Anyone choosing Williams over Princeton ?

<p>I am not starting this thread for opinions on the life of either of these schools as I have found so many wonderful posts in the archives. My desire is to seek opinions from those who have had to deal with this particular choice. I have already read posts on the strengths of LAC's vs the weaknesses of some of the Ivies and visa versa and I can see that there are pros and cons in both. My son wants to study art history, political science and visual arts.
We are two hours from Princeton, my son is not athletic and he keeps pet snakes. Also no wise crack responses like "are you serious" as we are originally from Brooklyn!</p>

<p>(just kidding about the snakes):D</p>

<p>I'm originally from New York (and have kept the accent), my d. DID have pet snakes (and actually bred them), ended up choosing Smith over W. (my alma mater). I had a foster kid at Princeton.</p>

<p>If he's really serious about art history and visual arts, it's Billsville hands down. Seriously. There's no comparison. </p>

<p>Try to visit. Nice to have great chocies!</p>

<p>go art history at Williams. The depth of the department is so strong and access to the Williams College Museum of Art, the Clark Art Institute and Mass. MOCA can't be beat. I still can't get over the number of curators and museum directors that have come out of this department! (directors at Guggenheim, MOMA, High Museum to name just 3 I know personally . . . )</p>

<p>Thanks for the Williams accessment as it seems that it has no peers when it comes to art history. Princeton does have an unbelievable museum as well though. I am still looking for more of an overall accessment.</p>

<p>mini...where in NY?</p>

<p>Born in Bronx (Brooklyn father), grew up in Queens, went to school in Manhattan.</p>

<p>Overall assessment? Two fine schools with interchangeable student bodies and lots of resources, one with a graduate school. One very rural, one very suburban. What's to assess? (The Princeton pres. is trying to put stress on beefing up their art and music offerings, which means they think they are behind. My d. kicked the tires for music, and W. is superior. P.S. May I add that this is a relatively unbiased assessment, as my d. chose Smith?)</p>

<p>mini.....Thanks so much. I should tell you that I have read many of your posts concerning Williams over the last month by searching the archives. Princeton probably will be his destinstion next fall for so many other reasons then I have mentioned. If you know the history of his experience last year and being rejected there you might be able to comprehend the significance of his acceptance this time around. After spending two years investigating Pratt and RISD if it wasn't for Princeton's attention grabbing mailing of two view books within a week he probably would be in art school right now. I am trying to convince him to visit Williams so that he can see things for himself then make a comparative decision.</p>

<p>mini....Did you drink the U-Bet?:)</p>

<p>U-Bet, Yoo-Hoo, and I really ate Silvercup Bread and Breakstone's budda.</p>

<p>He will get a great education either way.</p>

<p>Mini: any thoughts on Princeton vs Williams for a girl who on a choir trip discovered she was a misshelved Brit and really wants to be at Oxford to read mathematics and philosophy and above all to sing alto in a college chapel choir. I know nothing about either philosophy or mathematics at Williams. Princeton is very good in both but if Oxford is your reference point would you (in Leacock's terms) 'get smoked at' enough to become educated before you leave? How much contact with your profs would you really have in either place?</p>

<p>Go to Williams. First of all, if you do reasonably well, you are pretty much assured to be able to do your junior year at Oxford, and sing in the Exeter College chapel (college of Tolkien). The math department at Williams is excellent, as is philosophy, but, more importantly, you will have Oxford-style tutorials.</p>

<p>As I wrote above, the academics at Princeton and Williams, and their student bodies, are pretty much interchangeable. So if the other factors (rural v. suburban, etc.) don't outweigh "Oxford lust", you should position yourself to fulfill it.</p>

<p>Paleo, Princeton is a fine school with a heap of advantages. Whether Williams would be better for your daughter mostly depends on her personal reaction to the two: environment, location, size, style of teaching. </p>

<p>Both are extremely rigorous. I'd say that Williams' style is more personal (but then I'm biased ;).) Professors are accessible and supportive. They may be writers, researchers, and overall experts in their fields, but they are teachers first and there for the kids.</p>

