Which schools outpace their location and vice versa?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yet, some of these more remote areas help the campuses have a distinct feel (compared to urban campuses) and the lower cost-of-living helps their finances.

Yet Notre Dame likes to pretend it is on the same financial level as Georgetown or Boston College (MUCH more expensive cities) and charge equally exorbitant tuition when, yes, of course, cost of living in South Bend is MUCH, much less. Blegh. Get over yourself, ND. (And I'm from a big, multigenerational, ND family.)

Notre Dame dorms rooms put Georgetown's to shame.

https://www.instagram.com/georgetown.hotmess/?hl=en

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I'm ignorant about Nashville. But Northfield? Middle of nowhere and COLD! The original question was, which schools are held back by their location. I'd argue that if any of those four schools were on the east or west coast, they'd be even harder to get into. Your opinion may differ.

As opposed to Middlebury? Bowdoin? Colgate, Hamilton, Colby? (Which Carleton is ranked higher than, FWIW)? Cold and in the middle of no where is pretty typical of highly selective LACs.

Related to this I was struck recently by the fact that location does not drag down Williams, compared with Amherst. I tended to think of them both as western Mass away from Boston but Amherst is hours closer than Williams and also on a daily Amtrak train line (the Vermonter) that connects it with the NYC and the mid-Atlantic. Really MUCH more convenient than Williams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yet, some of these more remote areas help the campuses have a distinct feel (compared to urban campuses) and the lower cost-of-living helps their finances.

Yet Notre Dame likes to pretend it is on the same financial level as Georgetown or Boston College (MUCH more expensive cities) and charge equally exorbitant tuition when, yes, of course, cost of living in South Bend is MUCH, much less. Blegh. Get over yourself, ND. (And I'm from a big, multigenerational, ND family.)

Notre Dame dorms rooms put Georgetown's to shame.

https://www.instagram.com/georgetown.hotmess/?hl=en

Plus I would add the ND campus is much larger and more beautiful than Georgetown. My son visited both and though Georgetown was very cramped and claustrophobic by comparison. ND manages to do a pretty good job with providing a strong campus life considering there isn't much to do off campus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rice, Vanderbilt, Wash U, Carleton--all great schools in less-desirable locations.

Vanderbilt? Seriously? Every single student I know who goes/went to Vandy cited Nashville as one of the best parts of the school. I can't imagine a better city for college kids, personally.

Northfield is small but really nice- with St. Olaf right there too it's a good college town. For the kind of kids who are attracted to a SLAC, it's ideal.

Rice- Houston isn't as cool as Nashville but it's a big, diverse, growing, thriving city. Rice is in a really nice neighborhood. Hardly less-desirable.

Wash U is in a GREAT part of St. Louis...St. Louis itself may not be a draw, but everyone I know who went to Wash U said it's in a great location.

Are you one of those "any city that's not in California or the Bos Wash corridor is automatically sh*t" types?

Totally agree on all the above! Desirability is clearly in the eye of the beholder, but all of these schools are in fantastic locations except, arguably, Carleton. It's in a cute town, but no denying it's somewhat isolated, which I loved when I went there. Anyone who would diss any of the other three has not visited the campuses or just has biases against large parts of the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rice, Vanderbilt, Wash U, Carleton--all great schools in less-desirable locations.

Vanderbilt? Seriously? Every single student I know who goes/went to Vandy cited Nashville as one of the best parts of the school. I can't imagine a better city for college kids, personally.

Northfield is small but really nice- with St. Olaf right there too it's a good college town. For the kind of kids who are attracted to a SLAC, it's ideal.

Rice- Houston isn't as cool as Nashville but it's a big, diverse, growing, thriving city. Rice is in a really nice neighborhood. Hardly less-desirable.

Wash U is in a GREAT part of St. Louis...St. Louis itself may not be a draw, but everyone I know who went to Wash U said it's in a great location.

Are you one of those "any city that's not in California or the Bos Wash corridor is automatically sh*t" types?

I agree. What a curious comment for that pp to suggest Vandy is in a "less desirable" location. It's location is absolutely one of its drawing points. Lovely town.

