<p>As an undergraduate I don't want to be spending too much money because I would like to eventually go on to grad school but at the same time I would like a good education. The financially safe option is obviously Hunter but if Stony brook is a lot better , I wouldn't mind taking on the debt. My question is however, how much better is it , if it is that much better at all?</p>
<p>Wrong forum? Stony and Hunter is the same in terms of quality. It just depends what you want to study. There are majors that Stony has but Hunter doesn’t. If you want to go onto grad school, it doesn’t matter where you go for undergrad. Just keep debt at a minimum.</p>
<p>I would recommend Stony Brook over Hunter for the sciences. I agree with lilmelonred on the debt issue.</p>
<p>I’ve been a student at both (tho, admittedly, it’s been a while) and really think they both provide a fine education. While lab facilities are, indeed, nicer at Stony Brook, I would likely choose Hunter. I found the classes smaller, profs more accessible, and (most importantly) the attitude of students to be far better at Hunter. Many of my classmates were first generation students or students who had to combine work and school, and they were eager to get involved in classes and for the most part really wanted to be there. At Stony Brook there was more an air of entitlement and many students seemed like they wanted to make the least effort possible. Now, I know those are sweeping statements, and I’m sure there are diligent students at Stony Brook and slackers at Hunter, so I’m just giving you my impression. But that, along with the financial savings, makes Hunter seem like a better choice. Not to mention that you can always take advantage of the Hunter price tag for a couple of years and then transfer to Stony Brook if you find you want to down the road.</p>