<p>Your/your daughter’s claim was this: “people who grow up in bad weather can be content staying indoors all day”</p>
<p>Which I countered with a source saying Minneapolis is the healthiest city in the U.S., and stated that it is also considered one of the most “outdoorsy.”</p>
<p>Then you said this: “[the Forbes study] also does not take into account any time spent outdoors. In other words, it is not ranking “outdoorsy” cities, as Sally claimed.”</p>
<p>Both SomeOldGuy and I have presented ample evidence to support our claim, but you keep needling me about this. I don’t understand why. Why can’t I love the Midwest and you love wherever it is you live? Why can’t it be OK that not everyone wants to live in Northern California, and that we do not feel we are “settling” to live where we do? It’s the same as our college choices–there is no one perfect “fit” for everyone.</p>
<p>If you are going to argue about what I wrote, you can at least be (easily) accurate. Here it is:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So what, exactly, are you counter arguing? That there are no people from bad weather climes that are content to stay indoors all day? Or that my D isn’t depressed by the thought of it?</p>
<p>Now we know! Dumb it is. And so is the concept of best fit. Living in a place one can be happy is obviously not as relevant as the usual suspects, namely how fast does a school climb in the USNews, how fast it sheds its no fun and uncommon image, and how prestigious it is. </p>
<p>Fwiw, poll a few boys looking at schools this year, and the highest criteria might very well be the presence of beautiful girls in a sunny campus. And lots of parties.</p>
<p>going on a tangent - but - you should try playing golf before calling it an “inactive” sport. yep - it may not provide you with the same level of exercise as running or basketball - but believe me it is not fishing either (apologize in advance to fishing enthusiasts - never done it so could be way off here).</p>
<p>For those looking at elite schools: why do public universities have such a bad rap? Probably because the weather at elite schools is better than the weather at public universities. Perhaps Bay and Sally would care to argue with each other over this one? ;)</p>
<p>Methinks the topic has drifted, but fun nonetheless.</p>
<p>ChoatieMom, I’m not sure it’s fun. To your point, though, if there is a Venn diagram of “elite schools” and “good weather” there should be only one desirable school: Stanford. Most of the others are in Nor’easter land or the “frigid Midwest.”</p>
<p>Bay, this is the last time I will engage you on this. Your daughter is “observing” others’ “contentment” with “staying indoors all day” because they live in “bad weather” places. I don’t know how one “observes” others’ contentment, but all I have tried to do is counter–with facts–the notion that people in cold places are inactive and indoors all the time. It’s really pretty simple.</p>
<p>To go back to the original question, I think deep down in some people’s subconscious there’s a lurking suspicion that private=exclusive=higher quality, while public=designed to be open to all=less discriminating=lower quality. What this doesn’t take into account, obviously, is that there is enormous variation in both public and private colleges & universities.</p>
<p>I’m with Sally … the generalizations about “bad weather locations” are way off in my experience. I lived in LA for a year and hated the climate due to the lack of seasons. IF someone asked me my favorite memories of my time in Ithaca included on the list would be night time runs in snow storms, sledding on lib slope (stealing trays from the dining halls and sledding on the big hill behind the main libraries), snow ball fights, hockey games, and coed touch football games in the snow. Living in a 4 season place is pretty simple to me … stay active … which seems to be pretty easy for tons of college kids in my experience … and for me the variety of those seasons is great.</p>
<p>I totally get why someone who grew up in San Diego, for example, and used to that weather might not like 4 season weather when they experience it … just as I get why a person who grow ups with 4 seasons might not appreciate a place with warm weather all year as much as locals.</p>
<p>sally, my Venn diagram would include only those you exclude which is why we’ll never get anywhere discussing weather.</p>
<p>And thanks to Sue22 for pulling us back on topic. I think that lurking suspicion she describes does drive much perception unfortunately. What would the college app process be like if we had no notion of “elite” and had never heard of college rankings?</p>
<p>Great, but that notion (that people in cold places are inactive and indoors all the time) was not <em>my</em> notion, so I don’t know why you directed all your arguing at me.</p>
<p>In fact, no one on this thread argued that notion, to my recollection.</p>
