<p>I posted a thread earlier also including JHU. I've taken JHU out of the picture but Chicago and Middlebury seem particularly tough to choose between. Chicago offers a very rigorous comprehensive Core Curriculum, the city, and a commitment to undergraduate teaching. Middlebury offers a definite sense of community, great teaching, and a secluded location. How would you choose between these options and which would you choose?</p>
<p>wow. hard to imagine two more dissimilar undergrad experiences (except maybe Midd vs. NYU or Columbia). Sounds like you have a firm grasp of the inherent differences. Both are excellent schools. Go with your gut.</p>
<p>thanks. ultimately I will need to go with my gut but it's difficult because I've never seen Chicago. The reality could be quite different from both paper and my imagined experience. </p>
<p>I visited Middlebury and loved the supportive atmosphere and the outdoor tranquillity.</p>
<p>However Middlebury does not offer a great books program on the scale of Chicago which catches my eye most of all. Chicago supposedly also makes a stronger commitment to undergraduate teaching and small classes than many similar sized institutions. Chicago offers community in its own way through the house system.</p>
<p>The big difference comes with the increased competition for professor's attention from graduate students and research, as well as the urban environment.</p>
<p>If I chose Chicago do you think that I would be giving up a better undergraduate education from a college that prioritizes teaching and undergraduates?</p>
<p>No, you will get a great education at either place.
In addition to the urban/rural difference, there's a difference in atmosphere at these two that you should consider. Chicago is more intellectual; Midd is said to be more jockish/preppy.
I wish you could visit Chicago. Then you would probably see immediately which one is the better fit.</p>
<p>thanks greennblue. If you get this message maybe you could consider this question. Chicago's slightly larger than Middlebury and is said to be very rigorous, not to knock Middlebury in any way. Do you think that its more easy to get lost in the shuffle in a place like that than at Middlebury, or that the difference fundamentally comes down to environment?</p>
<p>I've heard that UChicago is a bit of a pressure cooker, although I have no first hand experience with that. I did know someone who had a t-shirt that said "University of Chicago--Where Fun Goes to Die." LOL!</p>
<p>Depending on the student, any school could be a pressure cooker. The schools are so dissimiliar, it really depends what type of person you are. Chicago offers the opportunity for you to think of the whole city as your campus where Middlebury would be more confining. As for an education, you will get a great one at either school. That being said, if you haven't seen Michigan, but like Midd, I'd go to Midd. I would hate to feel as though I passed up a place I liked for a place I didn't see and may not like.</p>
<p>it also depends on what you want to major on. for example, if you're thinking of concentrating more on either languages, international relations/studies or environmental sciences, midd may be the place for you. on the other hand, if you wish to concentrate on economics, uchicago is definitely the place for you as it probably is the best economics department in the united states.</p>
<p>I don't see the connection between the two points in post 4. First, there's rigor: do you mean academic rigor that comes from the Core and an insistence on careful argument, or the feeling of being in a "pressure cooker"? Then there's the issue of whether at a university you're more likely to be "lost in the shuffle." That won't happen unless you let it.
I agree with echoes that the subject you want to study makes a difference.</p>
<p>darn i wish i had been here earlier. i choose between Midd and Chicago, but i've obviously chosen Midd.
let us know what you chose</p>