<p>I was accepted to UChicago, one of my top choices, EA. I applied to William and Mary, along with a few other schools, regular and it will be pretty much the only school I would consider going to over UChicago if I were to be accepted. I was attracted to both of them for similar reasons, academic rigor and intellect of the student body. Things like financial aid being (roughly) equal, which would be better for someone hoping to major in poli sci and eventually work in government or something similar, and which is generally more well-known to graduate and law schools? I'm not sure of the atmosphere at W&M, but I know I want a relatively academic atmosphere, and I'm not a crazy partier but would still like something of a social life. Any information on the respective strengths of these schools would be greatly appreciated.</p>
<p>U of Chicago is a very strong school, and there's still a party scene, that is, if you want to find it. W&M is the South (ONLY ANECDOTALLY and from what I've read, I've not been), and comes with a large Greek scene (1/3rd of the student body?), too.</p>
<p>U.of Chicago is world-renowned, and I believe the education that you would receive there would be superior to that of W&M. It is not known as a wild party school, but Chicago offers many great clubs, restaurants, theater, shopping, big-league sports, museums. Williamsburg, VA is charming and quaint but it cannot compare to Chicago and DC is 150 miles away.</p>
<p>I think I'd do W&M. It seems more well-rounded with a greater variety of different types of people (partially because it's a public school in a diverse state). It's on about the same-tier as UChicago in terms of academics, but in my opinion, offers more of a traditional college experience. I wouldn't say that there's too much partying though - it's a serious school. </p>
<p>And VA definitely gets the edge when it comes to weather.</p>
<p>Yeah, but W&M isn't going to have the research and internship opportunities (among other things) that the major research school with incredible professors (NOBEL WINNERS) that teach undergrads. Heck, when I visited, I asked my tour guide if they'd taken an econ class with Professor Levitt (as in Steven Levitt of "Freakonomics" and the winner of the second-most prestigious prize in economics/the steppingstone to the Nobel the John Bates Clark Medal) and the student said that they'd taken an INTRO ECON COURSE with him!</p>
<p>Where else can you get that?</p>
<p>I guess it just depends on what you're looking for. </p>
<p>If your priority is going to a really well-known school in the city and learning from world famous professors, UC may be the better choice. </p>
<p>If your priority is having a well-rounded college experience, while still being at an academically focused top school, W&M would probably be the better choice.</p>
<p>In the academic realm, these colleges have some similarities that some observers of the college scene may not be aware of. In the classroom, the areas of faculty expertise and student major concentrations have significant overlap, eg, 36% Social Sciences at U Chicago to 31% at W&M, 6% in each of History and English at U Chicago to 7% and 8% at W&M, 5% each in the physical sciences, etc. But U Chicago’s faculty has greater renown in the academic and professional worlds and if this is important to you, then U Chicago is the choice. However, W&M has historically been known as a great place for undergraduate teaching and graduates usually come out very grounded and well-prepared for the professional world. </p>
<p>Both schools will be well known to graduate schools and you can find students from either at top programs, but the U Chicago graduate is more likely to look around outside of the SE and Mid-Atlantic areas so their representation at more nationally prominent programs is likely higher. </p>
<p>In the types of students that these schools attract I would say that W&M's public nature and 67% Virginia students doesn't give it the perspective and sophistication of student that you are more likely to find in Chicago. Furthermore, the U Chicago student typically has a stronger high school statistical record, eg, avg SAT of 1425 at U Chicago to 1340 at W&M. </p>
<p>Outside of the classroom, W&M has a Greek element (tho relatively tame compared to its major in-state competitor of U Virginia) and a more active social scene than U Chicago. While its athletic life is nothing like the major publics of the South, it is nonetheless a Division I college and has a significantly stronger athletic life than at U Chicago.</p>
<p>Two MAJOR differences are the location and the weather. Williamsburg is a smallish city with a large tourist component tied to colonial Williamsburg (adjacent to campus) and spots like nearby Jamestown and Busch Gardens. It’s a nice place to go to school and to live in, but if you like the hustle and bustle of big cities, then this won’t fit. Chicago is a great city with lots and lots of things to do and all the variety you could possibly ask for in restaurant and entertainment options. But southside Chicago is no paradise, so if you’re in for campus beauty, then W&M would IMO be the hands-down winner. Finally, the winters in Chicago are often brutally cold with a late and short spring while the winter in the Tidewater area of Virginia can be quite mild and springtime is absolutely beautiful.</p>
<p>Have you visited both? I don't know WM, but I always thought of it as really prestigious because I read about it my American History textbooks and thought about going there when I was little. <em>dork</em></p>
