Are there any top schools that you would NOT send your kid to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, I will strongly discourage my kids from going to super small insulated schools like Dartmouth, Bowdoin, Colby, etc. I think a more diverse environment and wider ranges of experience is good for growth - going to a tiny, narrow-minded school is not much different than high school

Our DD is gearing up to start looking. I agree with you. Small schools can be stifling--socially and otherwise. She will have already been to high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.thedartmouth.com/article/2017/10/for-the-college-on-the-hill

Dartmouth looking at expanding.

I don't think of Dartmouth as being small at 4,300 undergrads. I think it's in a sweet spot between tiny LAC and stateU. There really aren't that many good schools in the 4-6k student range when you think about it. Duke, Tufts, Georgetown.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son wants to be a nurse. He also wants to live in or near a big city, so between those 2 the list gets short pretty fast.

Look at Pitt. Awesome nursing school, and you can't get more in the city...

Emory, too.

[Anonymous]

This is just fascinating to me. My kids aren't even in middle school yet; I just browse here for fun. But I have trouble imagining the school I would forbid them. I mean, I'd advise against some, I guess, because I too dislike the atmosphere at Brown, for example.

But we are saving like crazy so that they can have choices. If they want to go party at Clemson, well, we'll keep a grip on the purse strings. But the same goes for Harvard, Yale and Princeton, frankly, which cost too much damned money for what you get. And Brown, where activism passes for education. And UNC and Michigan, where it might be easy to get lost in the crowd. But, ultimately, I'm saving so that they can have choices. Absent some unusual needs or circumstances, I don't plan on steering the college choice all that much, other than telling the kids what financial resources we have to spend on it.

[Anonymous]

DH is from NY. He was accepted to Stanford and his parents absolutely refused to pay for it because they were concerned that he'd go out to CA and never come back (they would have been right about that). I lived in MD and also wanted to go to Stanford but didn't bother applying because I knew that my parents wanted me to stay closer to home because I'd been having issues with depression for the last couple of years of high school and they wanted me within reasonable driving distance (again, they were right to insist on this).

We both wanted a school with a good climate and decent academics and chose Duke. We enjoyed our time there while still avoiding the more obnoxious elements. I might not recommend it for my kids but that's based on cost.

I would strongly discourage my kids from looking at Cornell (weather, statistics of depression, etc) but I wouldn't refuse to let them go somewhere that they had their heart set on - especially Stanford

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No state schools, no high greek percentage schools, no religiously affiliated schools, no schools that require a plane ride.

Wow. So no Berkeley, UNC, GT ????

No, not even in the ballpark but mind you I'm a huge, unrepentant education snob.

Not much of an *education* snob if you’re making college decisions based on mode of transportation.

NP here. This exchange sounds like what I hear from some friends. "My kid can only go to college within a five-hour drive of home" or whatever. Basically it seems to be their way to say "You have to stay in-state" but signaling that they'd consider somewhere just over a border. It's like they put the point of a compass on their hometown, drew a circle around it and said, "You have to go to college within this circle."

I'm curious to know from the "no schools that require a plane ride" poster why you consider that a factor, unless you just mean you want them to stay in-state for financial reasons but "no plane ride" is your way of saying so--? I ask this as someone who did go to school a plane ride (or one very long drive) away from home, and who has told my DC that staying in-state or in a certain driving distance is not required.

Maybe the concern is that if a kid is in trouble, sick, hurt, it's harder to get to your kid or harder for your kid to get home if they're a plane ride away? I can see that as a reason if a student has health or other issues. Asking this seriously.

Adds expense, makes it hard to visit/move in/move out, and if kid has an emergency (such as physical or mental health crisis), hard to get there in a hurry. or to get home if something big happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No state schools, no high greek percentage schools, no religiously affiliated schools, no schools that require a plane ride.



Wow. So no Berkeley, UNC, GT ????



No, not even in the ballpark but mind you I'm a huge, unrepentant education snob.



Not much of an *education* snob if you’re making college decisions based on mode of transportation.

NP here. This exchange sounds like what I hear from some friends. "My kid can only go to college within a five-hour drive of home" or whatever. Basically it seems to be their way to say "You have to stay in-state" but signaling that they'd consider somewhere just over a border. It's like they put the point of a compass on their hometown, drew a circle around it and said, "You have to go to college within this circle."

I'm curious to know from the "no schools that require a plane ride" poster why you consider that a factor, unless you just mean you want them to stay in-state for financial reasons but "no plane ride" is your way of saying so--? I ask this as someone who did go to school a plane ride (or one very long drive) away from home, and who has told my DC that staying in-state or in a certain driving distance is not required.

Maybe the concern is that if a kid is in trouble, sick, hurt, it's harder to get to your kid or harder for your kid to get home if they're a plane ride away? I can see that as a reason if a student has health or other issues. Asking this seriously.



Adds expense, makes it hard to visit/move in/move out, and if kid has an emergency (such as physical or mental health crisis), hard to get there in a hurry. or to get home if something big happens. "

1) Be honest with your kids. If you're concerned about money or health issues, just say that. And then have a discussion. Don't scare them. Treat them like adults and have a conversation. Talk about tradeoffs.
2) Barring issues discussed in #1, going to the 'right' place (a combo of academics, fit, and financials) is more important than appeasing parental concerns that have a low liklihood (eg something big happens) but high consequence. Your kids could go to college 2 hours away, and get into a car accident while your on vacation. Does that mean you should never go on vacation? Of course not!

- From someone who went to school on an opposite coast from home, that not only involved a cross-country plane flight, but a 2 hour drive on both ends in a pre-smartphone era. And who got into a serious accident far from home when parents were on vacation even further away. And who survived and learned how to take care of herself!