<p>Hi I am from Southern California and I want to major in English. I want to be a literary critic and eventually go into publishing. </p>
<p>Which would you choose between these two great schools?</p>
<p>You are really asking several disparate questions.</p>
<p>The University of Chicago has a very well-regarded English Department and a very strong PhD program. Georgetown doesn’t. It doesn’t have any PhD program in English literature at all. In terms of quality of faculty, and depth and sophistication of course offerings, the two colleges are not really in the same league in English literature or literary theory.</p>
<p>That doesn’t mean you should choose Chicago, though. It means you should choose Chicago if you care about faculty reputation and depth and sophistication of course offerings, and having PhD students around to help bridge the gap between you and the faculty. Georgetown may well offer a more undergraduate-focused curriculum, and more personal attention from the professors – more LAC-like in this area. (I suspect there are fewer English majors at Georgetown than at Chicago, too, but that’s just a guess.)</p>
<p>As to which will help you eventually go into publishing . . . probably neither. Your social connections and skills are probably more important there than anything you do in class. Neither Chicago nor Washington is exactly a publishing mecca.</p>
<p>Probably Chicago.</p>
<p>JHS,</p>
<p>There’s a lot more publishing going on down here in DC than I think you realize. It is no New York of course, and it is not like Boston in its heyday (but most of the boston publishing is gone now, too, including the Atlantic Monthly, now published out of DC!), but what place is?</p>
<p>Where publishers are has nothing to do with this discussion. You can be a literary critic from either school. There is likely a slight edge in terms of quality of education and “street cred” amongst other critics coming from UChicago, but not significantly so that it should be the primary factor in your decision.</p>
<p>The experiences at these two schools are very different, and I would ask myself: </p>
<p>1) Am I Catholic and do I mind if Catholicism is injected into my non-Sunday life?
2) Would I rather be surrounded by people who consider themselves “mainstream” or those who pride themselves in being “nerdy” or “quirky?” (Trust me, it’s not a loaded question–I’m not sure which I would rather go to.)</p>
<p>M1978,</p>
<p>Before you jump to criticize other posters (“Where publishers are has nothing to do with this discussion”), you ought to re-read the OP an his mention of “eventually go into publishing.” which makes the prospects of an internship at a publisher very much important.</p>
<p>Your comment about Gtwn and Catholicism is offensive and misleading. Perhaps you don’t know much about Jesuit education? Perhaps you don’t know much about Georgetown? Hint: it is not Catholic University. CU is across town. </p>
<p>it is true that in recent years there have been a few controversies regarding student groups that some would consider a bit fringe. It is also true that these controversies have stood out because they are not the norm at Georgetown.</p>
<p>I don’t know what the OP means by wanting to be a literary critic. If he or she means becoming an academic critic, there’s more than a “slight edge” of difference between Chicago and Georgetown. (That wouldn’t be true for some fields, but it’s certainly true for literature.) If he or she means writing book reviews for a general circulation publication, then there’s no meaningful difference – it’s a question of being a good writer and networking your way into some assignments.</p>
<p>I recognize that both Chicago and Washington have publishing activity. Washington probably has tons of trade journals, newsletters, and such – things that are under the general reader’s radar, but that actually employ people from time to time. Nevertheless, still, in the words of that immortal career counselor, Lou Reed, “a hustle here and a hustle there, New York City is the place where”.</p>
<p>UChicago is perhaps marginally better on paper when it comes to academics, but it achieves this advantage by sacrificing every other component of growth. Georgetown likely follows a more holistic approach to education. When it comes to literary criticism, being able to draw connections from other parts of life seems like it would be a valuable tool. Go Georgetown.</p>
<p>thanks this has been a lot of help!</p>
<p>This is a silly thread with some silly responses. </p>
<p>I know it seems like a stretch to say that someone with the handle “IHateUofC” would be biased, but no reasonable person thinks that Georgetown offers a more “holistic” approach to education than UChicago. One of the primary reasons Chicago has managed to have the academic impact it has had stems from its inter-disciplinary approach (e.g., the Committee on Social Thought).</p>
<p>Academically speaking, Chicago is more than “marginally better” than Georgetown both generally and in literary criticism specifically. (Please point me to the wikipedia entry for the Georgetown School of Literary Criticism).</p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_(literary_criticism)[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_(literary_criticism)</a>)</p>
<p>But at the end of the day, can you be a literary critic if you went to Georgetown? I’m sure you can. I do think, however, that one previous poster was correct when he/she said that, while who you know and your ability to write will be most determinative, having a Chicago education will give you more “street cred” amongst other literary critics.</p>