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

[Anonymous]

I have a super social kid who gets really good grades at a really tough HS. We were *completely* turned off by Chicago and VT at a college fair. Multiple parents have told me that W&M is challenging in a good way academically, but also challenging socially which would not be a good fit for our kid. We will still be looking at both VT and W&M because they are state schools, but Chicago is off the list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I was born and raised in DC but live in NYC now so my drive ring includes Dartmouth to the north, Cornell to the west and Princeton to the southwest. Our thinking is two-fold.....convenience and safety. I'd much rather just give DC a car and not have to ever worry about booking travel months in advance and Ive had friends that have had serious medical issues with their children in college. I can't imagine getting a call about my child having a health issue and not being able to jump in a car and being at their side in max 4-5 hours. Maybe I'm being paranoid but why take the chance?

Dartmouth and Cornell are out because of the high Greek percentage. On that basis Princeton should be out too because of their eating clubs. And Harvard for sure. So you are starting to limit the options for your kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:None of the top 20 for undergraduate studies. No state or private schools with big name sports teams. (drinking culture). Profs are rewarded for publishing and research, not teaching. Most teaching is done by graduate assistants. Small regional liberal arts schools are actual doing a much better job of educating young people and many still take some responsibility for noticing when a young person is going off the rails. You could stop showing up for class at most elite/big schools and no one would even notice.

Which LACS would you consider?

[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.

Well, I live in NY and just about every god school is within driving distance. The no flying rule is because it is just such a huge headache to have to book flights vs. having a car to drive to/from school.

Not Stanford, which is a dream school for just about every top student now.

[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.

Well, I live in NY and just about every god school is within driving distance. The no flying rule is because it is just such a huge headache to have to book flights vs. having a car to drive to/from school.

So if your kid got into Stanford, you'd forbid him or her to go?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

PP why do you think William and Mary is hard socially?

[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.

Dear god, did it ever occur to you that the no plane ride rule might have to do with the COST of purchasing plane tickets? Unbelievable how out of touch DCUM is with normal Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a super social kid who gets really good grades at a really tough HS. We were *completely* turned off by Chicago and VT at a college fair. Multiple parents have told me that W&M is challenging in a good way academically, but also challenging socially which would not be a good fit for our kid. We will still be looking at both VT and W&M because they are state schools, but Chicago is off the list.

DC is currently at Purdue because VT engineering turned him off. They were still talking’everyone for himself’ and ‘you’re on your own’. Purdue was talking collaboration and support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a super social kid who gets really good grades at a really tough HS. We were *completely* turned off by Chicago and VT at a college fair. Multiple parents have told me that W&M is challenging in a good way academically, but also challenging socially which would not be a good fit for our kid. We will still be looking at both VT and W&M because they are state schools, but Chicago is off the list.

DC is currently at Purdue because VT engineering turned him off. They were still talking’everyone for himself’ and ‘you’re on your own’. Purdue was talking collaboration and support.

Must be nice to afford paying an extra $100,000 for something like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Brown, Yale, Oberlin - far too liberal. We are democrats but moderates and we value free speech and debate.

Chicago - way too nerdy for my kid's personality

No. You're the same HS kid with an agenda pretending to be a parent.

Any reasonably intelligent person knows there's no real difference between just about all the top colleges in liberal attitudes.

[Anonymous]

I'm always amazed at people who encourage their high achieving kids to apply scattershot to "top schools." Even among "elite" northeastern schools you're going to get a very different vibe at different places. Not that kids won't find their way, and not that many aren't similar, but there ARE real differences.

So, for example, I took my kid to visit Hamilton (which he loved) but we didn't consider Colgate. Bates but not Colby. Grinnell but not Swarthmore. If you are paying attention and have a few things that you care about above and beyond "reputation" you will find that there are reasons not to pounce on any and every "elite" school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Brown, Yale, Oberlin - far too liberal. We are democrats but moderates and we value free speech and debate.

Chicago - way too nerdy for my kid's personality

You're wrong about Oberlin actually. We are republicans who have spent a good deal of time on campus and are fine with our child there. It's a very warm and accepting culture and the hype you see in the media doesn't match the reality. I don't think it's any different than any other top college these days with pockets of students who don't speak for the majority. I'm betting Brown and Yale are the same.

[Anonymous]

Any place in the South.

[Anonymous]

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...