<p>UChicago has just learned how to reach out to more high school students in the last couple of years to gin up their admissions stats, so all of a sudden the alums think UChicago is untouchable. UC has some great strengths, but it will never match the tight knit community that a top libearl arts school like Middlebury can offer consistently. UC is best known for economics – a highly discredited subject matter that produces more social science BS than any other major I know. UChicago also has no engineering school and is not particularly strong in computer science either…So it does not have the undergraduate focus or environment of liberal arts colleges, and is not in cutting edge STEM like the top universities…</p>
<p>They’re both great schools. Kids who might be a great match at one might not be as great a match at the other. I thought that’s where you were going…until your last paragraph.</p>
<p>I guess I’d put it this way. Pay almost $60K to study with the best and brightest at UChicago in a tough neighborhood albeit a great city, or pay almost $60K to study with the best and brightest in Vermont and enjoy the beauty all around you, (and drive 35 miles north to Burlington if you want to visit a city - albeit a small one.) Depends on what’s right for the kid.</p>
<p>And yes, I’m the parent of a MiddKid Class of 2017. And I did live in Vermont for 20 years, and know the place you disparagingly refer to as a “cow pasture” well. Perhaps someday you’ll have a greater tolerance and respect for opinions other than your own.</p>
<p>Both are GREAT SCHOOLS.</p>
<p>You’re right, I got my numbers wrong. It’s almost $60k. A year. </p>
<p>That’s a lot of money. At least if you go to a place like UChicago…or MIT…or Stanford…or Columbia…you’re paying for the privilege of studying with world-beaters (and that’s not the Middlebury faculty; smart people, sure, but no one at Middlebury wins Nobel Prizes for, well, anything.) </p>
<p>That’s my problem with the “both are great schools” line. it’s like comparing a Honda Accord to a BMW M5 and saying “both are great cars!” Sure, they are both great cars, but If both carried the same sticker price, Honda would be out of business.</p>
<p>But they don’t cost the same, and I don’t need 500 bhp under the hood to go to Target; Honda gets me to the next traffic light as quickly as a BMW. Likewise, I don’t need to study with “world-beaters.” I should be so brilliant as to exhaust the resources of Middlebury’s faculty. LOL! And if Middlebury were 1/3rd the price, or even half the price, of one of these other schools. I’d say “sign me up!”</p>
<p>But it’s not. Middlebury is a Honda for the price of a BMW. That’s just dopey.</p>
<p>(P.S. Someone said something about UChicago’s “tough neighborhood”; I lived in Hyde Park for late-elementary and middle school and I don’t know what the poster is talking about. Hyde Park is charming and cozy and, statistically, safe. Or is “tough neighborhood” code for “you’ll find black folk there”? Now I’m wondering…do white people pay a premium for a place like Middlebury because it’s sequestered in a “safe”–I.e., caucasian–rural enclave in one of the least diverse places in America?)</p>
<p>This thread reflects poorly on Middlebury.</p>
<p>I mean, someone said that Middlebury wasn’t in UChicago’s league, and people start going off on UChicago instead of the poster. In the same post, Midd was put in the same league as Amherst and Georgetown, which is pretty good company.</p>
<p>UChicago is #4 in US News and Forbes, and top 10 in every major world ranking (QS; THES; Shanghai-Jiaotong). It has an affiliation to over 80 Nobel laureates, including the President of the United States. It has an 8.8% acceptance rate, and SATs higher than MIT and Stanford. Frankly, saying that Midd isn’t in UChicago’s league is a perfectly justifiable and reasonable assertion, and shouldn’t be taken as an insult. It’s like saying UChicago isn’t in Harvard’s league. Just because it isn’t doesn’t imply that UChicago isn’t a fantastic school.</p>
<p>My D preferred to be taught exclusively by professors (Midd) and not grad students.</p>
<p>Statistically safe? I guess… only 512 violent crimes in the UCPD patrol area in 2012. And only 222 violent crimes that year in Hyde Park! </p>
<p>You’re right, lousyusername, I’ll happily pay what you feel is a premium to keep my daughter safe. In fact, I’d borrow, beg or steal if I had to. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with statistics.</p>
<p>[Crime</a> Trends | The University of Chicago](<a href=“Community Impact | University of Chicago”>Community Impact | University of Chicago)</p>
<p>One of my best friend’s daughters went to Midd undergrad and is now at getting her MBA at UChicago. WOW! Combining the benefits of a top-notch (actually phuriko, #4 US News and World Report for LACs, if you want to play that game) undergrad liberal arts degree with an MBA at UChicago! Does it get better than that?</p>
<p>The argument about Nobel laureates is silly for undergraduate education. Anyone who has been an undergraduate at U of C or Columbia or Harvard knows undergraduate students rarely get to study with Nobel laureates. Few of them teach undergraduates, and if they do, it is to 350 students. Might as well watch them on video, because few if any engage you as faculty at a top LAC engages students.</p>
