Colleges you/child crossed off the list after visiting

<p>As soon as we pulled into Oswego, NY, I wanted to leave. I decided to stay quiet with my thoughts and keep an open mind.</p>

<p>Surprisingly, my son really disliked the SUNY Oswego campus. I was surprised because he’s very easy going and did not have a strong reaction to any other campus (we visited 17 schools).</p>

<p>Buildings are stark and look like bomb shelters (except for the new bldgs).</p>

<p>Town is not the nicest.</p>

<p>Some sort of power plant next door.</p>

<p>Harsh weather.</p>

<p>A shame because it’s a great school and on beautiful Lake Ontario. They really haven’t taken advantage of the lake views.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If you didn’t like the people you met, the buildings you saw or the whole campus, that’s fine. But this goes way too far. Please share with me the colleges that don’t have the blue light security system in the Northeast? It should be a real short list. </p>

<p>Don’t like what the women wear around Quinnipiac campus? Take away Uggs, leggings, North Face and the cell phone embedded in their left hand and you can have the remaining college women in the Northeast fit into a small McDonald’s. </p>

<p>Enjoy UVM if you decide to go there (commenting on your other school visit). That’s a REAL diverse Uggs - North Face wearing group. Also enjoy their blue light security system.</p>

<p>The poster is entitled to like or dislike any college for any reason s/he wants. That’s what this thread is for.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, but this did make me literally LOL:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>For any reason? Really? So I guess racist comments are good here … right? </p>

<p>If someone posts drivel about a school while taking backhand slaps at regions of this country (such as New Jersey and Long Island) I may choose to comment on it. </p>

<p>If you don’t like that … deal.</p>

<p>This thread has generally managed to remain good humored. I think you need to lighten up. (Speaking as a fellow CT Yankee.)</p>

<p>Here’s another regional generalization: my S absolutely refused to apply to any school in Michigan after meeting several aggressively unintellectual Michigan State grads, including one who boasted about never having actually read a book other than a textbook during his four years at MSU.</p>

<p>Despite the fact that his father, who is intellectually-inclined, is an MSU grad.</p>

<p>Kids. What can you say?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>SIGH. I too believe that sex belongs in marriage, but this is offensive. It’s fine to hope to find a young woman who shares their point of view. It’s the “a girl who has been passed around” nonsense that’s offensive. </p>

<p>Truth is that there are many young women who are virgins who would steer clear of a guy with this attitude.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I feel humbled.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>As a feminist, I would hope so. </p>

<p>Robertson Davies had a great line about what constituted “true” chastity in his book *A Mixture of Frailties *. If memory serves, it was something along the lines of “having one’s body in one’s soul’s keeping.” Making one’s own well-considered decisions about what to do, in other words, rather than acting out of fear OR a desire to buy approval with sexual favors.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Agreed. There have been a lot worse reasons IMO than “There is no diversity and the uniform is leggings, uggs, and a northface”.</p>

<p>CTYankee - you should lighten up. It was one person’s opinion</p>

<p>Hi all.</p>

<p>I am not going to burden this thread with my personal thoughts on premarital sex, but I will say that teaching Women’s Studies and intellectual history has cast the entire issue in a much different light for me.</p>

<p>I see an emphasis on a sexual double standard as a socio-historical outgrowth of the advent of agriculture. It men in that material culture in various ways. I think because agriculture is no longer our dominant material culture, these values will change over generations.</p>

<p>I agree with Robertson Davies’ quote. And sex has a different valence for different people. I did tell my kids that extreme emotions may accompany sexual activity and to make sure they are in a safe situation to experience them, especially if they don’t know themselves well.</p>

<p>Beyond that, I really do think nothing is written in stone and mores, tastes and desires do vary very much from person to person.</p>

<p>As I said, I’m a feminist-sixties person who attended Woodstock. I am offended by any talk of sluts or “passed around.”</p>

<p>I am not offended by anyway who wishes delay sexual activity and wait for marriage. It’s certainly a valid position. I don’t think those people should judge other folks who have come to different conclusions.</p>

<p>Let the wild rumpus start, said Max. Whatever did he mean? Just kidding.</p>

<p>And I have a son and a daughter and felt the same about each.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Agreed, there are worse reasons, like the same poster deciding that campus safety is an issue because they only noticed 3 blue security lights on campus. I know a hatchet job when I read it.</p>

<p>Or was the campus so small it only needed 3 lights? </p>

<p>I think the danger of casual sex (among others) is that one person may think it’s more casual than the other. Personally I have no problem with pre-marital sex, but think it should be part of a committed relationship, but that’s just me. I realize there are other people who feel differently and I have enjoyed their company.</p>

<p>I think sometimes those provocative posters are up just to provoke us parents.</p>

<p>ctyankee,</p>

<p>Lets get this thread back to it original intent. “Reasons why your kid (or you, if a rising college freshman) crossed a college of the list”. </p>

<p>This thread was to be humurous if nothing else, but particularly non-judgemental. Nobody is attacking anyones preferences, just relaying the wacky reasons a school was eliminated.</p>

<p>“one person may think it’s more casual than the other.”</p>

<p>Funny, the same can be said of marriage.</p>

<p>OK
So I eliminated UNC-Chapel Hill (in the 80s) because I didn’t want to take swimming…it was the preppy/hot roller/big hair/hair spray era and much to much work to do it 2x a day because of swimming…
silly yes…but whatever…</p>

<p>It may seem like I am, but I am not trying to be a provocateur. </p>

<p>I guess my involvement with issues on an intellectual level drives me to post, but I respect that others feel differently. Please forgive me if it seems otherwise.</p>

<p>

Well put, and very true. I hate the phrase “casual sex” because, like the word “drugs,” it has come to stand for a wide range of different things with different effects on the participants. The stereotype is that casual sex is an empty, mechanical experience shared by cold, selfish strangers with no feelings for one another besides lust. The reality is often very different–which is good, except that, as you note, the more emotion people bring to sex, the more vulnerable they are to being hurt when their partner fails to second that emotion. I don’t think this is a reason to stigmatize casual sex, or even necessarily to avoid it, but it’s a good reason to be cautious and very, very considerate about it. </p>

<p>BTW, I love the Davies quote above. If more people used the word “chastity” in such a subtle and empowering sense, I think there’d be less cringing when the word is used.</p>

<p>There isn’t a reason to be self-righteous about it, mythmom.
Anyway, the point was to get back on topic.</p>

<p>I ruled out:
UPenn
Swarthmore
Haverford
Brown
UChicago</p>

<p>from visiting.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Hmmm, I didn’t notice you complaining about the premarital sex discussion …</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Wrong. None of that is true. A quick look at the O.P. should make that clear. You want non-judgmental, stay off the Internet.</p>