Is non-academic fit as big a college choice factor in non-US countries, for reasonably strong students who have a wide range of choices from an admission standpoint (and financial standpoint, where necessary/applicable)?
In the US, it seems that, for those students who are not limited (by admission, finances, or life situation) to commuting to a local college, there is a big emphasis on the non-academic fit aspects when choosing a college. How common or uncommon is this line of thinking in other countries?
My husband is British. Although his college selection experience is not recent (was that a delicate enough way to say we’re old enough that things have almost certainly changed?) we still have many relatives in England who are college age. For his family at least, the American concept of fit is not a huge factor. They appear to first identify which colleges have programs they’re interested in and then prioritize the ones located in places they’d rather live. But more than one has ended up in a city they previously made jokes about, because that was the place they were admitted.
None of them made a big issue about touring, food, “vibe” and they all think the American obsession with college sports is bizarre. Even though many of them were active in multiple sports, they also think it’s odd that top American colleges consider sports skill as part of the admissions process.
I am not sure how you could measure it, but I wonder how much fit is an actual variable for most Americans at the end of the day. The concept of “nonacademic” fit is a luxury even for Americans. The users of this website seem to be a skewed population.
Agree with @NorthernMom61 - non-academic fit IS a luxury item. I live in India. People go where they get in. If there is a choice, they go to the one closest to home.
Yes, it is a luxury for reasonably good students from families with enough money to afford a significant level of choice, which is why post #0 says “for those students who are not limited (by admission, finances, or life situation) to commuting to a local college”.
But, in other countries, would students in similar luxury of choice situations care as much about non-academic fit as US students that have the luxury of choice do?
Take a look at all the posts from International students on CC worrying about the differences between Williams and Amherst; Harvard vs. Yale.
So yes- students from abroad who have the luxury of choice don’t even consider university in their own country (except as plan B) if they can get into a US college.
Umm. Not true, @blossom I have 2 current university students, including one who has current applications out for law school in the US and Canada. They are dual US/Canadian citizens. Both had/have options in the US, but chose to stay in Canada for undergrad, even though they had lived longer in the US. Money, academic fit and non-academic fit were the deciding factors, in that order. The “pre-law” student will probably end up in the US for law school, again because of academic fit. I have a neighbor whose daughter is a US/British dual citizen who applied this year for undergraduate. She mainly applied for Canadian and UK universities. She already has great acceptances and plans to go to one that has accepted her in the UK.
Bouders- the vast majority of kids outside the US go to university in their own country- of course.
The question was about kids living overseas for whom money is not a consideration (and we know that US colleges like these full pay internationals). And my answer is- based on what we read on CC, these kids are equally fixated on “fit” as are their American counterparts. They want to know about fraternity life, club sports, access to nightlife, etc. So while in their own country, kids may live at home and go to the local U, if they aren’t worried about money and are considering the US- they are just as finicky as our own kids vis-a-vis amenities.
My DD is in an international school with kids with A LOT of money who have applied to the US. I don’t see “fit” as a discussion - and very very few have visited the schools they applied to. Presitge is a concern. Major is a concern. Fit - not so much.
For my UK tribe the availability of the course they wanted, entry requirements, travel time from home, and after interview/visit day, their impression of teaching methods, staff attitudes and facilities, pretty much in that order. For the outdoor loving one, proximity to national parks factored in to a lesser degree; for the allied health occupation one, the method of mixing practical and theoretical work was very important. Other factors were not an issue.
@blossom Remember that the foreign students who post on CC are likely to be quite unrepresentative. They are the kids who are interested in college in the US, where non academic fit is very important and widely advertised. Some selection bias at work I think.
Speaking for England, non-academic fit is much less important but becoming more so since the higher tuition was introduced. But it has always been there: Swansea if you like surfing, London if you like urban life, Loughborough if sports are important to you.
Outside the US, the non-academic support and amenities, even at the top unis, would be more akin to what you would find at an American public (or American college of any type) back in the '80’s. Possibly lots of clubs/circles but that just means kids making their own fun. Basically, everything outside the US, to American eyes is a bare-bones public. And there isn’t so much of a concern with vibe because (outside of the tiny and subject-specific French grandes ecoles, which really are more like elite grad schools), they’re all kind of largish (ranging from the size of UPenn to the size of UMich) so everyone can find their own tribe.
Certainly, there are stereotypes of unis in both the UK and Japan, but when nearly every school is a mid-sized-to-gigantic bare-bones public that doesn’t do intense marketing to HS students to gin up apps and drive down admit rates, aren’t looking to “build a class” (with an eye towards current and future alumni donations) and differ mostly by admissions standards and locale (and typically don’t even differ by costs to nationals), you’re not going to see either students or schools emphasize non-academic fit much.