<p>There is no doubt the U of Chicago is one of the top ten universities in the world. No question. Does that make it a top 10 place for an undergraduate education? Doubtful. Give me Amherst, Swat, Williams, Middlebury, Haverford, Bowdoin, and Pomona any day for an undergraduate education (and then couple it with graduate work at Harvard, U of Chicago, or Columbia) and you will get the best education…unless you just want to brag that you “saw” or “once heard lecture” a Nobel laureate as an undergrad.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you have it backward. When comparing some of the top schools in the country, making a statement like “College X isn’t in the same league as College Y” only serves to provoke and agitate people with differing opinions. You’re more likely to convince someone of the merits of a particular school by building it up as opposed to tearing another one down. The conversation was balanced and insightful until lousyusername started slinging dirt. Perhaps if he/she had a more extensive history on CC, and presented a more balanced argument, I’d be more inclined to listen. But with 18 posts, many of which are inflammatory, I’m more and more convinced that he/she’s just a high school kid who hasn’t yet figured out the nuances of the higher education landscape. Middlebury a Honda and UChicago a BMW M5? Middlebury in the middle of a cow pasture? Implying that students at Middlebury go there because it’s mostly white, hence they feel safer? These assertions are simply ridiculous on so many levels. </p>
<p>Comparing a large, urban university to a small, rural liberal arts college like Middlebury is extremely difficult, and (pardon the cliche) like comparing apples to oranges. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. I’m 100% confident that the UChicago proponents on this thread have never even visited Middlebury and know very little about the strength of its academic programs. </p>
<p>UChicago appeals to a certain type of student. Middlebury appeals to a different type of student. Both are flooded with applicants, so they must be doing something right. If you prefer a large university in an urban environment, go to Chicago (or Columbia or NYU or UCLA). But if you prefer a more intimate learning environment with close access to the great outdoors, consider Middlebury (or Amherst or Williams or Bowdoin). Just because you prefer one over the other doesn’t mean that everyone does.</p>
<p>As for being taught exclusively by professors, there is another side to the coin. Many professors at LACs have been around for awhile and have lost touch with ways in which they relate to the students. While their standards remain justifiably high, students often complain about styles of teaching or lack of flexibility or some other perceived irrelevance. Graduate students can convey the content of the class in a manner often much more relevant, not to mention a shared enthusiasm for learning and discovery. My kids both visited Chicago and Middlebury. Both were excited by the campuses, the locations, the potentials of such locations, and both were also intimidated by the thought of the intellectual challenges in front of any student fortunate enough to attend these schools. A neighbor, whose son had a talent for math and passions in many other areas, was advised to send him to the very best school they could find in order to meet his thirst and provide opportunities for his passions, and maybe even introduce him to new ones. They went everywhere and chose Chicago. He had a fabulous time, formed strong bonds with students and faculty, and his advisors where able to get him into the best grad program for his specialized interest in mathematics. He found the resources at UC amazing but especially spoke about his classmates and shared experiences. I got the feeling the experience was quite intimate and life shaping. Was he taught by grad students? I’m sure there were classes, but I also am reasonably sure his perception is that it did not diminish his academic experience and may have even added to it. The doors opened to him at the University of Chicago, and the people he met, may not have been even available at other schools…So that was his undergrad experience, which, btw, was over in the blink of an eye! </p>
<p>As for safety at urban schools vs. rural, to each his own. Life is full of risks and with those come rewards. Each family, each student, gets to decide. It’s lovely that way.</p>
<p>I also believe that kids at many/any of the NESCAC schools will have a reasonably similar experience throughout their four years, but kids at UChicago or USC or NYU or WUStL or Harvard or UCBerkeley might have vastly differing experiences and opportunities, which is something to consider. I throw out this thought with some experience. NESCAC schools are truly fantastic and I’m grateful for the education and experiences of one child but, it’s a big world out there other options also reveal fabulous rewards to any willing to engage themselves.</p>
<p>Best wishes to anyone how has found themselves fortunate enough to have these schools on their list.</p>
<p>Who know, maybe a student like lousyusername could be a great thing for Middlebury. Life is strange.</p>