<p>I had and still do not have an accurate prestigeometer on UChicago, I just know a lot of brilliant and amazing people who are alumni (that's how I initially heard of it).</p>
<p>I know some Chicago kids who were attracted to William and Mary, particularly its scholars program. Though the people I know chose Chicago over it, I think they liked the idea of William and Mary, and I'm sure that some W&M kids chose it over Chicago.</p>
<p>In my mind, "typical" is overrated, as I find partying gets boring if you do it too often, and partying three nights in a row, as I once did, is dreadful. If you want to party, though, there are definitely opportunities. Lots of them.</p>
<p>W&M might be better for politics, so that's something to keep in mind. It has had about 94 billion politicians, and is convienently near DC.</p>
<p>W&M has a great history (2nd oldest college in the country after Harvard) and the state of Virginia has a lot of American and political history, but I don't think that there is a lot of recent history from there in the political realm. Williamsburg may be closer than Chicago to DC, but it is still 3 hours away and W&M is nothing like Georgetown whose students truly are plugged into the political life. I would guess that W&M's political connections would be much useful in the state capital of Richmond which is about an hour away.</p>
<p>I would choose Chicago, unless you are a VA resident and W&M is a better deal financially. You are comparing apples and oranges, though. The two schools are totally different. On a gut level, which type of school attracts you?</p>
<p>Things to consider: </p>
<p>Academics: Chicago is an academic powerhouse. Over 80 nobel laureates have been associated with it. Only Cambridge, Columbia and Harvard have done as well. Most of its academic departments are ranked among the top 10 nationally. W&M is not quite as strong in terms of pure academics. </p>
<p>Undergraduate focus: Chicago, like any major research university, has a large graduate school and its faculty spends a great deal of time and effort advising and working with their graduate students. That is the nature of any university that is very research driven. That is not to say undergrads aren't looked after, but they must get involved. On the positiveside, if a student makes the effort, the resources availlable to them are pretty amazing. William & Mary is more of a LAC and as such, its faculty will have more time on its hands to cater to undergrads.</p>
<p>Academic atmosphere: Both schools are intense, but Chicago is more extreme. </p>
<p>Social atmosphere: Both are somewhat quirky, but students at Chicago tend to be more serious. W&M students have more of a work hard, play hard attitude. </p>
<p>Political leaning of the students/faculty: Chicago is libertarian/liberal. W&M is relatively conservative.</p>
<p>Locale: UC is located in one of America's great cities. W&M is located in a tiny and isolated but historic town.</p>
<p>alexandre,
I'm not sure what "pure academics" means, but if it means the level of preparedness of the graduates, then W&M can hold its own against U Chicago and most other schools as well. But I agree with your viewpoint that U Chicago is held in higher regard among academics. If one wants to pursue a career in academia, a degree from U Chicago would almost certainly carry higher catchet. </p>
<p>As for the relative worth of these degrees in the professional world, I think that regional factors will swing the pendulum for each school in its home region. However, outside of that and as a I noted earlier, U Chicago has a more national student body and a greater distribution/profile than W&M. Not to say that W&M grads can't compete, but if one wants to go to Wall Street, a U Chicago degree will carry more weight. </p>
<p>Finally, I don't think W&M is as conservative as you mention. I had a similar impression, but this has evolved with the latest episode involving the resignation of President Nichols. Not W&M's finest hour by a long shot, but clearly showed that the student and faculty are not political conservatives.</p>
<p>I think "pure academics" meaning preparation for academic PhD programs. I think a common experience for a Chicago undergrad is to graduate feeling like they've learned nothing useful for a career, and then to find themselves being offered a job they're excited to take.</p>
<p>Hawkette, by pure academics, I mean the quality of the faculty and curriculum. All things equal, how good is the department. That does not measure the preparedness of the student body, but rather, the quality of the academics offered. For example, most Chicago undergrads take several graduate level classes taught in a very intimiate setting with a world leader in the field. That does not happen as frequently at W&M.</p>
<p>As for the political climate at W&M, I should probably qualify my statement. Relative to other top 25 or top 30 universities, it is conservative.</p>
<p>I would choose U Chicago over W & W any day. UC has a world renowned education with top of the line professors. It has a better location with a more liberal student body, which I prefer. I think UC has a lot of great opportunities and is a better stepping stone into a great graduate or law program.</p>
<p>It's easier to earn a better GPA at W&M than UChicago</p>
<p>Yeah, UC has grade deflation.</p>
<p>^^^According to most Virginians, W&M and grade deflation are synonymous, especially when compared to UVa. :)</p>
<p>I knew about it at UC, but hadn't heard anything about W&M. I guess that really can't be a factor then, since it's at both schools.</p>