<p>What do you think is the best experience for undergraduates? Do you think that the city experience should be saved for when you're older, and enjoy the unique collegetown experience surrounded by those in the similiar age group as you in college? Or do you think that a city enriches a college student and is vital for a diverse lifestyle?</p>
<p>I think this is a personal question that will vary with everyone you ask. Some people naturally feel more comfortable in a city, and some moreso in a more secluded, suburban (or rural) campus. </p>
<p>Personally, I would prefer the city. I feel like the I would be comfortable trading a traditional campus for countless restaurants, bars, museums, galleries, etc. And of course the city offers a lot of internship opportunities.</p>
<p>I think this is an excellent question, and one that should be asked more often as it will probably have more of an effect on your college life than a ranking </p>
<p>I would also say that this risks being an oversimplification. All city schools are not created equal. </p>
<p>There are some schools in large cities that still have a very strong campus community and can give you the best of both worlds (unless you are REALLY into the bucolic college idea). Other schools iii</p>
<p>Also what counts as a city? New Haven CT (home of Yale) is a city, but not a city in the same way that New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco etc are.</p>
<p>For me, the best bet for undergrad was a smaller but still significant city (think Boston or Philly), which gives you a LOT to do, but isn't so big and distracting as to take away from the campus life (as New York does)</p>
<p>I would go to a major city because of all of the internships available and there's a plethora of things you can do.</p>
<p>Unless one intends to be a part time student, internships aren't going to be an advantage that large cities offer. University students get internships as a result of on-campus recruiting. Most major companies do not have open door policies that allow any student to walk into their HQ and interview right away for an internship. It just does not work that way. Those major companies have specific summer internship programs and "strategic" campuses where they actually recruit. Those could be at nearby campuses, but they can also be at major universities located in college towns, such as Cal, Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke, Michigan, UNC and UVa. The notion that living in a major city will somehow make it easier to land an internship or full time job is completely flawed. </p>
<p>As for art and museums, most college towns are located within a three-four hour ride from a major city. Unless students intend to live in a museum, there is no reason why attending a college or university in a college town within reasonable distance from a major city would not do.</p>
<p>The fact is, students who want an actual undergraduate education are better off going to a college town. Some college towns are large (Austin and Madison for example) and can cater to the needs of people who seek off-campus activities. There are some urban schools that offer a great undergraduate experience. Boston College, Chicago, Georgetown, Penn, Rice, UCLA and USC come to mind. </p>
<p>Of course, some students want to have nothing to do with a university campus and will avoid it as much as possible. They feel somewhat above the whole campus scene and want to just attend classes and get a diploma so that they can tick that box on their resume. For such students, big-city schools like Boston University, George Washington, NYU etc... are a great option.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of course, some students want to have nothing to do with a university campus and will avoid it as much as possible. They feel somewhat above the whole campus scene and want to just attend classes and get a diploma so that they can tick that box on their resume.
[/quote]
If you ask me (nobody did, I know) I say those kids are missing out. They can be serious farts in grad school ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
The fact is, students who want an actual undergraduate education are better off going to a college town.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is not true at all. Of course, you will get an actual undergraduate education at a city school. What in the world? What you will possibly not get is the "classic" American idea of the college experience (which includes big time sports, rolling quads, etc.) But even that is available to some degree at some city schools.
The question is simply unanswerable without reference to specific schools and specific students.
My daughter was convinced she wanted college town and is very happy at her city school.</p>
<p>dbwes, where did I say that you could not get a classic college education in a city school? All I said is that you are more likely to get such an experience in a college town. There are no absolutes of course.</p>
<p>A family member was attending a city school, recently transfered to a "collegetown experience" school, and is now much happier socially.</p>
<p>The lure of the city eviscerated on-campus experience at the city school to the point where it felt like a commuter school with dorms. And at least these dorms were proximate to campus, other city schools don''t even really have that. You barely feel connected to the college altogether, you are just an isolated person taking some courses in a couple buildings now and then, barely part of a college community at all.</p>
<p>Nobody stayed on campus, they just routinely diffused into the city for basically everything.</p>
<p>The city is set up for working adults with money. Students with no money will not be able to take full advantage, and they will wind up spending far more. Students are always going out, since the campus has virtually nothing, and every time you go out there is transportation cost involved. And the night spots everyone must go to, since the campus has virtually nothing, all cost.</p>
<p>On the other hand, there are more opportunities for part-time jobs in the city- though this kid easily got one at the collegetown as well. There were more diversions available- theater, museums, etc- and some of these had deals for students. Though they still cost I believe. In the end this kid seems happier, for this time of life, hanging out more casually with groups of kids in dorms and on campus, vs. basically having to diffuse out into the city and go to all these nightspots and other stuff off campus all the time, in order to have anything to do, which was costly and felt like a more isolated, less interpersonal , less "college student- like" life experience.</p>
<p>YMMV, I'm sure it depends on the person and on the specifics of each school.</p>
<p>Some schools have the best of both worlds. American, for example, has a clear-cut campus even though it is in the city.</p>
<p>Alexandre -- Not trying to be snarky, but that is a direct quote from your post. You used the words "actual undergraduate education," as if kids at city schools do not receive an undergraduate education (or at least not an "actual" one.) I thought that possibly that wasn't exactly what you meant.