I think there are regions of OUR country that would have been totally FOREIGN to my kids. They expressed no interest, no curiosity to explore beyond (a) urban or metropolitan areas and (b) diverse and progressive regions.
Fact is, they didn’t NEED to expand the search zone because they had dozens of colleges in attractive (to them) locations to apply to. They each spent a time (semester or year) abroad in interesting places (London, Milan) that they used as launching points for independent travel, exploring different cultures.
Our HS german foreign exchange student was concerned about “non-academic fit” within his own country. He ultimately choose Universitat Passau because he liked the “campus”. He had multiple options including Humboldt University in Berlin (which was closer to home then Passau) and the University of Gottingen. He came back to the States for his graduate degree. He again had multiple options and choose The University of Cincinnati because he liked it best.
Nearly half of my relatives live in Canada, the rest live in the US. Of the ones who live in Canada, most went to the academically strong university that was close to where they live (UBC, Alberta, McMaster, Toronto, Queens, McGill). I suppose this means that location usually trumps academics. This might be reasonable since Canada is such a large country with quite a few very good universities which are spread out over more than 4,000 miles.
A few chose the not-quite-local school based on its having a strong program in their intended major. A few chose their school based on non-academic factors such as wanting a smaller school (Bishops, Mount Allison, Acadia, …).
My youngest decided to go to university in Canada. This took price off the table (all were affordable and not much different in price) and also took admissions off the table (she would get in anywhere). McGill and Toronto were probably off the table because she didn’t want anything that stressful even though she would have gotten in. This left perhaps 20 large schools and 8 or 10 small schools which would have been academically reasonable choices. She did choose between them based on what we might call non-academic fit.
Yep, outside the US, location/locale (and I should say layout, such as city vs. campus layout; big vs. small city vs. rural and sometimes living arrangements) tend to be the primary non-academic (non-cost non-prestige) concerns.
But many Americans seem to consider much more than location/locale/layout or even dorm life. I certainly have never heard of non-Americans deciding to apply or not apply because of some tour guide’s attitude or how rude/happy/stressed/etc. students looked.
In England social class is a factor too. For a long time Durham and Bristol were known as the place to go for posh kids who didn’t get in to Oxford or Cambridge. I don’t know if they still are.
@keepittoyourself over on The Student Room I see kids worrying/asking if both St. Andrews and/or Durham are “too posh” or if there will be any other state school students there. They also worry that the towns are too small with little nightlife and clubs. (My D17 was admitted to both, so we read both forums a lot)
The interesting thing to me as a parent of a chemistry student is they almost never ask about stuff that US parents/students ask like how rigorous the course is, how good the lecturers are or if there are undergrad research opportunities. It seems like if you are at the top level, say top 5 or so universities in the league table for that subject, it is assumed that these courses will be fairly standardized and they do not really worry about undergrad research the way students here do.
One reason is one I posted on another thread:
In England, unis have profs from outside peer universities write questions and give grading guidelines for end-of-year exams, and those exams determine your entire grade for undergrad, so people are confident that a 1st or 2:1 means roughly the same thing across all the top-tier unis*. This doesn’t happen in the US.
This tradition started with Durham, the first non-Oxbridge English uni established. They hired Oxbridge profs to administer exams and give final marks for their Durham students in order to show that a Durham degree was as legitimate and high-quality as an Oxbridge degree.
As for how good the lecturers are, well, they are all public research U’s (besides St. A’s, all upper mid-sized to large) and only Oxbridge has 1:1/2:1 tutorials. Plus, as you know, under the British higher education system, students are expected to take charge of their own education and don’t expect to be spoon-fed.*
And research isn’t really expected in undergrad.
Honestly, when it comes purely to academics, there isn't a huge difference in rigor among the top schools in a subject in the US either; as I noted before, looking at CS, the OS final at a top (public) CS school and elite private (Yale) had the same scale of rigor (MIT's questions were the same difficulty but had 50% more questions in the same amount of time).
I majored in chemistry in the U.S. and so far the only differences I see are:
Multiple lecturers per course. So in Inorganic Chem you might have a prof lecture for three weeks on transition metals, then another one on spectroscopy, and so on.
Move more quickly in to more lab time, as a first year she’s in the chem lab lab 6 hours a week, vs the three most do here. As a second year that will become 12 hours a week.
Students come in at more of a standardized level. Everyone is expected to have the same background and in math, for example, there were only 2 starting points. MT1002 if you had higher math, MT1001 if you did not or are not confident in your preparation. No placement exams, no remedial classes, you start at one or the other and it is possible to follow any major starting with either. In chemistry you can start as a first year or a second year. No honors track, no chem for non majors, no other choices. Advising meetings are very quick!