<p>I really don't want to derail this thread, but a few things.</p>
<p>1) "Exposure" would not qualify as an overnight visit; "exposure" would be spending a few weeks at the school as a student. Anybody can make an impression based on a few hours of knowledge; it's something if that impression sticks over a longer period of time. Most of the kids I know hate their colleges until they're a few weeks in, anyway, when they find their "pulse" in relation to the school.</p>
<p>2) Simplifying schools into one term doesn't do any of the schools any justice. For example, what does it mean that Brown's in the Ivy League? There are reasons to apply to all three, and not everybody has the same reasons to apply to them. Some of them might have "personalities" attached to them, but that doesn't mean that everybody there fits the school stereotype.</p>
<p>I agree with you. It is based on my "important degree of exposure" that i made my comment and was able to develop a solid opinion. Being legacy at two of them, facilitated that further.</p>
<p>I have a child at the U of Chicago and many friends who went to Brown and have children at Brown. They are both great schools and has been stated before are quite different. It depends on what you are looking for. If you want complete freedom to study whatever you want, then Chicago is out. There is some flexibility within Chicago's core, but you still have to work within it. My child wanted that and loves it there. The school is not as rigid and "funless" as is often suggested. The social life is very active and there are a tremendous number of student clubs, groups and activities as there are at Brown. So core versus non core is a major factor. Also, major city versus minor city. Chicago is a great metropolitan city, one of the world's greatest and Providence is really more like a large town. So, if you are not into the huge urban scene, then again here is a difference. My child loves all of the opportunities that a city like Chicago offers and really wanted that. Third, the grade deflation thing is really overblown. If you are a hard core science or math person, maybe there is some validity to it. My child plans to major in political science and so far has had no trouble maintaining an active social life and a 3.5 cum while singing in two choirs. She was not a genius in highschool so I would say that if you do your work and are serious you should get about the same grades at Chicago as at Brown. So, these are some considerations.
It really comes down to personal choice. Both schools will give you a great education.</p>
<p>I think everyone's brought up some great points.</p>
<p>But, as I remember it, when I was in highschool, I really didn't know what I wanted. Sure, we can say write out what the differences are between Chicago and Brown, but really, at such a young age, it's really hard to say for sure: "hey, this is what I want".</p>
<p>Chicago and Brown are different. And it's precisely because they are different that we are in a situation where we feel like we have to choose between two extremes. If the choice was between Brown and NU, it wouldn't be a headache. Choosing between Chicago and Brown feels more like putting yourself on two vastly different tracks, and so, really, there's a lot to consider (on a superficial level). </p>
<p>I say superficial only because Brown and Chicago will both give you a great education. And you'll have fun at both. And you'll meet great people at both. And even though there's a core at Chicago, there's still a lot of flexibility. Having a core and wanting flexibility aren't completely contradictory. Much in the same way, at Brown you can create a curriculum that mimics a core curriculum at Columbia or Chicago.</p>
<p>Since they both lead to more or less of the same result, follow your gut on this one.</p>
<p>Good perspective GoingtoSpace, agree.</p>