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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?