<p>For sure the math and philosophy departments at Williams are topnotch and there is no shortage of opportunities to sing. The areas that are uniquely positive at Williams are the Tutorial Program, Winter Study and the Firstyear Entry System. The Oxford option is very cool.</p>

<p>Even though I work for a Brit who is constantly baffling me with inexplicable expressions I've never heard "get smoked at". If you mean intellectually challenged, then yes, absolutely, a Williams education will expand the mind.</p>

<p>momrath: the expression is from Leacock's " My discovery of England" which contains a hilarious comparison between Oxford and the first tier American Universities of the time (1922). Anyway, "smoked at" was how he characterized the interaction between student and tutor. Nothing much happened in those days at lectures, students were educated by a tutor getting a few students in a room and smoking at them. Men who were systematically smoked at for four years turned into ripe scholars. On the dull student Oxford after a proper lapse of time conferred a pass degree which signified nothing more than that he lived and breathed at Oxford and kept out of jail. But the student who had ability and interest beyond the ordinary was smoked at by his tutor until he kindled into flame. Perhaps what Leacock was really saying was that all a student really learns at university he learns from the life and environment that surrounds him, by the active operation of his own intellect and that for this the student requires continued and intimate contact with fellow students and tutors, a dormitory, a reading room in which to pontificate and solve the great problems of modern life, a library and perhaps a professor like Mark Hopkins on one end of a log and the student on the other . If that sounds like Williams then that is perhaps her spot. </p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Thought you might enjoy an article I wrote for a homeschooling magazine on my Oxford experience, made possible by a fellowship from Williams:</p>

<p>The Oxford Secret</p>

<p>So long as a man rides his hobbyhorse peaceably and quietly along the king's highway, and neither compels you or me to get up behind him -- pray, sir, what have either you or I to do with it?</p>

<pre><code> -- Lawrence Sterne, Tristram Shandy
</code></pre>

<p>When homeschooling parents or conference organizers peruse my resum</p>

<p>But now here is the Oxford secret, and it is not the one might have expected to discover. The students who attend Oxford, like those at elite, private American colleges and universities, are the athletes of the academic world. They enter as accomplished young men and women, perhaps compulsively so, as their education has often been designed to impress university admissions officers. But once they get to Oxford, they study only one subject for three or four years (certainly no “self-designed majors” or any other such colonial licentiousnes!) and rare would be the opportunity to change mid-course. </p>

<p>There were no courses in drama, acting, playwriting, or stage design. Other than for the few specialists, there were no courses in music, either history, appreciation, or applied. No instruction in choral singing. No journalism. No creative writing. Certainly no “speech communications”. No art history. No archaeological field trips. No business management. No foreign languages outside of one’s specialty area.</p>

<p>The list could go on. So for what is Oxford University internationally renowned? Poets and essayists. Journalists. Actors. Playwrights. Stage designers. Linguists. Art museum curators. Choral singers and conductors. Music critics. Archaeologists. Business executives. Statesmen.</p>

<p>At least while I was there, Oxford University was the last and greatest bastion of amateurs and dilettantes on the planet. Everyone at Oxford understood that amateurism – in the best sense of the term -- was what the experience was supposed to be all about, and where the bulk of “education” was to take place. </p>

<p>There were clubs for linguists. There were clubs for debaters (the largest and oldest in the world is, I believe, the Oxford Union, with its own endowment, and which has produced a major share of England’s Prime Ministers, and at which current Prime Ministers are in the habit of making major addresses). There were poetry societies with their own magazines, and competing newspapers. There were societies for the study of Roman antiquities, and for the propagation of raw-food diets. There were chamber music and singing circles of virtually every possible description, and groups for the playing of Scottish bagpipes and Armenian duduks (you can look that one up.) Each college had its own theatrical society (and some for film-making as well), creches for English actors such as Sir Richard Burton (son of a Welsh coal miner); the more adventuresome might be found on the stage of the Oxford Repertory Theatre. There were clubs promoting business start-ups, exploring new frontiers in genetic engineering, or for collecting Greek coins. Almost none of these was supported by the University itself.</p>