<p>Thank you cc admin for cleaning up this thread.</p>
<p>Hmm…don’t know what to make of the editing of this thread. I’ve seen much worse on CC. An open forum is a good thing and intelligent readers will manage to dismiss faulty reasoning or personal attacks.</p>
<p>Agree with morandi. Editing was not necessary. For example, Lousy was more abrasive than normal, but he is obviously intelligent and his opinions do have some substance. I say as long as he does not stray too far into the ad hominem, the readers of this board are smart enough to filter. </p>
<p>I try to keep in mind the point of this board, which is to inform applicants and accepted students about the process and the schools themselves. Lousy, while not being as delicate as most, does provoke thought. Plus, some of his stuff just cracks me up.</p>
<p>Morandi: I don’t know if I agree with your suggestion that LAC faculty are out of touch. Some, yes, for sure, but on the whole, teaching is held is such high regard, the number of faculty who get their student course evals and see any hint of losing touch, tend to engage the many ways to get pedagogical retooling. At the same time, grad students might be more in touch, but they are under the thumbs of their faculty for whom they teach and do sections (I know; I was one of those grad student teaching assts).</p>
<p>Your point, however, is spot on about choosing between different places like U of C and NESCAC excellent LACs. For some, the larger, urban, specialized strength-institution is best; for others, it is the “isolated” intense learning environment of an LAC. A waste of time to argue about which is better; for some one is better, but for some the other one is better.</p>
<p>^^^Exactly PantherPride99, depends on the kid. Can’t go wrong either way.</p>
<p>I think CC did a good job leaving the more substantive posts (ex. #23) and removing the distracting and offensive remarks. The substantive part of the discussion remains.</p>
<p>It’s funny how every NESCAC forum seems have at least one epic thread involving an insecure high school kid with a penchant for luxury car analogies. If anything, it’s NESCAC that spends the most money its undergraduates (and not always wisely, IMO.)</p>
<p><em>on</em> its undergraduates</p>
<p>Well, this was one of my first original posts here on CC and I have no idea why I didn’t check back but it definitely took a few weird turns when I looked at the responses. Sorry for the controversy and chalk up my original question to being seriously new last month. </p>
<p>Really, I apologize.</p>
<p>I’ll get in where I get in, and if I get my ass kicked in admissions it’s my own fault.</p>
<p>Edited to add that from my original post where someone said I could not get into U Chicago, you were right. UChicago will not take me. Basically I was just putting that in as a hypothetical to begin with but it was a conversation that took place that took about 2 minutes. I don’t have the academic qualifications to get in. UChicago is pretty badass bottom line. Have to respect it.</p>
<p>This thread appears to have gotten seriously misdirected. Look, University of Chicago is a great school and so is Middlebury. The point is that it’s silly to take two specific schools that sit within the large group of top schools (top 25?) and say one is better than another. For the most part there is little qualitative difference between the schools which reach this pinnacle. You can get a great education at any of them. This is what many of us were trying to say with the OP’s question. He assumed that Middlebury was not already better than some of the Ivies, which I still hold to be a fallacy.</p>
<p>I’ll chime in that I have seen nearly every Ivy in the league (except for Cornell) and at least for me, none of them really holds a candle to how gorgeous Middlebury is. It really took my breath away and made me sad that when I was applying to college a long time ago, I didn’t know anything about it. I would love it if my kid went there. Love, love, love.</p>
<p>I also came away firmly believing the education and experience is a five star situation.</p>
<p>Are there any disbenefits to going to a small LAC vs. a more name-brand university like the Ivys? I am interested in LACs because I want to go to a college that has an undergraduate focus and where I won’t feel lost in the crowd.</p>
<p>disbenefits?</p>
<p>Well, there definitely are drawbacks to going to a small LAC, just like there are drawbacks to going to a large research university. Some of the drawbacks you’ll hear people mention when discussing the top LAC’s like the NESCAC schools are the remote locations, the small size, and the degree to which the schools are known by the general public. Of course, as with anything, those can also be viewed as positives depending on who you ask. </p>
<p>Even the relative prestige that a school like Midd carries compared with some of the Ivies is only an issue when you’re wearing your school sweatshirt out and about. The average joe will probably know other schools better, but the average joe isn’t likely to be hiring you for a job, nor is he likely to be determining whether you’re admitted to a graduate school. Among that cohort, Middlebury and it’s comparable LAC’s are definitely going to be known and held in high esteem.</p>