Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think Texas Tech, which is not a LAC, has to be mentioned in any discussion of "worst location."

It’s not for everyone, but I really liked Lubbock (which has a population of over 300k, so it’s not like it’s a small town) and the West Texas plains around it. Would take that over an SLAC outside a small decaying NE/MW town any day.

What did you like about Lubbock?

dp. my favorite band is from lubbock!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. Yes, all subjective. My son won't even look at Grinnell because of its location and he loves both Macalester and Clark. This does not change that they are great schools for the right student.

Well, that's too bad because Grinnell is leaps and bounds better than both of those schools.

A lot of the NESCAC schools are in rundown, or fairly scary, towns. Trinity, Conn, Bates at top of the list.

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

Well, they greatly discount tuition to get kids to go. That place is truly in the middle of nowhere. But tons of merit aid so parents make the kids go.
,

Anonymous wrote:oberlin....

And kenyon

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Easily St. Lawrence. It's in the absolute middle of nowhere with no transportation options. There's no local retail and a run down local economy. It's freezing and windy--as cold as Montreal and colder than Juneau--but not in with pretty mountains.

To each her own. St. Lawrence offers one of the most collegial, friendly, and welcoming university environments. Students there love to ski, hike, kayak, and generally, spend their time outdoors.Yes, it’s a long winter. But it’s full of fun events and activities. If your dream school is Miami, you won’t like St. Lawrence but for those who love winter sports, it’s ideal.

A school can have lots of fun events, but still be in a terrible location. Nothing you said refutes its bad location. Kayaking and hiking are possible for about 6 weeks in the fall before the weather turns. Skiing is still a good drive.

I think people who don't understand LACs fail to understand that the isolated location is frequently part of the LAC experience. It fosters a close community with a school-centered social life. There's a reason LACs are in remote (not worst) locations. My student has loved their remote campus and living in a rural area. I think St. Lawrence sounds like a great location for students who enjoy those activities.

Anonymous wrote:

. 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?

Pay attention - this might be a good learning experience for you.

Metrics like poverty, disinvestment, crime and population loss are objective. They are inarguable facts.

‘I prefer the country to the city’ or ‘I couldn’t stand to be so far from the water’ is a subjective judgment - another person could have exactly the opposite perspective.

Hence objective vs subjective criteria.

You offered an opinion on what makes something good or bad - that is subjective. You think that the criteria listed makes for the worst locations, but others may find that based on their interests that may be a good location (or a less expensive location, or a more accessible location, etc.) Want to work with immigrants? Want to work in community development? Interested in poverty related issues? So while those may be objective metrics the belief that they make a location good or bad is a subjective matter. Even if one were to accept your criteria, you are "objectively" wrong about Worcester. Worcester is experiencing a population increase, lots of new development and has some of the faster growing real estate prices in the country. Maybe you can do some research - and, you know, have a good learning experience.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Easily St. Lawrence. It's in the absolute middle of nowhere with no transportation options. There's no local retail and a run down local economy. It's freezing and windy--as cold as Montreal and colder than Juneau--but not in with pretty mountains.

To each her own. St. Lawrence offers one of the most collegial, friendly, and welcoming university environments. Students there love to ski, hike, kayak, and generally, spend their time outdoors.Yes, it’s a long winter. But it’s full of fun events and activities. If your dream school is Miami, you won’t like St. Lawrence but for those who love winter sports, it’s ideal.

A school can have lots of fun events, but still be in a terrible location. Nothing you said refutes its bad location. Kayaking and hiking are possible for about 6 weeks in the fall before the weather turns. Skiing is still a good drive.

I LOVED SLU and I wasn't even interested in outdoor activities. The other students and the professors were a super interesting bunch. In LAC's, it's often all about the people. Plus the fall and the spring are gorgeous! College isn't like real estate -- it's not all about location, location, location.

I agree, I wasn’t outdoorsy and didn’t ski, but I loved it too. I grew up in a country club atmosphere and appreciated getting out of that bubble. Plus as others have said, makes for a very tight community.

What did you like about Lubbock?

Liked the part of town directly adjacent to campus, liked the surrounding countryside (hiked Pablo Duro canyon repeatedly), found the people to be exceptionally friendly, appreciated the exposure to an entirely different culture within the country. I’d apologize for it, but it’s not that different from the way Donald Judd gravitated to Marfa and the rest of the art world followed.

I think there is often an over emphasis on location. The right school does not rely on the surrounding area.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I always hear this twaddle, but I didn’t see any when I was there and it has nothing to do with the college anyway.

Remind me - who was Lee?

If you think the faculty and students are Confederate-loving racists, you are truly an ignorant moron who has never been there.

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.

We are a Jewish family. One of my DC's willing to look at schools in the South, but ended up in the Midwest. The other politely looked at a range of southern schools with sibling, then indicated that they would not apply to a southern school. That's just how it is sometimes. W+L may have made a lot of changes, but as long as the name remains the same, DC wondered how welcoming it would truly be.

Happily attending Oberlin or Grinnell? Fit is indeed important.

Jewish family here. W&L is an incredible school with an exceptionally strong, award-winning Hillel. The alumni network is unreal and the opportunities myriad.

I fear for our country’s lack of critical-thinking skills.

Oh, I have hope for the leaders of Washington and Lee. They may yet develop those skills. They're just not quite there yet.

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.

I think "undesirable locations" is in the eye of the beholder. My kid is at one of these "undesirable locations" and loves the community that the remoteness fosters and the tiny village she walks through every day to get to class.

Same here

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Easily St. Lawrence. It's in the absolute middle of nowhere with no transportation options. There's no local retail and a run down local economy. It's freezing and windy--as cold as Montreal and colder than Juneau--but not in with pretty mountains.

To each her own. St. Lawrence offers one of the most collegial, friendly, and welcoming university environments. Students there love to ski, hike, kayak, and generally, spend their time outdoors.Yes, it’s a long winter. But it’s full of fun events and activities. If your dream school is Miami, you won’t like St. Lawrence but for those who love winter sports, it’s ideal.

A school can have lots of fun events, but still be in a terrible location. Nothing you said refutes its bad location. Kayaking and hiking are possible for about 6 weeks in the fall before the weather turns. Skiing is still a good drive.

I LOVED SLU and I wasn't even interested in outdoor activities. The other students and the professors were a super interesting bunch. In LAC's, it's often all about the people. Plus the fall and the spring are gorgeous! College isn't like real estate -- it's not all about location, location, location.

. 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?

Pay attention - this might be a good learning experience for you.

Metrics like poverty, disinvestment, crime and population loss are objective. They are inarguable facts.

‘I prefer the country to the city’ or ‘I couldn’t stand to be so far from the water’ is a subjective judgment - another person could have exactly the opposite perspective.

Hence objective vs subjective criteria.

Anonymous wrote:

I think Texas Tech, which is not a LAC, has to be mentioned in any discussion of "worst location."

It’s not for everyone, but I really liked Lubbock (which has a population of over 300k, so it’s not like it’s a small town) and the West Texas plains around it. Would take that over an SLAC outside a small decaying NE/MW town any day.

What did you like about Lubbock?