<p>Perhaps the quintessential Oxford graduate was the other Sir Richard (Francis) Burton (1821-1896) – explorer, linguist, scholar, soldier, anthropologist, prolific and gifted writer, who discovered (for Europeans) the source of the Nile, and translated both The Arabian Nights and the Kama Sutra. Of course, one shouldn’t ignore Cecil Rhodes, W.H. Auden, or T.E. Lawrence. There were T.S. Eliot, C.S. Lewis, J. R. Tolkien, and Margaret Thatcher, who “read” Chemistry, and succeeded Sir Edward Heath as Prime Minister. Upon being unceremonious dispatched as Prime Minister in 1974 (though still serving in Parliament for the next 26 years), Heath, son of a carpenter who had come up to Oxford as an organ scholar, spent much of the next two decades of his life conducting virtually every major symphony orchestra in the world, and organizing and directing European youth symphonies.</p>

<p>So what is the basis for this Oxford secret (other than the fact that through the centuries, the vast majority of matriculates at Oxford were homeschooled)? Well, it starts with an acknowledgment that for the vast majority of people, the most important part of their education may not come from formal study at all, but from the pursuit of passions, the development of talents, the cultivation of hobbies, and the nurturing of relationships with peers possessing similar interests. And it requires a further acknowledgment that this cultivation requires time, and will not stand to be hemmed in by curricula, whatever their quality.</p>

<p>It continues with an understanding that most people do not end up in careers directly related to the subjects they study formally, and that, furthermore, they often make careers out of what had been ‘mere avocations’. And for those who do end up in jobs related to their studies, the quality of their life is often highly colored, perhaps even determined by idiosyncratic interests (Sterne’s “hobbyhorses”) developed early in life, but allowed to grow to a full flowering (such as Winston Churchill’s well-known penchant for oil painting.) The Oxford secret gives the lie to the idea that the “well-rounded” individual is a result of the formal study of many disparate subjects, or even that a well-rounded individual is necessarily a happy one. Above all else, the Oxford secret is embodied in the witticism of one of its favorite sons, the 18th Century historian and Oxford dropout Edward Gibbon (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire) that, “The power of instruction is seldom of much efficacy except in those happy dispositions where it is almost superfluous.”</p>

<p>So there it is, complete with directions for homeschoolers: consciously create and cultivate the free disposition to learn, and education will virtually take care of itself. Plant, add water and fertilizer, expose to direct sunlight (of which there seemed precious little during my days in England), and watch them grow!</p>

<p>Oh, and P.S. – While I was Oxford I even planned my own excursion to the northwestern frontier of Afghanistan – English reader that I was -- but never managed to put together the funds necessary to accomplish it. Ten years later, I did manage to get myself to south India, learned to play a south Indian musical instrument (called the veena), and was invited to play for the south Indian “Pope of Vedanta” and 5,000 people gathered for a religious ritual. I think I planned all these excursions in search of myself. I’m still seeking….</p>

<p>Mini: Richard Feynman quoted the same sentence from Gibbon in the introduction to his world famous "Lectures on Physics "to explain why his freshmen at Caltech did so abysmally on the exam based on the lectures. Not smoked at enough I shouldn't wonder, although the series itself is still the most fascinating introduction to Physics I know about. </p>

<p>Question. For someone basically interested in church music, from Palestrina, Byrd to Bach, would there be anything at Williams? In Princeton there would be at least Westminster Choir College and perhaps Trinity Church but is there even a sacred space to sing at Williams and more importantly a group likely to share this spirituality without which of course there is no music--c'est le ton qui fait la musique and all that. Daughters chief aim in life seems to be to become a mathematics don and precentor at Christ Church. Too much Alice in Wonderland and Anglican hymnody I suppose.</p>

<p>paleo, I would think Williams in the good-WASP tradition would provide plenty of opportunities to participate in sacred music performances. Last week’s concert was called “A question of faith”. Williams has a lot to offer in the music area but if you were to compare it quantitatively with Princeton or any other larger university you would probably find that more offers more.</p>

<p>Have you had a chance to look through the Williams website for music venues? I just “searched” Anglican and came up with this interesting biography: <a href="http://www.williams.edu/Mathematics/vhill/long.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.williams.edu/Mathematics/vhill/long.html&lt;/a>
Sounds like this professor has a lot in common with your daughter.</p>

