Does location really matter?

My son is creating his college list of where he wants to apply. He is putting a good amount of weight on wether it is in a city or close to a city. I am not sure how important this really is. When I was in college I never left campus, maybe that was just my experience? Another thought is that if it is in the city (like Columbia) will the students not be as cohesive?

My daughter was the opposite and wanted a more rural area. I think it’s all personal preference. There are so many great schools out there and I don’t think it’s limiting to have the setting as one of the criteria.

It’s considered a valid concern, today. One of the first questions we talk about, affter academics and social fit, is size and location. Some kids want to be near internship possibilities or other sorts of engagement opportunities or the arts, etc. Or transportation. And when you think about it, kids can be cohesive in a city, as they make friends, attend classes and events together. The greater risk would be a true suitcase school, where most of campus clears out, nights and weekends.

It’s true that, on so many campuses, you don’t “need” to leave. But some kids find that a bit claustrophobic, over time. It’s YMMV (your mileage may vary.)

My daughter wanted a city school and I think a city school has a different vibe than a rural one. It definitely influenced her final decision, choosing the more urban located school.

In a city with lots of colleges, like Boston, there is some cohesion between all of the students, not just those in one school. Even in a city, most students will live in dorms or off-campus housing that has lots of other students in it.

However, sometimes kids idealize things. They want to leave near or in a city to enjoy the culture etc. that it has to offer, but these kids have never gone to a museum or street fair in their lives and are unlikely to do so during college.

It can be very important. One of the major differences between city colleges vs. ones not in the city is the community itself. For instance colleges for like NYU or GW, the emphasis is on the city itself rather than the actual campus community and students may spend increasingly more time in the city itself. On the other hand, connections and easy access to a city can be advantageous for internships and the like, by not being limited by the bounds of the college campus during the semester.

For many colleges, it won’t really matter. If it is not directly inside a city – chances are students will mostly be on campus anyway. I remember in HS receiving lots of brochures saying "1 hour away from NYC! 3 hours away from Boston! Etc. But if it is not within a close distance, it is unlikely the student is going to spend a significant amount of time there.

Both of our kids wanted to attend college in a city. They both grew up in a midwest college town and wanted a different environment. For #1, the goal was to attend college “in a major league city” – major league in the sense of major league sports. When attending University of Chicago he made a point of getting well off campus a few times per week, both to attend sport events and for other adventures. For #2, her goal was to attend college “in a real city, preferably in the East.” She attended Rhode Island School of Design, after deciding that Providence “is enough of a city” and was within reasonably close proximity to Boston (1 hr away) and New York (2-3 hrs away). She would take the bus or train to NYC and stay with friends from high school who were attending NYU and Columbia.

Many kids can take advantage of a broader urban environment without it detracting from their on-campus life or obligations. It opens up many options for entertainment, culture, museums, etc. Now, several years post-graduation, but partly by chance, both kids are living in the same very large city. A city that WE like to visit.

My son didn’t really want rural but wanted a college with a vet school. He ended up getting his best deal at Kansas State and fell in love with the campus and the campus town. He hardly leaves. They went into Kansas City a couple of times and to Wichita a little but mainly stayed on campus and in the surrounding area. He said he really didn’t notice it wasn’t a big city because he was so busy and happy.

Both of my kids had an urban setting as one of their top three criteria for colleges. One also had “pleasing weather” (no snow). You know…the kid has to live at this location for four years. I personally think location is an important criteria for some students.

It shouldn’t be the only criteria…but it certainly can be an important one.

I went to a college in a very rural location and it was beautiful, I got a great education, made lifelong friendships. But a few years ago, when a student fundraiser called and asked what my fondest memory was, I inadvertently blurted out, “Going to xxx,” which was the closest big U town (some distance, and in my last two years, we went often. I even had a job there, at a student bar.) I don’t think that was the answer the student expected.

My kids were in a metro area of 60k, not a thriving place. But it was enough for them to focus on the campus, which had plenty to do- and community engagement was very important to them, community partnering and service. One was also able to be involved as a local political volunteer.

You look, you visit, you see what they feel comfortable with. Check the activities, clubs, visiting lecturers, etc. Sometimes, as they explore more, their ideas change. One of D1’s early visits was to a mega U in a mega city, a campus quite spread out. Instantly changed her view.

Plus, as many say, they do a lot of growing between now and September. And then from Sept to December and May.

Look at a range.

It definitely shapes the college experience. My girlfriend describes her time at UC Berkeley as “living in the real world”. My friend at Kenyon? Not so much. Different experiences to be had, but neither is necessarily better

I went to both college and grad school in cities. While it’s true I didn’t go off campus a lot - as an undergrad I took a couple of architecture related courses where the big city architecture was important. My younger son did a surprising amount in Boston. He was involved in a group that got IR majors and military students together from all over Boston. He took Krav Maga lessons. He took a class at the Museum of Fine Arts. He also worked there in the summer where he took even more advantage of the city.

I think it’s a valid concern. My D did not want to be in a rural area or in a city. As mentioned… it should not be the most important criteria, but it’s still important.

When our D went through her college selection process, we asked her what were the non negotiable things about her college list. Her number one no was no college in big cities. We were disappointed because it wiped out tons of excellent colleges in Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, etc., etc. she was steadfast about it.

She is very happy where she is now. For your son, if it is important to him, it is important to him. You should take that into consideration.

The OP has been banned BTW.

Funny - our two are polar opposites. S wouldn’t consider urban setting. D wants nothing outside of a big city.

I looked through the responses quickly and did not notice anyone mentioning proximity to internships and the availability of them would be more plentiful near a city. For example, if you want to work in government get near DC. May times you can still live on campus while doing a local internship.
Your major is also a huge variable with this! My son will be a Freshman nursing major. A rural college has mostly local and maybe one major hospital to do your clinicals at. A Boston area college would give a student a plethora of the best hospitals in the country as well as highly rated secondary clinics to complete your clinicals at. Very important!

Location also matters from the perspective that it may be easier to land that first job close to campus. Is the location somewhere you would want to be for 4-8 or 9 years?

Location mattered a lot to my D. She wanted a college in a city so that it would be easier to find internships, and she also wanted to be in a city that afforded her lots of opportunities for employment once she graduated. She ONLY looked at schools in large cities.

Fast forward ten years - she had two internships in her college city, then found a permanent job in that city after graduation. She’s still a big-city girl. (Different city now - but still big-city.) For her, it was a choice and a plan that really paid off.

Actually, the city location was good for other things, too. That city provided lots of entertainment choices for her as an undergrad beyond campus parties and concerts – if her friends were out at a frat party that she didn’t want to attend, she’d head into the city to a museum, concert, festival, restaurant, and/or play instead.

@Momtofourkids , see #2.

I think that in general, a more isolated school will have a tighter community because your entertainment will be the people yo, odds are thu are “stranded” with.

In a city, some of the energy will be siphoned off by the city.

If you don’t gel with the dominant culture at an isolated school, it can be really tough. At an urban school, odds are that you can make a life outside school. This is one of the reasons people talk so much about fit at those smaller, often out of the way, LACs.

Location matters, but preferences may vary. Large cities are usually more expensive to live in (room and board costs might be higher), but in many cases they offer closer proximity to internships. If you want to study agriculture, you probably shouldn’t do it in NYC or Boston.

Something else to consider: I had to relocate after college because on a starting salary, I couldn’t afford to live in the city in which my alma matter was located.