<p>Hi everyone. I was excited and intent on attending the University of Chicago until Williams offered me admission. Now everything is up in the air. I chose Chicago for its intellectual culture (and sense of humor), and core curriculum. Williams offers enter better classroom dynamics with especially small classes and I'm not sure about the culture. The distributional requirements are somewhat looser than at Chicago, but is it still possible to get an education in the core texts of the Western canon? Did anyone size up these two heavyweights against one another?</p>
<p>You need to carefully consider big picture issues like location, transportation, and campus culture. </p>
<p>Although they both offer strong academics, Williams and U Chicago are very, very, very different. So different that I don't think any of us can offer valid advice without knowing specifically what you are and are not looking for from a college experience.</p>
<p>I'm on my mom's username.</p>
<p>My choice also pretty much came down to Williams and Chicago. I ended up choosing Williams partly because I thought Chicago was too rigorous. I also wanted a really close-knit community. I absolutely love Chicago and I think it's an amazing place. But for me Williams was the choice because I wanted the rural experience. I also thought it would be difficult to do Chicago's core along with premed and a music major (a big major). I would recommend that you decide what you want: rural or urban, community or exciting, rigorous or more relaxed, etc.</p>
<p>Aron20: When were you pulled off the waitlist?</p>
<p>I think you are wrong to think Chicago more rigorous or Williams laid back.</p>
<p>I may be the only person around here who attended both (though it was awhile ago.) Williams IS more laid back (but that doesn't mean the students learn any less.) And I say that as someone who, if he had to do it again, would choose neither.</p>
<p>Care to elaborate, Mini? What would you have chosen? (Instead of either)</p>
<p>When I was there as a grad student (at Chicago, and I taught undergrads in the core), Chicago was very much "addition by subtraction". There was virtually no sports, very limited music (the orchestra was a joke), little theater, no outdoor activity, limited community service. Some of this has been upgraded since, but Chicago students go to Chicago to study. Period. Nothing wrong with that, if that is what you are looking for. Students weren't any brighter (and tended to be significantly narrower) than those at Williams, but they were, all together, very focused on their studies. There were significant economic class differences with those at Williams, with most students coming from a middle-class milieu, lots of sons and daughters of teachers and social workers, some doctors and lawyers, but very little in the way of real wealth. (Williams was quite different in all these aspects, and is so today.)</p>
<p>If I were doing it today, I'd go to Earlham.</p>
<p>Mini-- you've definitely got a good point of view here, but I think your considerations of the school are heavily contingent upon your being a grad student. Most grad students at most schools are unaware that undergrads exist; grad students have their own classes to take, their own courses to teach, their own papers to write. They don't live in the dorms, socialize with the students, or eat in the dining halls. In some ways, therefore, they're not always the best source in commenting on an undergrad scene. Also, with Chicago in particular, the undergrad population has been given greater and greater visibility with the construction of Ratner and Max Palevsky back in '01. So I'd be interested to know if you were a grad student pre-or-post Palevsky.</p>
<p>I also know of a student between Williams and Chicago who ended up choosing Chicago, because he wanted a bigger, more urban campus, and a larger student body-- and I imagine one would choose Williams over Chicago if one wanted a close-knit environment. Chicago's great for people (like me) who find campus life stifling at times and would rather wander around downtown and go to concerts and museums from time to time. Williams is great if you want your children's first words to be: "I hate Amherst."</p>
