LACs with the WORST locations

[Anonymous]

Gettysburg, except that it is relatively close to DC.

[Anonymous]

OhIo who in their right mind sends someone to OhIo? Or Missouri

No reason whatsoever to send a student to either state

[Anonymous]

Most location bias is just a matter of subjective taste (e.g. hot/ cold climate, rural/suburban/urban, setting). And of course, there’s also the silly parochialism of DCUM commenters and their spoiled offspring, who think coming from Bethesda or Vienna gives them standing to write off entire states or regions. Whatever. Objectively, I think the LACs with the worst locations are those located in cities or urban neighborhoods that might have been pleasant once upon a time but are now depressed or slummy. Eg Clark/Worcester, Conn College/New London, Trinity/Hartford, Vassar/Poughkeepsie. I think it’s hard to get enthused about those settings (unless maybe you’re a sociology major…), and I think a depressing or even dangerous setting takes a greater toll on the campus-bound LAC experience than it does on the large university experience.

But many people graduate from those schools with really positive experiences, while readily admitting “oh yeah, [city name] is a pit.” I just don’t think location matters that much in the grand scheme of the educational experience, except maybe to chatty DCUM parents and a few unadaptable kids.

[Anonymous]

The area driving to Washington & Lee had confederate flags. We didn’t arrive from DC so maybe we took an unfortunate route but it was a hard no. We weren’t even college touring yet.

The wanna be Confederate soldiers visiting Gettysburg were also a minus but the town has offerings.

Bates is near Portland but Lewiston itself left a lot to be desired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most location bias is just a matter of subjective taste (e.g. hot/ cold climate, rural/suburban/urban, setting). And of course, there’s also the silly parochialism of DCUM commenters and their spoiled offspring, who think coming from Bethesda or Vienna gives them standing to write off entire states or regions. Whatever. Objectively, I think the LACs with the worst locations are those located in cities or urban neighborhoods that might have been pleasant once upon a time but are now depressed or slummy. Eg Clark/Worcester, Conn College/New London, Trinity/Hartford, Vassar/Poughkeepsie. I think it’s hard to get enthused about those settings (unless maybe you’re a sociology major…), and I think a depressing or even dangerous setting takes a greater toll on the campus-bound LAC experience than it does on the large university experience.

But many people graduate from those schools with really positive experiences, while readily admitting “oh yeah, [city name] is a pit.” I just don’t think location matters that much in the grand scheme of the educational experience, except maybe to chatty DCUM parents and a few unadaptable kids.

You criticize others for making judgments and then make your own claiming you do so "objectively." How is that any different from what others are doing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Despite having beautiful campuses, Kenyon College, Bates College, Grinnell College, Holy Cross, Trinity College, Rhodes College (dangerous city), Clarkson University, St. Lawrence University, Knox College, are some LACs with undesirable locations.

Worcester isn’t too bad.

What’s good about it?

Near Boston, urban

Niece just graduated from holy cross. Worcester has come a long way -- great food/bar scene, red sox AAA team, more event/music/culture going on than 20 years ago. It's rather vibrant, in fact.

[Anonymous]

oberlin....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:W&L

Disagree. It’s in a beautiful location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Despite having beautiful campuses, Kenyon College, Bates College, Grinnell College, Holy Cross, Trinity College, Rhodes College (dangerous city), Clarkson University, St. Lawrence University, Knox College, are some LACs with undesirable locations.

Worcester isn’t too bad.

What’s good about it?

Near Boston, urban

Niece just graduated from holy cross. Worcester has come a long way -- great food/bar scene, red sox AAA team, more event/music/culture going on than 20 years ago. It's rather vibrant, in fact.

+1. We were there 4 years ago and then were back this past fall and a lot has changed. Given the cost of living in Boston, I'm not surprised that people are seeing the value in Worcester. Lots of New England towns have a grittiness to them but that doesn't bother us. In fact one of my kids ended up at a school that others would find even worse than Worcester but they are very happy there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here.

The difficulty with a thread labeling something as "best" or "worst" is that how one defines "best" & "worst" is subjective. So comments on factors that posters consider are welcome & encouraged.

Precisely this. For instance my kids (and I) all prefer cold weather, mountains, etc. and would be miserable in a hot/humid climate. Different strokes, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Grinnell has become super selective despite what many consider to be a highly undesirable location. Just imagine if it were somewhere else?

I have a child there and while they would prefer that it were closer to home, the location doesn’t bother them at all. The town is cute and close to campus and they are pretty academically focused so are happy with what’s offered on campus.

They did not like the location of Macalester though because they preferred a small town environment. And they wouldn’t even consider Clark. It’s all pretty subjective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:W&L

Disagree. It’s in a beautiful location.

+1
Lexington is an adorable little town located in the Shenandoah Valley and surrounded by the Blue Ridge mountains. Gorgeous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most location bias is just a matter of subjective taste (e.g. hot/ cold climate, rural/suburban/urban, setting). And of course, there’s also the silly parochialism of DCUM commenters and their spoiled offspring, who think coming from Bethesda or Vienna gives them standing to write off entire states or regions. Whatever. Objectively, I think the LACs with the worst locations are those located in cities or urban neighborhoods that might have been pleasant once upon a time but are now depressed or slummy. Eg Clark/Worcester, Conn College/New London, Trinity/Hartford, Vassar/Poughkeepsie. I think it’s hard to get enthused about those settings (unless maybe you’re a sociology major…), and I think a depressing or even dangerous setting takes a greater toll on the campus-bound LAC experience than it does on the large university experience.

But many people graduate from those schools with really positive experiences, while readily admitting “oh yeah, [city name] is a pit.” I just don’t think location matters that much in the grand scheme of the educational experience, except maybe to chatty DCUM parents and a few unadaptable kids.

You criticize others for making judgments and then make your own claiming you do so "objectively." How is that any different from what others are doing?

Conn College is not right in New London, which is admittedly not a great town. The area it's in is nice enough, and the campus (including a 500-acre arboretum) is beautiful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most location bias is just a matter of subjective taste (e.g. hot/ cold climate, rural/suburban/urban, setting). And of course, there’s also the silly parochialism of DCUM commenters and their spoiled offspring, who think coming from Bethesda or Vienna gives them standing to write off entire states or regions. Whatever. Objectively, I think the LACs with the worst locations are those located in cities or urban neighborhoods that might have been pleasant once upon a time but are now depressed or slummy. Eg Clark/Worcester, Conn College/New London, Trinity/Hartford, Vassar/Poughkeepsie. I think it’s hard to get enthused about those settings (unless maybe you’re a sociology major…), and I think a depressing or even dangerous setting takes a greater toll on the campus-bound LAC experience than it does on the large university experience.

But many people graduate from those schools with really positive experiences, while readily admitting “oh yeah, [city name] is a pit.” I just don’t think location matters that much in the grand scheme of the educational experience, except maybe to chatty DCUM parents and a few unadaptable kids.

You criticize others for making judgments and then make your own claiming you do so "objectively." How is that any different from what others are doing?

Conn College is not right in New London, which is admittedly not a great town. The area it's in is nice enough, and the campus (including a 500-acre arboretum) is beautiful.

We checked it out, thinking that is where the students need to go to catch the train home (Amtrak station). Is that not where they go to bars & restaurants?

[Anonymous]

No one said that. And you make the institution look bad with your name calling. Personally, I would not attend the school given the board’s handling of the name issue.

Well then, I guess you would also cross Georgetown, GW, Yale and many others off your list? And don’t visit Leesburg! This level of cancel culture is just ridiculous. You can acknowledge that people had both good and bad qualities and can educate about and learn from both without pretending they never existed.