduate degree before going into law school :).

Seriously though, I personally wouldn't put much weight in the fact that in chicago the JDs are doing their first law degree. I did my LLM in a North American Law School and - even though I technically took the same courses that the JDs took - the intellectual rigour of these courses by far surpassed anything I was exposed to during my undergrad law degree. If anything I think the North American system is more interesting because there's a lot more emphasis on interdisciplinary work - chicago for e.g. is known for its work in law and economics - as compared to the UK unis. Personally, I think being exposed to inter-disciplinary perspectives makes one a better lawyer because you can see where your corporate client for e.g. is coming from.
quote
Medland
INteralia: I think you are quite right about the benefits of an interdisciplinary program.

I just find the LSE format quite appealing. I like the fact that I will not be trying to play catch-up, being essential 2 years behind the JD students in respect to my program of interest. The second reason LSE appeals to me is the very international perspective brought to the discipline of study, caused by two factors, the truly international student body as well as the approach adopted by the professors. I find the latter is well illustrated by the use of the book The Anatomy of Corporate Law by several professors at LSE, a book which lays out the foundation for the globally accepted principles of corporate law.

In the end I think both are excellent schools, and any one of the two is a good choice. I'm just very enthusiastic about the kind of intellectual experience LSE offers.
INteralia: I think you are quite right about the benefits of an interdisciplinary program.

I just find the LSE format quite appealing. I like the fact that I will not be trying to play catch-up, being essential 2 years behind the JD students in respect to my program of interest. The second reason LSE appeals to me is the very international perspective brought to the discipline of study, caused by two factors, the truly international student body as well as the approach adopted by the professors. I find the latter is well illustrated by the use of the book The Anatomy of Corporate Law by several professors at LSE, a book which lays out the foundation for the globally accepted principles of corporate law.

In the end I think both are excellent schools, and any one of the two is a good choice. I'm just very enthusiastic about the kind of intellectual experience LSE offers.
quote
LLM Grad
I think the top US and UK schools offer very different academic experiences. The former offer a more rigorous in-class academic experience, with much use of the Socratic method. The latter typically employ lectures, though Oxford has a particularly excellent tutorial system.

As someone who has studied law on both sides of the Atlantic, I can assure you that it's a plus to share classes with JDs. JD admissions are far more stringent than LL.M. admissions in the US, and so JD candidates (at the top schools) are generally brilliant. They're also graduates, and - as one commentator pointed out above - U.S. law school is a graduate experience that is significantly more challenging than undergraduate legal studies. LL.M.s take classes with 2L and 3L JD students, who have more than caught up by that time.

As for Chicago v. LSE, I think it's an easy call in favour of the former. Chicago's faculty is extraordinary - it probably has one of the best 3 law faculties of any US law school. Chicago is also more selective (only 65 spots). Also, if you hope to work in Brussels, I'd recommend a top US school. Check out Cleary's website, for example - the majority of associates seem to have LL.M.s from top US schools.

In LSE's favour, tuition is significantly less than Chicago's. Also, I'm sure LSE is a good conduit to a traineeship in the city.
I think the top US and UK schools offer very different academic experiences. The former offer a more rigorous in-class academic experience, with much use of the Socratic method. The latter typically employ lectures, though Oxford has a particularly excellent tutorial system.

As someone who has studied law on both sides of the Atlantic, I can assure you that it's a plus to share classes with JDs. JD admissions are far more stringent than LL.M. admissions in the US, and so JD candidates (at the top schools) are generally brilliant. They're also graduates, and - as one commentator pointed out above - U.S. law school is a graduate experience that is significantly more challenging than undergraduate legal studies. LL.M.s take classes with 2L and 3L JD students, who have more than caught up by that time.

As for Chicago v. LSE, I think it's an easy call in favour of the former. Chicago's faculty is extraordinary - it probably has one of the best 3 law faculties of any US law school. Chicago is also more selective (only 65 spots). Also, if you hope to work in Brussels, I'd recommend a top US school. Check out Cleary's website, for example - the majority of associates seem to have LL.M.s from top US schools.

In LSE's favour, tuition is significantly less than Chicago's. Also, I'm sure LSE is a good conduit to a traineeship in the city.
quote

Reply to Post

Related Law Schools

Chicago, Illinois 508 Followers 308 Discussions
London, United Kingdom 650 Followers 871 Discussions