<p>My employer went to Harrow with Bonnie Prince Charlie and often regales me with his Waugh-esqe tales. He bailed out for the American system in college, though. </p>

<p>Mini, I enjoyed your account of your Oxford experience. Everytime you mention it I think of Gatsy the Oggs-ford man. I think, basically, that although we Americans can have a fascination for things British (and I do) because of the class system we never entirely fit in.</p>

<p>"Question. For someone basically interested in church music, from Palestrina, Byrd to Bach, would there be anything at Williams? In Princeton there would be at least Westminster Choir College and perhaps Trinity Church but is there even a sacred space to sing at Williams and more importantly a group likely to share this spirituality without which of course there is no music--c'est le ton qui fait la musique and all that. Daughters chief aim in life seems to be to become a mathematics don and precentor at Christ Church. Too much Alice in Wonderland and Anglican hymnody I suppose."</p>

<p>Williams has excellent sacred performance spaces in the Thompson Chapel. They have one terrific Renaissance music scholar (Jennifer Bloxsam - who used to homeschool her kids!), and a very fine choral conductor. </p>

<p>But to answer your question, no, if early church music is your d.'s thing, Williams would not be a prime choice. This is something we researched. The best, by some distance, would be Yale (if you could get in) with its Institute of Sacred Music and its Schola Cantorum. This is a place where you will really find a critical mass of folks with like-minded interests. I have also heard that Rice (through the Shepherd School of Music) offers quite a bit in this area, though we didn't kick the tires. Harvard also has a student-led early opera group which is said to do wonderful work.</p>

<p>Among the LACs, St. Olaf's has huge choral resources, much of it devoted to early music, and the opportunity to use it. My d. chose Smith partly because of the 5-College Early Music Program, which is headed by the founder of the Folger Consort. He is housed at Mt. Holyoke, but does the bulk of his work at Smith and U.Mass. My d. is his research assistant. There are two "ancient voices" music groups, one of which is all women (spent most of last term on Palestrina motets), one mixed chorus, devoted solely to this music. My d. has sung with them and says they are wonderful. She also does Baroque chamber music with a 5-college group every Friday, and there is instruction in viola de gamba, harpsichord, etc., for those who want it. My d's job this year was to put together a singable edition of the first opera ever written by a woman - Francesca Caccini - in 1626, and it will be performed next year as part of the 5-College Opera Consortium. Williams just doesn't have that level of resources, and, with its relative isolation, it is hard to reach out beyond, which is among the reasons she turned them down.</p>

<p>Don't know if if it is a concern, but for folks very interested in early/Renaissance music, it is also worth checking whether the school has a good enough Italian department to support it.</p>

<p>I don't know of any "high Anglican" colleges with compulsory chapel, and music resources to support it. You might check on colleges that sponsor "Evensong". </p>

<p>Hope that helps.</p>

<p>Tallis and Byrd with a bit of Sweelinck thrown in are the big passions of the moment. Next year for all I know it might be Bach and mathematics. My daughter has 'dilettante' written all over her i.e., she is good enough academically reasonably to assume that she would be a credible candidate for Yale Directed Reading with some music thrown in to keep the spirit alive, but she is clearly not at a School of Music standard in voice or cello although probably good enough for participation in a chorus or student orchestra. For that reason I think Mathematic/Philosophy/Music at Williams rather than Directed Reading at Yale plus music might suit her better. In the end I think if Prof Bloxsam would take her on in early music--for which she has both the interest and the languages--she would probably be trained well enough to sing at Exeter if she gets there via the Williams at Oxford route.</p>

<p>As for "high anglican" colleges, with an Evnsong tradition the only one I know about is Sewanee. How would that compare to Williams once you get beyond issues of reputation?</p>

<p>did anyone choose williams over princeton?? just curious</p>

<p>About 10%-15% of students who choose between P and W, choose W.</p>

<p>It certainly happens. In each class there may be about a dozen kids who chose W over P.</p>

<p>Correct me if I'm wrong, but Williams like Amherst and Brown has no core curriculum which may be a major consideration for someone trying to choose between W and P.</p>