Subforms.
Download the latest available free versions of Visual Studio and SQL Server (currently both 2008). Open a C# (or VB.NET) Windows Forms project. Use the GUI designer to create a database, a connection and some tables in SQL Server. Use another GUI designer to create a dialog with controls bound to columns in the tables you just created. Enter data and navigate the records. All this without writing any code as such. If this sounds complicated, get the book Head First C#: the first chapter tells you how to do all the above. The experience to this point will be much like it would be in Access, IMO.
So what does Access offer that Visual Studio does not? I think the answer is subforms.
In Access you can create what is calls a 'relationship' (or 'relation') between two tables, use the query builder tool thing create a query joining those two tables and the form designer to create a subform. No doubt you can do this in Visual Studio but I suspect it is easier in Access because its forms work more like reports than dialogs in any other forms-based development product. Very clever.
Professional software engineers in the Microsoft ecosphere prefer Visual Studio to Access forms and SQL Server to the Access database engine (formerly known as Jet). The free version of Visual Studio and SQL Server are more powerful than the Access equivalent tools. The skills you will acquire in TSQL and CLR language of choice (C# is most popular), ADO.NET, LINQ, etc will be IMO more transferable and less niche than learning ACE/Jet SQL, VBA, COM-based data access technology of choice (DAO is most popular), the Access object model, , etc. And as a developer you have to pay to licence Access :(
If you aspire to be a software engineer in the Microsoft ecosphere then avoid Access and take a look at Visual Studio and SQL Server instead.
EDIT: I've received two down-votes (net), and from people I consider to be Access experts, so it's time for a retraction: I was obviously wrong about what I said about subforms. To paraphrase Spinal tap, subform functionality walks that fine line between clever and stupid. I was seemingly wrong about subforms being clever. They must offer no material advantage.