Anyone touring top schools and finding then all to be dumpy and unimpressive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a rising senior and have been doing the rounds of many top 25 schools (universities and colleges). We started with safety schools last year and then junior year grades came back so this summer we've been touring some top schools. My kid is trying to figure out an ED.
We have a rising junior as well so we have a couple of kids with us.

The more of these schools we tour, the less impressed I am. They're sort of all a bit falling apart, poorly maintained, with pretty odd students (tour guides, summer students and especially touring students alike--don't jump all over for for saying this--being brutally honest), little sense of community, same-old, same-old stuff about study-abroad, etc. Many have very large class sizes, etc.

I feel like we're (kid and parent alike) are supposed to love these schools and want to pay $90K for them and my kids can't find one they really like. I very, very, very much feel like we're being sold a product that we're supposed to want to buy because of prestige and name but when we see the product up close it doesn't look great and I feel like a sheep lining up to say "yes sir. let me put my kid through mental/emotional twister for a 5% chance of being admitted to your school and then I will gladly pay you $90K for the honor. Yes sir." It just feels... gross. Maybe not gross but yucky. My kids are like, "well I didn't really like this or that here but I could probably make it work." They too feel the pressure to LIKE these places. The Almighty XYZ or ABC school! It's supposed to be their dream!

Please don't jump on me. I know it's summer and we're not seeing the universities at their best but ugh. They're all kind of disappointing. I can't be the only one who feels this way? (I'm not going to name university/college names because then this post will turn into a giant thread about whatever school(s) I name.

Dumpy? Unimpressive, meaning structurally, academically, what? As you looking at colleges or real estate to purchase?

She is buying a service for $360k and expects the quality of the service to reflect the price paid.

When did people start thinking of education in this way?

Oh I'd say between 1995 and 2000. Colleges have nobody to blame but themselves for it.

The Government and popular expectations are responsible for most of it. I went to a highly regarded school a very long time ago. No air conditioning in any but the science buildings. Dorm rooms consisted of two metal single beds! Two desks and two chairs. One bathroom area per floor. All you had to learn from were books. Very little tutoring, almost no mental health support centers, etc. I’m sure that relatively few reports were required by the Federal Government. Of course there was no internet or other such things that we take for granted.

That was my college experience in the 80s. And the food was terrible then. We grumbled about the outlandish $5,000 a year they charged us, lmao.

The good old days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stanford is not dumpy. Not sure what schools you’re touring.

Freshman dorm was/is dumpy, but other than that, the campus is beautiful. More importantly, even as freshman, you have access to top notch faculty and mentors and small classes.
Ditto Princeton. Terrible freshman dorm but access to leaders in the respective fields, small classes.
Also, you pay for the peers.

Ask about class size and who’s actually teaching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Picking a school based on thinking you'll be doing high level research as an undergrad is a mistake.

Disagree.

At my kid’s (non-elite) SLAC, she published multiple peer reviewed papers as a undergrad, which likely helped her win two fully funded admissions to graduate programs.

Depends on the major.
If you’re doing science in grad school, it’ll be fully funded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:a lot of these schools have half the kids paying 100k a year and half paying 15k a year. People already feel like suckers .. and then when the food is frozen chicken cutlets or the dorms have mold in the vents, it's natural to complain.

The real issue is that many of these schools force students to pay $$ for these moldy crowded dorms that regularly flood and frozen chicken cutlets for the first few years of the degree.

and now they're forcing you to live in their moldy dorms for 4 years to make more $$$. It was a PITA to get DC's college to let him live off campus, because it's a "residential experience" and 94% of students live on campus-uh huh, and it's also $92,000 this year and he'd rather share an apartment in this expensive area than stay on campus.

Vanderbilt? This sounds exactly like their bullshit rationale -- and price tag. Many of the dorms literally ARE moldy, and flood periodically on the 1st floor. And the forced chicken cutlets are raw in the middle about 28% of the time.

It has taken me almost 3 years to realize that the school scrubs its FB and other fora of negative discussions like this, or uses parent "moderators" to gaslight commenters who protest the objectively horrible residential conditions for many* students. (Wow! MY rising junior says she's never TASTED such great food options! She says there's ALWAYS something fun going on in the residence halls and wishes she had even MORE TIME to spend in the dorms with all her friends who LOVE the SOCIAL aspect of dorm living!!!!!

* Vandy does have 3-4 pretty new "residential colleges" with 14 ft. ceilings that, despite a "lottery," are mostly awarded to Hollywood kids and the prettiest girls. But you'll still probably get a triple there

[Anonymous]

Everyone who has posted a comment is a complete moron … UNTIL NOW

[Anonymous]

I had that same gut feeling as well, OP! Two years ago, when we toured colleges with DS. I'm a foreigner, so I don't care about the authenticity of old stones. I have medieval buildings on my country estate in my native country! What I want from a US college is a nice balance of academics and comfort.

The only places we really liked were George Washington and Middlebury. They were both renovated, clean, airy and comfortable. One was rural, the other urban, and DS opted for the urban.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:a lot of these schools have half the kids paying 100k a year and half paying 15k a year. People already feel like suckers .. and then when the food is frozen chicken cutlets or the dorms have mold in the vents, it's natural to complain.

The real issue is that many of these schools force students to pay $$ for these moldy crowded dorms that regularly flood and frozen chicken cutlets for the first few years of the degree.

and now they're forcing you to live in their moldy dorms for 4 years to make more $$$. It was a PITA to get DC's college to let him live off campus, because it's a "residential experience" and 94% of students live on campus-uh huh, and it's also $92,000 this year and he'd rather share an apartment in this expensive area than stay on campus.