[Anonymous]

Of all the flagship public colleges in the midwest it think its not accident that Ann Arbor (MI) and Madison (WI) have the best location with the rep of a cool midwestern city vibe and enough going on to make it desirable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boston pulls up Tufts and Williamsburg drags down W&M

What's bad about Williamsburg? Too touristy?

NP here who lived in Williamsburg for a few years in high school. It is a very depressed area. There is a lot of poverty among the residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:South Bend drags Notre Dame down.

Signed,
An ND Grad

South Bend is a tiny midwest town with dirt cheap real estate, and Notre Dame is filthy rich. Why can't such a powerful university make REAL changes to its community?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rice, Vanderbilt, Wash U, Carleton--all great schools in less-desirable locations.

Obviously, this is written with a certain perspective (i.e. Northern) - Rice/Houston and Vanderbilt/Nashville are both desirable locations for people South of the M-D line - and Rice/Houston should be desirable for anyone as long as they can withstand the heat.

Am from the "north" and think both of these cities are great. Friendly people, great food, more political balance, great arts scene, etc. Houston rivals Boston in the medical field. Warm weather most of the school year (and no need to be on campus for Houston summers). Less hide-bound. Great places for college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boston pulls up Tufts and Williamsburg drags down W&M

What's bad about Williamsburg? Too touristy?

I think so. My impression that it's too much of a touristy/quiet/older population area for some students. Not a college town in any sense, not a ton of off-campus housing options, and not a lot of nightlife for interested students.

However, I think the immediate area around the campus is beautiful and I'm sure the colonial aspect appeals to plenty of kids!

[Anonymous]

Our kid used to go to a summer camp at Union College in Schenectady. The area around the school isn't very nice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yale-New Haven and Brown-Providence, although both cities are nicer than they used to be.

I can't speak about what Providence used to be like, but it was a major selling point for my kid to choose Brown over Wesleyan (speaking of towns that drag a college down, Middletown was pretty bleak). The areas adjoining campus are great and the downtown - while a little sleepy - is nice.

Providence used to be referred to as the armpit of New England and it was not vibrant or particularly safe. It was revitalized in the 80s and 90s and is much nicer now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of all the flagship public colleges in the midwest it think its not accident that Ann Arbor (MI) and Madison (WI) have the best location with the rep of a cool midwestern city vibe and enough going on to make it desirable.

Although in the case of Ann Arbor a lot of that is due to the university.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably not Penn, but Philadelphia drags down Drexel and Temple due to their location. Baltimore certainly drags down Johns Hopkins.

Conversely, Boston props up Boston University and Northeastern, while New York props up NYU and Fordham, but not necessarily Columbia.

There are a lot of mid-sized schools in depressing towns in New York and Pennsylvania that would have higher profiles if they were in nicer areas either in New England or the South. Hobart/William Smith, Bucknell, and Washington & Jefferson come to mind.

Have you been to Fordham? It’s in one of the most dangerous neighborhoods of the Bronx. It’s far from the NYC glam that applicants expect. I have friends who live in other areas of the Bronx and try to avoid the area.

I wouldn't say the Fordham area is one of the most dangerous parts of the Bronx, but in any event the NYC location gives Fordham a boost among students from other areas it probably wouldn't otherwise enjoy. Plenty of kids want to go to school in NYC, and Columbia is super-competitive and NYU super-expensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably not Penn, but Philadelphia drags down Drexel and Temple due to their location. Baltimore certainly drags down Johns Hopkins.

Conversely, Boston props up Boston University and Northeastern, while New York props up NYU and Fordham, but not necessarily Columbia.

There are a lot of mid-sized schools in depressing towns in New York and Pennsylvania that would have higher profiles if they were in nicer areas either in New England or the South. Hobart/William Smith, Bucknell, and Washington & Jefferson come to mind.

How does a midsized city with great nightlife and many job opportunities drag down two practical-minded universities?

Are you calling Philadelphia "mid-sized"? That's an odd characterization for a city that size.

In any event, Drexel and Temple are often associated with Pitt and Northeastern, but Oakland and the Fenway area have it all over West Philly (Drexel) and even more so North Philly (Temple).