<p>I don’t know who you are talking about here, xiggi, but it isn’t me. </p>
<p>What I said: Living in a place where you can be happy is nice, but that is almost anyplace. The commonly held belief that you can only be happy in California, Texas, or someplace with four defined seasons is, for 99+% of the people, bunk. Objectively. I do believe in fit, but don’t believe it has much to do with things like climate or bathroom design. (And I suppose what I believe in is “loose fit”: I don’t think that there is just one special perfect college for everyone; I think everyone can be happy and successful at a variety of colleges.)</p>
<p>I do care a lot about academics, which means that I care a fair amount about academic prestige – but really only for kids who want the experience of serious academics, which is a fairly small number of kids. I don’t now give, and never have given, a hoot about USNWR rankings, except for having a certain intellectual interest in the quixotic project of trying to come up with objective rankings. And the last thing I care about is prestige in the sense of what your classmates think potential employers may think about your college.</p>
<p>And as for your boys who are looking for a sunny campus with good-looking girls . . . of course. But it’s dumb. Just calling it for what it is. There’s plenty of dumb in the world to go around; I can accept it without endorsing it. (What I tell kids: “Don’t worry about finding good-looking [girs/boys/whatevers]. Thanks to [God’s intelligent design / natural selection], you are pretty much wired to find the [girs/boys/whatevers] wherever you are to be plenty attractive. Having been 16 in the brief era when overalls were a popular female fashion choice, I know for a fact that a girl wearing overalls can still make your heart and everything else go Zing!”)</p>
<p>JHS
There are so many colleges with varying characteristics that I do believe one can increase ones chances (but no guarantee) of finding certain experiences they desire while at college by looking at all kinds of detail. I don’t think it is dumb at all.</p>
<p>Well, I agree with JHS that picking a school on your perception of the appearance of the students is monumentally stupid. There are cheaper ways to meet people you consider good looking. But some kids ARE monumentally stupid.</p>
<p>What if there are two colleges of equal academic quality that you are choosing between? Is it okay to consider what the student body looks like then?</p>
<p>JHS, I answered to your post that called the criteria used by applicants dumb by posting a mildly sarcastic post about other criteria that often make the rounds on CC. I did take a shot directed at Chicago to avoid being completely sarcastic. And I am sure you know what I think about the uncommon rise of the Chicago in the rankings! </p>
<p>Back to the weather and the environment issue, it is obvious you consider it to be total bunk and dumb. I happen to think that it is quite obnoxious to dismiss what might be important to others. And this is why I called the selection process to be a subjective affair, but again you seem to think that is not. </p>
<p>Fwiw, I never claimed that everyone should consider the weather as a valid criterion; I suggested that for some it is, and gave my own experience as an example. If it makes you feel better, feel free to dismiss the real experience of others for the simple reason that it does not correspond to your own.</p>
<p>In the meantime, the beauty of the application process is that there is a multitude of schools to choose from, that one can toss his or her hat in the ring. As far as I know, it also gets better when some of the choices become a real possibility in April or December. How that final decision is made depends on individual choices. </p>
<p>Heck, some people won’t apply to a school because the name sounds silly!</p>
<p>There are numerous threads here on “stupid reasons a kid will/won’t consider a college.” Some of them are hilarious. And many of us have had head-shaking experiences with our own kids–i.e., my son’s deeply rooted dislike of colonial architecture. Dumb? Yes. But he still had numerous other great college choices that were more aesthetically pleasing to him. If anything it helped us narrow down the options. For some kids, the appearance of a campus is as important as weather or the attractiveness of the student body is to others.</p>
<p>Getting back to the subject of this thread, there are top-notch students who HAVE to have a great sports scene on their campus, and are thus drawn to state flagships with big-time football teams. It doesn’t make them less smart or sensible for factoring in something that, to them, is a desirable part of the college experience.</p>
To your point, though, if there is a Venn diagram of “elite schools” and “good weather” there should be only one desirable school: Stanford. Most of the others are in Nor’easter land or the “frigid Midwest.”</p>