<p>Number of law practices in philly doesn't matter at all. I'm sure there aren't many in Ann Arbor since its a college town (33% of population = students), but University of Michigan is a T7 law school anyways. </p>
<p>Stating that Penn is, hands down, a better school is a ridiculous statement. Go to the school that you like the most and the school that offers you the most money - you'll get into law school from either Cornell or Penn.</p>
<p>Thank you all for each of your valuable comments.
I think both Cornell and UPenn will be great for getting into top law schools.</p>
<p>I guess then my chances will depend more on my GPA and LSAT than on the reputation of my undergrad school. :)</p>
<p>johnnyk,</p>
<p>i never insinuated that you said that going to cornell was going to ruin your chances--maybe you should reread what i said. however, i was wrong--i was responding to drjohndorian, not the OP--got them mixed up.</p>
<p>Cornell ILR = pre-law for many students. ILR is like a feeder into law schools, and I'd strongly recommend you take a look at the program if you really want to go into law.</p>
<p>Hmmm...</p>
<p>Cornell Econ vs. Cornell ILR</p>
<p>which would be better for law schools?</p>
<p>JohnnyK is obviously a Penn troll. He once named Penn when asked "what is the top psych departments in the nation," when Penn is strictly not a first-tier school in psych (a rather unhappy #16 in the latest US News). Otherwise, his notion of "top" is different from everyone else's or does not know what it means.</p>
<p>The truth of the matter is that Cornell is better recognized publicly than Penn in core academic disciplines (i.e., non-professional). This includes English (C-#6, P-#10, 2006 USNews), History (C-#11, P-#13), PoliSci (C-#18, P-NR), Philosophy (C-#16, P-27, philosophicalgourmet), Chem (C-#6, P-NR), Physics (C-#7, P-#16), Bio (C-#7, P-NR), Math (C-#12, P-NR). In truth, Penn's academic disciplines are rather lacking in some regards considering it's status as a major research institution and an ivy. The situation is the reverse in professional realms: Penn's med, law, and business programs are phenomenal.</p>
<p>The conclusion is that you could do either school for undergrad, since undergrad major has little to do with law school admissions.</p>
<p>"The situation is the reverse in professional realms: Penn's med, law, and business programs are phenomenal."</p>
<p>BLUKOREA, you mean only the graduate schools, right?
Not the undergrad?</p>
<p>Please excuse me if I didn't make myself clear. I was merely referring to "public recognition," which primarily has to do with faculty/program reputation and research productivity, and may not matter much when it comes down to undergraduate pedagogy (my aim was to prove JohnnyK wrong in his aphoristic statement "Penn is a better school"). And of course, no American university offers law or medicine as an undergraduate concentration, so I was speaking in terms of Penn's graduate programs.</p>
<p>sigh, i didnt want to have to say i am a better person than you, but now i must. Penn's student body is of better quality than cornell. The differences in yield rate and acceptance rate are large enough so as to be statistically significant. And in the cross-admit yield battle, Penn wins.
And of course, there are more Penn grads at Harvard Law, which is the bottom line. (oh and thats from a smaller student body, too)</p>
<p>In conclusion, neener neener neener.</p>
<p>Does it really matter? Jesus... it all comes down to what you make the best of your college education. And I think BOTH Cornell (<em>ILR</em>) and UPenn offer great opportunities for their students, law or not. People say it doesn't matter, but I really think the Ivy-League background opens many doors, and it doesn't really matter if you go to X or Y. It's what you make of it.</p>
<p>I don't know why people still take johnnyk seriously lol</p>
<p>"Not saying that, and not sure how you divined that from what I wrote, but since you asked ILR grads not as successful at top 10 law schools as Arts, and others trail as well."</p>
<p>How do you know this? you seem to be making general statements based on data that you yourself stated is "25 years old." Now, no, you will not have as many ILRies in the top law schools as Arts. But lets remember that Arts and Sciences is the largest of the undergraduate colleges at Cornell. So numbers wise, they can't stack up. </p>
<p>What I would be willing to bet, however, is that ILR has a higher percentage of its graduates going to top law school than Arts. Also, a few years ago, Professor Sonnelsthul (an OB Professor at ILR) recommended 11 of his students to Harvard Law. Out of those 11, 8 were accepted! So, ILR is pretty well represented in the top law schools.</p>
<p>"credentials in Arts compared to others for admissions (and general desirability of those with a more well-rounded undergraduate"</p>
<p>This might be true, but remember that while Arts has the lowest acceptance rate and highest SAT average out of the undergrad colleges at Cornell (these data are based on accepted students), it also has the lowest yield (in the low 30s)! So, and not meaning in any way to step on anyone in Arts toes, that SAT average does go down quite a bit for students who actually choose to enroll in Arts.</p>
<p>Look, I admire anyone who can do well at Cornell in any school, but I would suggest you sharpen your logic, stop leaping to inherently fallacious conclusions, and in general acknowledge the facts as they are, or I would fear for your ability to succeed in law school, to which I am presumptively suspecting you are seeking to attend. </p>
<p>First of all, it is simply not true that ILR by percentage sends as many to top 20 law schools, let alone top ten, as Arts, today or then, and yet you back up your point with a bit of meaningless apochrypha and a willingness to wager...Check it out with your own administrators. It is simply not true. </p>
<p>Second, as you admit, Arts students are better qualified going in, and presumptively, with a broader and more rigorous curriculum rather than a specialized one, better qualified going out. The SAT range of students enrolled in class of 2006 in Arts is 1310-1510 from the 25th to 75th percentile, and ILR is 1270-1440 (precisely the same as Human Ecology, although HumEc's ACT is actually higher than ILR's.) </p>
<p>I did not intend to stray into internecine warfare but I find it odd that you would choose an extraneous yield rate to make a point. Yes, Arts loses cross-admit battles in undergraduate admissions to peer institutions; they are fought in a war in which most ILR students cannot compete.</p>
<p>"First of all, it is simply not true that ILR by percentage sends as many to top 20 law schools, let alone top ten, as Arts, today or then, and yet you back up your point with a bit of meaningless apochrypha and a willingness to wager...Check it out with your own administrators. It is simply not true."</p>
<p>where are the stats?!? i said that i am willing to bet that ILR, as a percentage, sends more of their students to top law schools than Arts. You come along and, in a as-a-matter-of-fact attitude, assert that this is not so. I challenge you to prove this</p>
<p>"or I would fear for your ability to succeed in law school, to which I am presumptively suspecting you are seeking to attend. "</p>
<p>And who the heck cares what you think about my possibility to excel in law school? Who died and made you God? (by the way, I'm not taking the law school route).</p>
<p>I get my information directly, and you could do the same if you chose. If you would check with people at ILR, they will confirm. I thought I was quite generous with my comments about ILR, which is much more likely to send someone to GW, not Georgetown; UNC, not Duke; BU not Harvard; Fordham, not Columbia, etc. I do not mean to denigrate the ILR school, its program, and certainly not you. As to the inductive fallacy of your logic, I was simply pointing out the cum hoc ergo propter hoc nature of your argument.</p>