<p>I would also hesitate to call Chicago "intense" and Williams "laid-back"-- self-motivation is key at Chicago, as it is at almost any other top school. Sure, Chicago imposes more on you and expects more out of you from Core classes, but I'm sure that Chicago and Williams students are similar in a classroom setting.</p>
<p>The real reason to go to Chicago, in my opinion, is to go to a place where you can always talk about academics, where it's never a wrong time to bring up something you read or relate Super Smash Bros. to the Iliad or what have you.</p>
<p>No...I don't think so. I taught ONLY undergrads, and in the core. And the students were quite different, in fact, in the classroom setting. </p>
<p>There is definitely much, much, much, much less alcohol consumption at Chicago (I have the actual data from Williams, and only cohort data for Chicago), and clearly much less campus focus, though there were an awful lot of students who never left Hyde Park. I am sure that the social class differences still hold. I haven't looked at the Chicago Common Data Set in some time.</p>
<p>As I said, I'd choose neither. And for very intelligent students (there are many at both places), they would pretty much be at opposite polls.</p>
<p>Education-wise more or less I think its safe to say that I would get a great but different education at either Williams or Chicago. I live in Europe so I often fill like I'm losing the argument to attend a close-knit liberal arts college rather than one of the best universities in the world. In terms of gut feeling though I feel most comfortable with Williams.</p>
<p>I do want to clarify the social experience though so I'm not basing my decision on illusory image. While students may be doing outdoors activities during the day, Friday nights often turn into drinking fests. However considering that all of these kids are probably decently smart, ambitious, and that there are not fraternities is the drinking really that bad? And for that matter doesn't more happen at Williams than drinking?</p>
<p>
[quote]
However considering that all of these kids are probably decently smart, ambitious, and that there are not fraternities is the drinking really that bad? And for that matter doesn't more happen at Williams than drinking?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Among super-selective schools, it's one of the heaviest drinking colleges in the United States. "That bad" is a value judgement that is in the eyes of the beholder. Most Williams students seems to enjoy the social scene and the "work hard, play hard" campus culture and don't see the drinking as "bad" at all.</p>
<p>Chicago, on the other hand, is a "seek and ye shall find" party school. Yes, we do have parties (duh, it's college!), but if you don't want to party you can pretend they don't exist. About 10 percent of our campus is Greek, and for those who are in frats/sororities, they're pretty hardcore about them. For the majority of campus, frats and sororities provide some of the campus party scene-- a lot of parties are hosted by clubs (Model UN and Frisbee are known for good parties) and a lot of parties are just in the dorms/ off-campus apartments.</p>
<p>I like that our party scene is there-- and if you want to "go out," you can, and if you want to stay in and play video games or do work, you can do that too. It's a low-pressure social scene if there ever was one.</p>
<p>I have to disagree with ID about his continually bashing Williams for its drinking. I have two kids at Williams now (who obviously know and have visited other kids at many diverse and excellent schools for "comparison") and do not find drinking more pervasive, serious, etc. at Williams at all. One of my children spoke to me of the many flaws in how the actual survey was done at the time (and which, honestly I'm not able to recall in any detail). They have first hand experience there and are not drinkers, and have not felt compelled to drink. They do not report a culture dominated by drinking. In regards to Chicago, my one son who visited a close friend at UC was not at all impressed with his friends pre-med load, as compared to his own. I also have experience at UC, but this was 25 years ago. I do not, however want to denigrate U of C at all. It's a wonderful school-I have another child who would probably be an excellent fit. Schools have very different cultures which they often perpetuate to distinguish themselves from the next guy. I think this is a great thing, because equally good schools can attract like minded students.
