<p>How do most of you compare the larger top universities like Un. of Chicago with the smaller top LACs like Amherst?</p>
<p>Any students that looked at both and can give an insight into this?</p>
<p>Larger student population, you’ll learn probably the same things since chicago makes you take loads of liberal arts in their core curriculum. Probably more options for majors here since its bigger.</p>
<p>(as far as I know) Chicago offers rigorous core curriculum, whereas LACs promote academic freedom of designing one’s own path of study. Otherwise, I think the undergrad focus at the two schools are quite comparable.</p>
<p>Chicago and Amherst are really apples and oranges. Both delicious fruit, and the same person could easily like both, but really different fruit. </p>
<p>Both my kids went or go to Chicago; our best friends’ child, whom I have known since before birth, is a senior at Amherst. (I know a few other kids who were there recently, too, but none as well.)</p>
<p>Some huge differences:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Chicago is in the middle of a huge, vibrant city. Amherst is in the middle of a cute, upscale college town. Which do you want?</p></li>
<li><p>Chicago has lots of grad students, and professors who train grad students, and professional students around. Everything isn’t focused on undergraduates, but undergraduates have a lot of contact with near-peers who are doing cutting-edge things and are deeply engaged in focused careers. They can take graduate classes. Also, in the sciences and math, Amherst has a good educational program, Chicago is a world center for research. That doesn’t always mean that Chicago students learn more than Amherst students, but it does mean that they have a different experience.</p></li>
<li><p>At both colleges, you can only take so many courses, and most students are going to gravitate to a few professors they like and learn what those professors have to teach. At Chicago, the menu is a lot bigger, lots more people, lots more choices. At Amherst, the number of faculty is much smaller, and all aspects of every field are NOT covered, but you know that all of the faculty are pretty good teachers and want to teach you. Both places work better if you don’t go in with really specific ideas of what you want to study, and instead learn what the good professors want to teach you. At Amherst, however, you are absolutely dependent on that. (In theory, the 5-college consortium mitigates that, and it does somewhat in practice. But I don’t think Amherst students take so much advantage of it really to make that much of a difference. They probably use it less than students at the other LACs, and for majors they really stick to what Amherst offers.)</p></li>
<li><p>Size matters. Amherst is small enough so that you really know everyone, especially in your class. Chicago isn’t. Some people like one thing, some like the other.</p></li>
<li><p>Amherst has less of a jocky culture than it used to, but I think it’s still the case that over half of the students participate in some form of intercollegiate athletics. And because so many participate, everyone supports the teams. There is lots of athletic-oriented “school spirit”. Chicago has far less of an anti-jock culture than it used to, but participating in, or even watching, intercollegiate athletics is still something of a fringe activity.</p></li>
<li><p>Chicago has a strong Core Curriculum, Amherst is one of the colleges with no general education requirements whatsoever. This matters a lot less than people think, but it does reflect different philosophical starting points, and the two schools tend to attract students who feel drawn to one position or the other.</p></li>
</ol>