Which schools outpace their location and vice versa?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In both cases I think its bc of the university (the city has grown around the university) but IMO both Madiaon and Ann Arbor are better cities than the locations of Nebraska, U Illinios, Iowa or Ohio State, which in turn boosts those colleges.

Iowa City is one of the best college towns in the country. Lincoln is the state capital of Nebraska. Columbus is a growing city with a great economy and lots to do. Urbana-Champaign is the only one I'd say is really looked at as a negative for most people.

[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.)

Why would the cost of education at a private school be lower in a low COL area aside from housing? You still have the same costs for attracting high caliber faculty (sometimes the only way to draw faculty to live in South Bend is being paid on par or better as faculty in higher COL areas plus other perks), pay for the same services and infrastructure, pay for the same administrative costs, etc.

Why? Because someone on this board hates Notre Dame and trashes it whenever they can no matter what the reason

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

Why would the cost of education at a private school be lower in a low COL area aside from housing? You still have the same costs for attracting high caliber faculty (sometimes the only way to draw faculty to live in South Bend is being paid on par or better as faculty in higher COL areas plus other perks), pay for the same services and infrastructure, pay for the same administrative costs, etc.

Why? Because someone on this board hates Notre Dame and trashes it whenever they can no matter what the reason

It is quite remarkable how this particular school is a target of hate on this forum. I think it is a special place...maybe it’s just too much for some people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Went to William and Mary for law school. Great college, especially for undergrads, but the area is a downer.

[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.

Bucknell was the first school that came to my mind when I saw the thread title.

Bucknell isn’t in a depressing town like some of the PA or OH towns that lost all the steel and auto and other factory jobs. It is just in a really small town. Lewisburg is cute though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:South Bend drags Notre Dame down.

Signed,
An ND Grad

I dunno. Part of what appealed to my DC about ND was South Bend. Ok, not SB itself but he likes being at a school where - because there's not lots to do in the general vicinity - life really does revolve around campus activities, dorm life, etc. I don't think you would get that sense of togetherness, intense school spirit, and vibrant on-campus life (and some say cult like devotion LOL) that ND is known for if it were in a "cool" city like DC or Boston (the fact that Notre Dame's per student endowment is about 5x that of BC's and 11x Georgetown's is a good example of this).

[Anonymous]

Aside from the big city / small town and north / south debates.....

USC. Seriously awesome school, in the middle of a Los Angeles ghetto. Had friends who went there and never left campus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who went to school in a small Midwest town in the country, the location far removed from most of the chowderheads on DCUM made the location ideal.

WTH is this supposed to mean?

IDK. Simple words...
Maybe if you provincial folks in the DMV didn't diss every location not in the NE or urban, someone might treat you seriously.

Why so angry? You can't explain what you meant? It is not all about you, believe it or not.

I'm not angry. The question was what location brings a college down. Many say that a rural location or not being in the NE does so Well many people have certain preferences. So what? Is it all about them? There is nothing about a rural Midwestern town that is generically bad for a college, but that's what the snobs on this forum seem to think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When people say they want to go to NYC, they really mean the heart of Manhattan like NYU.
Columbia is right next to Harlem making it's location is more of disadvantage than an advantage.

NYU's location was a gigantic drawback for my DC, FWIW. She wanted urban, but a defined campus. NYU is not that.

I had a similar experience. I thought I wanted an urban school but when I visited, NYU was too much for me.

[Anonymous]

Biases aside, I'm learning a lot on this thread. How about Chicago, Northwestern, Emory, Rochester? Locations a plus or minus?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Biases aside, I'm learning a lot on this thread. How about Chicago, Northwestern, Emory, Rochester? Locations a plus or minus?

Haven't been to the others, but Emory is in a gorgeous, green part of Atlanta. Definitely a nice campus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Biases aside, I'm learning a lot on this thread. How about Chicago, Northwestern, Emory, Rochester? Locations a plus or minus?

If you don’t like cold weather 3 of those are pretty brutal. My daughter visited U Chicago a couple of months ago. It was 25 and blowing 50 mph. Not it felt like 50 but actually 50, as in the airport briefly cancelled flights and ours took off going sideways. I’ve never been so cold and I thought she’d lose interest. This girl hasn’t once said she loved a school we visited. She walked up to me with bug eyes after her tour and said “holy crap this place is awesome”. Then we went into the city and she was hopelessly in love, poor thing. Probably fitting because getting in is pretty hopeless too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In both cases I think its bc of the university (the city has grown around the university) but IMO both Madiaon and Ann Arbor are better cities than the locations of Nebraska, U Illinios, Iowa or Ohio State, which in turn boosts those colleges.

Iowa City is one of the best college towns in the country. Lincoln is the state capital of Nebraska. Columbus is a growing city with a great economy and lots to do. Urbana-Champaign is the only one I'd say is really looked at as a negative for most people.

Of those 4 I agree Iowa City is the best college town. But i dont think Lincoln Nebraska or Columbus Ohio is anywhere as good a location as Ann Arbor or Wisconsin. Just being the capital is not enough - Madison is the capital; its not what makes it a cool funky town. Its more the vibe of the city, the lakes, the charm of the downtown. Ill admit I have spent almost no time in Columbus but I have in Cleveland and I think similar to Madison/Ann Arbor it has the more dynamic vibe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Biases aside, I'm learning a lot on this thread. How about Chicago, Northwestern, Emory, Rochester? Locations a plus or minus?

Northwestern is close to Chicago but in suburban Evanston and has a very cohesive campus. The El doesn’t even go to Evanston-you must bus to the nearest stop. It is close enough to the city for internships and fun, but not of the city.

[Anonymous]

Hard question to answer because one person’s positive is another’s negative. (Rice? Too hot! Carleton? Too cold! Too rural! Too urban! Too seedy! Not enough cigarette butts!) But okay, I’ll bite. Because it’s DCUM where it’s fun to argue.

Not a ND knocker but South Bend is pretty lousy. I suppose it does encourage greater campus-focus but I can’t imagine a charming strip of restaurants and coffee shops would ruin anything. ND is still fantastic. Huge fan.

My vote is for any of the schools in/around Worcester, MA. My niece is at Holy Cross and while happy there she generally avoids the town. Though people here say it’s getting better and has some goodness if you’re willing to look.

On the other side I think Dickinson College really benefits from its location in a cute town. Not just near but right there in the middle of Carlisle. We haven’t seen many (any?) campuses that were so centrally located in a smaller, pretty town.