Vanderbilt? This sounds exactly like their bullshit rationale -- and price tag. Many of the dorms literally ARE moldy, and flood periodically on the 1st floor. And the forced chicken cutlets are raw in the middle about 28% of the time.

It has taken me almost 3 years to realize that the school scrubs its FB and other fora of negative discussions like this, or uses parent "moderators" to gaslight commenters who protest the objectively horrible residential conditions for many* students. (Wow! MY rising junior says she's never TASTED such great food options! She says there's ALWAYS something fun going on in the residence halls and wishes she had even MORE TIME to spend in the dorms with all her friends who LOVE the SOCIAL aspect of dorm living!!!!!

* Vandy does have 3-4 pretty new "residential colleges" with 14 ft. ceilings that, despite a "lottery," are mostly awarded to Hollywood kids and the prettiest girls. But you'll still probably get a triple there

I have a senior at Vanderbilt. So much BS here I couldn't help but at least acknowledge it.

But do tell us more about the prettiest girls and the Hollywood kids and the 14 ft ceilings for those in the know

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Picking a school based on thinking you'll be doing high level research as an undergrad is a mistake.

Disagree.

At my kid’s (non-elite) SLAC, she published multiple peer reviewed papers as a undergrad, which likely helped her win two fully funded admissions to graduate programs.

+100

And mine at a non-ivy T10 is published as well, and prof invited the undergrads to a big conference where the prof was speaking to an international audience

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had that same gut feeling as well, OP! Two years ago, when we toured colleges with DS. I'm a foreigner, so I don't care about the authenticity of old stones. I have medieval buildings on my country estate in my native country! What I want from a US college is a nice balance of academics and comfort.

The only places we really liked were George Washington and Middlebury. They were both renovated, clean, airy and comfortable. One was rural, the other urban, and DS opted for the urban.

Everyone makes their own choices. The peers at GW will be very different from Middlebury which has a different cohort from ivies. Peer group and faculty quality matters more than comfort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stanford is not dumpy. Not sure what schools you’re touring.

Freshman dorm was/is dumpy, but other than that, the campus is beautiful. More importantly, even as freshman, you have access to top notch faculty and mentors and small classes.
Ditto Princeton. Terrible freshman dorm but access to leaders in the respective fields, small classes.
Also, you pay for the peers.

Ask about class size and who’s actually teaching.

Yes indeed
Worth every cent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Picking a school based on thinking you'll be doing high level research as an undergrad is a mistake.

Disagree.

At my kid’s (non-elite) SLAC, she published multiple peer reviewed papers as a undergrad, which likely helped her win two fully funded admissions to graduate programs.

Depends on the major.
If you’re doing science in grad school, it’ll be fully funded.

Humanities T10 graduate at a fully funded T5 grad...The best PhD programs are fully funded, in any field. Full stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had that same gut feeling as well, OP! Two years ago, when we toured colleges with DS. I'm a foreigner, so I don't care about the authenticity of old stones. I have medieval buildings on my country estate in my native country! What I want from a US college is a nice balance of academics and comfort.

The only places we really liked were George Washington and Middlebury. They were both renovated, clean, airy and comfortable. One was rural, the other urban, and DS opted for the urban.

Everyone makes their own choices. The peers at GW will be very different from Middlebury which has a different cohort from ivies. Peer group and faculty quality matters more than comfort.

I understand what you mean but disagree about the benefits of this peer group and faculty quality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone who has posted a comment is a complete moron … UNTIL NOW

Feel free to stop reading and commenting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had that same gut feeling as well, OP! Two years ago, when we toured colleges with DS. I'm a foreigner, so I don't care about the authenticity of old stones. I have medieval buildings on my country estate in my native country! What I want from a US college is a nice balance of academics and comfort.

The only places we really liked were George Washington and Middlebury. They were both renovated, clean, airy and comfortable. One was rural, the other urban, and DS opted for the urban.

Agree about Middlebury. When we toured, we felt like we were at a high-end country club. My wife, who went to a large public, was amazed at the perfectly manicured lawns and neatly placed stone buildings. Historic yet clean and well maintained. Apparently they knocked down most of the ugly buildings from the 50s, 60s, and 70s and replaced them with more modern facilities. Amherst, on the other hand, felt tired and worn down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had that same gut feeling as well, OP! Two years ago, when we toured colleges with DS. I'm a foreigner, so I don't care about the authenticity of old stones. I have medieval buildings on my country estate in my native country! What I want from a US college is a nice balance of academics and comfort.

The only places we really liked were George Washington and Middlebury. They were both renovated, clean, airy and comfortable. One was rural, the other urban, and DS opted for the urban.

Agree about Middlebury. When we toured, we felt like we were at a high-end country club. My wife, who went to a large public, was amazed at the perfectly manicured lawns and neatly placed stone buildings. Historic yet clean and well maintained. Apparently they knocked down most of the ugly buildings from the 50s, 60s, and 70s and replaced them with more modern facilities. Amherst, on the other hand, felt tired and worn down.

I really think this should be the goal of most colleges. There is no way building designs of the past fit the needs of many modern academic programs. Cramming your science department into these tiny corridors and small lab designs when you can easily afford to give them a nice, modern approachable space that fits their needs is stupid.