Don't let your kid move off campus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Purdue actually studied student success in making the decision to expand on-campus housing. Living on campus has a statistically significant increase in year over year retention and GPA.

https://www.purdue.edu/purduemoves/initiatives/education/living-learning.html

I have a kid at Purdue and one who graduated in 2016. It would be extraordinarily rare for an upperclassman to live on campus.

I have a child there too. He is starting the second semester of his junior year and plans to live on campus. He has lived off for internships and most recently for an 8 month co-op and specifically wanted to be on campus so he did not have to worry about transportation and food. I think it depends on the individual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son attends Grinnell where the expectation is for students to live in college housing all four years. Obviously there are a few exceptions (the two kids he knows who are actually from Grinnell could live at home - both chose not to, married students, etc) but 4 years on campus was a big selling point IMO.
I don’t think faculty knock on the door but I know if you miss 2 classes in a row the professor will text/email/call to see what’s going on.
Plus being on campus - and the associated dining privileges mean students have access to food. Grinnell has students who depend on the school for food and thankfully they dont get kicked out of the dorms to make room for the first years.
The dorms provide a community and, especially for students who are poor, a safety net.

And again, too many people are being admitted to college: THIS is the problem. This helps nobody. If colleges like this stopped admitting almost everyone, they would be able to award need-based scholarships and grants for the economically disadvantaged students. But admitting everyone, and then forcing economically disadvantaged AND less academically capable kids to take out huge loans and scrape by miserably, helps nobody, including those kids.

If you actually bothered to understand what you are commenting about you would know that Grinnell is highly selective and 100% need blind. The economically disadvantaged students on campus are quite academically capable. Some schools do admit anyone - Grinnell would not be in that category.

If you actually bothered to hone your reading comprehension skills, you might have "bothered to understand what you are commenting about."

Grinnell might be need-blind, but they admit so many students that many of those kids have to take out loans. If Grinnell (and many other colleges) were more selective, they could be need-blind AND support economically disadvantaged kids who are admitted with need-based scholarships and grants. I feel sorry for kids who take out full loans to go somewhere like Grinnell.

If you can pay the tuition there, great.

NP, but do you even know the admit rate at Grinnell and the average student loan amount?

[Anonymous]

PP is clearly not familiar with Grinnell. It’s endowment $$ per student is extraordinarily high - higher than Dartmouth, Notre Dame, Duke, Chicago, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Carleton, Haverford, Macalester, Middlebury, Brown, Cornell, Wellesley, Bowdoin...the list goes on. Is she suggesting those schools aren’t selective enough either?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nobody lives on campus through senior year.

This just isn't true for colleges that consider themselves "residential."

[Anonymous]

DC graduated from Dickinson a couple of years ago. Students were expected to live on campus all four years, with the exception of a few seniors that were selected in a lottery. That said, the dorms got progressively better each year, and the on-campus apartment senior year was very nice.
From a parent's perspective, I liked it because there was more accountability, and if there is an issue on-campus, the campus police dealt with it, rather than the city police. I was also grateful for not having to deal with a shady landlord in terms of maintenance, security deposits, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC graduated from Dickinson a couple of years ago. Students were expected to live on campus all four years, with the exception of a few seniors that were selected in a lottery. That said, the dorms got progressively better each year, and the on-campus apartment senior year was very nice.
From a parent's perspective, I liked it because there was more accountability, and if there is an issue on-campus, the campus police dealt with it, rather than the city police. I was also grateful for not having to deal with a shady landlord in terms of maintenance, security deposits, etc.

I loved living on campus all four years at the LAC I attended; everyone lived on campus all four years unless they were auch older "adult" student. Most large universities don't have housing available for everyone who wants it.

If you live on campus, you are more engaged in campus life. I didn't go to college to hang with the townies, I could have done that by staying at my parent's house and going to community college.

[Anonymous]

OP just wants her basement back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son attends Grinnell where the expectation is for students to live in college housing all four years. Obviously there are a few exceptions (the two kids he knows who are actually from Grinnell could live at home - both chose not to, married students, etc) but 4 years on campus was a big selling point IMO.
I don’t think faculty knock on the door but I know if you miss 2 classes in a row the professor will text/email/call to see what’s going on.
Plus being on campus - and the associated dining privileges mean students have access to food. Grinnell has students who depend on the school for food and thankfully they dont get kicked out of the dorms to make room for the first years.
The dorms provide a community and, especially for students who are poor, a safety net.

And again, too many people are being admitted to college: THIS is the problem. This helps nobody. If colleges like this stopped admitting almost everyone, they would be able to award need-based scholarships and grants for the economically disadvantaged students. But admitting everyone, and then forcing economically disadvantaged AND less academically capable kids to take out huge loans and scrape by miserably, helps nobody, including those kids.

If you actually bothered to understand what you are commenting about you would know that Grinnell is highly selective and 100% need blind. The economically disadvantaged students on campus are quite academically capable. Some schools do admit anyone - Grinnell would not be in that category.

If you actually bothered to hone your reading comprehension skills, you might have "bothered to understand what you are commenting about."

Grinnell might be need-blind, but they admit so many students that many of those kids have to take out loans. If Grinnell (and many other colleges) were more selective, they could be need-blind AND support economically disadvantaged kids who are admitted with need-based scholarships and grants. I feel sorry for kids who take out full loans to go somewhere like Grinnell.

If you can pay the tuition there, great.

This is the leading candidate for most ignorant post on this forum - and that’s saying a lot. I’m assuming the PP judges the quality and rigor of a college based on who he/she sees playing football on TV. “Grinnell????? Now ‘Bama... that’s an elite school”

[Anonymous]

"But admitting everyone, and then forcing economically disadvantaged AND less academically capable kids to take out huge loans and scrape by miserably, helps nobody, including those kids."

The idea that a college admission forces anyone to do anything is breathtaking, even for DCUM.

Completely not understanding that "need blind" means that students' needs are met with the money they need according to FAFSA.

Anyone without FAFSA need, can in no way be described as "economically disadvantaged".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody lives on campus through senior year.

This just isn't true for colleges that consider themselves "residential."

??

DP. Very few people live on campus all four years at most residential colleges. It's a rite of passage to move off campus. A handful of people may stay because they are RAs or have fearful parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP is clearly not familiar with Grinnell. It’s endowment $$ per student is extraordinarily high - higher than Dartmouth, Notre Dame, Duke, Chicago, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Carleton, Haverford, Macalester, Middlebury, Brown, Cornell, Wellesley, Bowdoin...the list goes on. Is she suggesting those schools aren’t selective enough either?

This figure is irrelevant. For some reason the rankings services break it out but unless the college is going to use it for the students, the figure is irrelevant. Most universities don't touch endowment. Grinnell admits only 29% of applicants.