<p>sikawa--I suggest you check out some of the other forums with your questions about college.</p>
<p>No impact whatsoever.</p>
<p>edit: Actually if they would have really pushed it hard it probably would have been a negative.</p>
<p>It is important to me, but I've read in some articles that colleges are attributing rising tuition, in part, to the cost of "greening" the campus with energy efficient new buildings and technology. So, although its important to me, I'm not sure if I'm willing to pay more tuition for it. What do you guys think?</p>
<p>I suppose it depends on whether you're paying for the "capital" or reaping the returns of lower energy costs. ;)</p>
<p>There are many schools that are implementing "green ideas" in their own way. How the students attending that institution view sustainability and environmental issues is more important to me than an administration advertising its "green factor". For example, I am much more impressed by schools whose graduates subscribe to the idea of the sustainability pledge:
(from the Sierra Club website)
"Unless you've got a trust fund, you've got to make a buck. But many students are unwilling to give up their ideals to do so. Some 200,000 seniors at more than 100 colleges have signed a Graduation Pledge of Social and Environmental Responsibility, initiated at California's Humboldt State University in 1987. Participants promise to consider sustainability along with salary at any job they're offered, and to work to improve the practices of any company that employs them. Their ranks are likely to keep multiplying: According to a recent survey by KeyBank, an educational loan provider, this year's freshman class is more concerned about the environment than the job market they'll face upon graduation. And with green business a growth industry, the ribbon pledgers wear at commencement may be just what recruiters are looking for."</p>
<p>It's nice to be energy-efficient, but it doesn't matter to me if one college is "greener" than another. To be counting that factor into any sort of decision regarding school choice is kind of silly. But I've noticed that on tons of the glossy brochures that schools send they usually have in the corner how environmentally friendly their process was . . . like % soy or something.</p>
<p>Not a factor whatsoever. Being green means higher investment/transition costs, which hurts those on financial aid.</p>
<p>Environmental friendliness might not have much to do with quality of instruction, but I don't think greenness should be dismissed as just silly. I'm not talking all out hippie greenness, but things like encouraging recycling, reducing waste, energy-saving practices, being considerate, environmental engineering, etc. Things like this are important in terms of material and energy sustainability. How we manage our limited resources today and how efficiently we use our energy will affect the quality of our future. While widespread advertisement of greenness might be annoying, I think this kind of forward-thinking-ness is still something very valuable.</p>
<p>I think that it doesn't really matter when you're apply. If your school has good "green" status, then fantastic, and if not, then it sounds like they could use a student to come in and get the ball rolling, right?</p>
<p>It's important for me. I don't go out looking for green colleges, however, I think of it as a plus when they are or are becoming green.</p>
<p>It definitely counts...I'm into environmental activism now (it's a big EC of mine), and I'd like to continue it in college.</p>
<p>Roger, CSM should be made aware that CC is not a random sample of students and parents and CCers are probably not the best population to respond to this question. As a group we tend to overrepresent students at the top end of the applicant pool, and we tend to be overly obsessed with the most selective schools in the country. Many of us have strong beliefs about environmental issues, but few of us would recommend turning down an Ivy for a lower-rated school that's notably environment-focused. But if they could find a more random sample, they'd be tapping into families that are deciding between multiple in-state public universities. It's much more likely that they'd be particularly drawn toward one of their state system campuses that's overtly green.</p>
<p>Not really, if the school you like isn't you can't help make it....</p>
<p>It's important that a school is environmentally responsible, but I hardly think this would affect a student's decision on whether or not to go there.</p>
<p>If meeting my university's power needs is cheaper with dead dinosaurs than it is with wind power, then as a trustee I would demand that the money used to soothe our green egos go towards the real mission of the university--towards faculty recruitment/retention, research, financial aid, etc.</p>
<p>It really depends all on what it means to be "cheaper".</p>
<p>Any current capital investment always hurts in the present regardless of its future returns.</p>
<p>I guess it depends on the school. A more established school might have more room to invest in greener things, whereas for other schools their money might be better directed towards faculty, financial aid, etc. Burning dinosaurs will get expensive very soon, though, and won't last forever : P</p>
<p>I think that being environmentally conscious is exercising global responsibility - many educational institutions can afford to reduce their paper output or put recycling bins all around campus or print on recycled paper and they ought to. I would never attend an institution that did not recycle, simply because it's a poor decision from a moral standpoint. That being said, the extent of environmental responsibility may vary.</p>
<p>
I can see how well Penn instills Ben Franklin's environmental views in students. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.</p>
<p>Oh NOES, not the Almanack! :o</p>