I just hate these discussions that try to determine a better or worse option. All I can offer is anecdotal evidence, from myself, my kids, my kids' friends. That's all anyone really can offer. And it is VALID for those posters, but it does not make any objective points one way or the other.</p>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>First of all, anyone who has spent a week in college knows that being a "full-time" student is really only a part-time job. You have maybe three hours of class a day and then three or four hours of studying a day. This leaves ample time to have an internship. So you can do an internship and class in a semester. Which brings me to my second point: you seem to think that an internship has to be at a giant mega-corporation (and you're right insofar that you can't just walk up to HQ and ask for an internship). But you're neglecting to think about the small, independent art galleries, boutiques, and small not-for-profits in cities that are CONSTANTLY looking for college-aged interns.</p>
<p>Also: The point about being "only" three or four hours away from a city to visit a museum is ridiculous. It is so rewarding to be able to take an hour or two break from study and go into the MoMA. Or, after art history class, go to the Met and actually SEE the painting that was just in lecture. Unmatched experience.</p>
<p>Internship opportunities certainly ought to be more feasible. In the particular case I'm familiar with though, the kid & acquaintances mostly seemed to have regular old on-campus jobs, of just the same sort that they would have in a "college town" type school.
Maybe there were scheduling or time committment issues. Or maybe most of those internships don't pay, and to live in the city they need to make some money.</p>
<p>As for the other, I've lived in or near a major city for quite some number of years, I don't know how many times you want to go to a particular museum, but for me the number isn't huge. Go once, that holds me for long time. They make those rounds as freshmen, but, for many, then that's basically done. YMMV and all that.</p>
<p>What they really want is places for large groups of students to hang out casually, locally, on a routine basis, that don't cost anything. So they don't have to go off all the time to some museum they don't particularly want to go to again, or some club. And that's what may be relatively lacking.</p>
<p>i don't know what school monydad's relative went to but I'm glad it wasn't mine...eek</p>
<p>dbwes, I may not have been clear in my initial post. I thought I made it clear that there are several universities in major cities that offer the full range of undergraduate experiences, including Boston College, Chicago, Georgetown, Penn, Rice, UCLA and USC. I do believe that a student is more likely to have a more complete undergraduate experience in a College town, but I never said that a student cannot get such an experience in a major city.</p>
<p>Hillary, the kind of internship you are referring to (in a small boutique) is readily availlable in most mid-sized/large college towns. The internships that most people would assume are only availlable to students in big cities are with large firms, not with local boutiques. Finally, some people may want to go to a museum on a daily or weekly basis. Most of us only care to go once in a while. To me, going to a museum once a month, when I spent a weekend in a major city (I used to spend 10 or so weekends a year in Chicago or Toronto when I was a student at Michigan). Of course, an Art history major will have access to more art in NYC, LA or Chicago than in small college town. But like I said, most students don't major in Art History and do not have a need to go to museums or the opera on a frequent basis. But even then, I recall having a pretty respectable art museum and musical performances in Ann Arbor.</p>
<p>If you really can't decide, try somewhere like Georgetown. College town within a big city.</p>
<p>Personally I want a defined campus, but within or near a big city. That way you still have the excitement of the city, with the community feeling of a campus and somewhere quieter to return to. But any school that says they're "only" 3 to 4 hours away from a major city is a huge turn off for me. I don't want to be trapped in a small town for four years. I've already done that for 18.</p>
<p>"i don't know what school monydad's relative went to but I'm glad it wasn't mine...eek "</p>
<p>Actually I know of a few colleges that are more or less like that, not just one.</p>
<p>In a collegetown setting, one will spend a typical weekend evening in and around the general vicinity of the college, in the company of people who are overwhelmingly also from the college.</p>
<p>The extent to which an urban college deviates from this situation- not merely by student choice, but perhaps also by dearth of activities and locales to keep people on or around the campus - can determine the extent to which a true college experience is likely to be realized there. If you are every weekend having to truck to places remote from your college, where you wiill be in the company of people mostly not from your college, or even not attending any college altogether- then your social experience may be perceived as deviating dramatically from the collegetown experience.</p>
<p>I prefer the collegetown experience, such as East Lansing... Ann Arbor... Madison etc... Though keep in mind many say Boston ( city of 500,000+) is a collegetown. Maybe when speaking of residing in a large city as a college student, a small city near/ community that give the collegetown atmosphere is also diserable.</p>
<p>Like a post said above, finding a collegetown within/near a big city is also nice.</p>
<p>But be careful. We saw some suburban campuses that had he same issues as the city schools. People just emptied out to go into the city on weekends, there was no on-campus life to speak of.</p>
<p>This is a great thread. Thank you collegebunny for getting it started. I think it would be really helpful for people to know more about the colleges that are a) in an exciting city and b) have an actual campus. So Penn and Columbia count, while GWU and NYU don't. Also, it is good to know what the neighborhood is like on all sides. I rarely see this. Should I do this in a different thread, or is it OK to do it here? An example:</p>
<p>UCLA-nice area all around. Higher density hoses, apartments and Greek houses on one side, Belair mansions on another side (across Sunset Blvd), Holmby Hills (super rich area) on another side, Westwood Village (combination of student-friendly stores and restaurants, rich people stores and movie premiere theaters) on the other side.</p>
<p>USC-L.A. Coluseum, Sports arena and county museums on one side, strip malls on a couple of the corners of campus, if you go a few blocks in any direction, its not too nice of a neighborhood.</p>
<p>I wish I knew all these specifics about Columbia, Penn, Georgetown, U of Texas, U of Washington, Rice, Washington U, U of Chicago, Trinity College (Conn), Brown, Yale</p>