This is why prospective students should try and visit, preferably overnight. All the top schools will have great professors and great students. But a Wesleyan University, for example is not interchangable with a Washington and Lee.</p>
<p>Who's bashing? Williams students love the school. There's a lot to like. </p>
<p>The drinking rate is what it is. That's part of the "work hard/play hard" appeal. It's a positive feature to many, in the same way that it is at Dartmouth. Heck, Williams has 17% acceptance rate. Obviously a lot of prospective students like what they see.</p>
<p>The kid asked about the drinking scene. Are we just supposed to lie and say it's a low binge drinking school? Ignore the conclusions of the recent Alcohol Study? </p>
<p>Do substantial numbers of non-drinkers enjoy Williams? Sure. </p>
<p>I stand by my advice. With a choice between Chicago and Williams, I think a student has to give serious consideration to big picture issue of campus culture, location (urban/rural), size, role of sports, etc. There are really significant differences and there is no way for any of us to know which this particular student would prefer.</p>
<p>Aron, have you had a chance to visit these two schools or will you be arriving directly from the Netherlands to the US?</p>
<p>As others have pointed out, the physical environments at Chicago and Williams arevastly different -- I actually couldn't think of two schools that would be more different. Mountain village in New England versus Midwest ultra-urban. I don't know how much you've traveled in America, but these are at opposite ends of the spectrum.</p>
<p>Academically, they are very similar. You will get a great education at either and interact with very smart, accomplished kids led by very smart, accomplished professors.</p>
<p>In answer to your questions, </p>
<p>"is it still possible to get an education in the core texts of the Western canon [at Williams]?" Yes, absolutely, Williams offers a classic liberal arts education; however, you may pick and choose among a wide range of disciplines. The "canon" is pretty much no longer restricted to Western, and Williams reflects this global range. (I imagine Chicago does as well.)</p>
<p>"is the drinking really that bad? And for that matter doesn't more happen at Williams than drinking?" No and yes. Like treefarmer's kids, my son is not a heavy drinker, nor are his friends. There is a lot more going on and someone with a shall we say more "European" outlook on alcohol use will have not problem fitting in at Williams.</p>
<p>To rekindle this discussion I had another point I was wondering about. Chicago emphasizes that its a very exciting place to be in with cutting edge research and the ability for undergraduates to participate in research (as well as take graduate courses). Does the choice between the two really just come down to student body size and environment, or are there academic differences within the environment.</p>
<p>Also does Williams ever get to the point where you feel as if you out-grow the school and could receive more from the resources of a bigger school?</p>
<p>Momrath, unfortunately I have not been able to visit Chicago which makes the choice difficult. At the moment I think the small classes, the close-knit community, the immersion in the collegiate experience would suit me. However I wonder if in the long run its foolish to turn down the resources and opportunities of Chicago. </p>
<p>I see myself as extroverted, proactive and ambitious so that althought it would be a big step coming from a very small international school in the Netherlands to Chicago, I wonder if I would be able to take advantage of Chicago's extended resources for research and extracurriculars etc. </p>
<p>Does Williams ever feel too protective after a certain point? Or does Williams keep people very busy but in different ways. Someone described Williams as being more laid-back, is that really the case?</p>
<p>Aron, this is a tough choice for you, but the good news is you have two fine choices. </p>
<p>Have you been to any big American city? I'm personally not that fond of Chicago (the city) as I feel it gets the worst of urban without a lot of the best. Other people feel differently. I'm originally from the midwest and although the area has a lot to offer I'd lean toward the East Coast for a dynamic environment. </p>
<p>Williams, despite being in the middle of a mountain valley, really is an East Coast school with strong ties to power centers in New York, Boston and to a lesser extent Washington. The alumni/ae network is amazing. (In fairness I would say so is Chicago's but I don't know how active they are.)</p>
<p>I think you need to ask some more questions (maybe of the faculty) about the type of research that you see yourself doing. My understanding is that Williams offers ample opportunities. My son is in the arts, so it's not a direct comparison, but he was able to secure a profoundly good summer internship and is graduating with a job at a top firm in his area of interest. I attribute this to the Williams connection.</p>
<p>When he gets ready to apply to graduate/professional school the Williams name will mean a lot and he'll have no shortage of professors who know him and his work personally that will write recommendations for him.</p>
<p>"Does Williams ever feel too protective after a certain point?" For my, son I'd have to say no. The adminsitration doesn't want to be your parents. The professors make you work your behind off.</p>
<p>"Or does Williams keep people very busy but in different ways."
These are active, engetic kids. They are busy. </p>
<p>"Someone described Williams as being more laid-back, is that really the case?"</p>
<p>It is understated, yes, but laid back? Maybe not. Williams kids are sometimes described as ducks -- gliding along on the surface but paddling furiously below water. "Extroverted, proactive and ambitious" certainly fits.</p>
<p>Good luck and let us know how you do.</p>