<p>Do you think it's better to study in London for the first semester, or stay at the main campus? I love London as a city and I plan on possibly living there in the future, yet I don't want to miss out on the first year experience at the college itself, especially the first semester when everyone is really friendly. Any opinions?</p>
<p>Is Skidmore giving you the choice of going to London or staying? I thought you didn't get to choose. I am biased and would choose London, but that is just me.</p>
<p>Someone do correct me, but doesn't the London offer give you the option to either go to London first semester OR be admitted as a January student? If so, I'd definitely choose London over nothing at all.</p>
<p>Besides, everyone is friendly no matter what semester it is. If you do choose to go to London, you automatically have 35 friends who have obviously had an incredible experience together. If you don't go, you will still be able to make friends with your suitemates, classmates, in clubs, etc. in the spring.</p>
<p>Also, in a way, you're not really missing out on the first few months of college -- just experiencing them a semester later. Obviously it's a little different, but it seems like in the long run it would be so much more beneficial and exciting to have spent a semester in London rather than not.</p>
<p>No, this year Skidmore did not give the 36 students the choice of starting in January. If they want to go to Skidmore, they had to start in London. They wanted everyone to do the Freshmen Experience and you don't get that if you start in January.</p>
<p>So it was London or nothing? That seems a little odd... I mean I get the whole freshman experience/Scribner seminar thing, haha wow I guess things are really changing... </p>
<p>Regardless, I still don't quite understand the OP's question about starting in London or starting on campus, unless they meant London versus going to a different school altogether?</p>
<p>As much as my D loves London, the biggest reason she turned down Skidmore was that she would have to start college there. When it really came down to it, she wanted the whole freshman on campus experience. Turning down Skidmore was hard, though.</p>
<p>2forcollege, she didn't have a choice in whether or not to opt for London or Saratoga Springs? Where did she end up and is she happy there?</p>
<p>Hi acme!</p>
<p>She really had a hard time deciding not to go to Skidmore. They said she could either spend the first semester in London or go on the waitlist for Saratoga Springs. Since she's already on the waitlist for U of Chicago, she didn't want to do that with Skidmore, too. </p>
<p>Back when she applied, she thought spending her first semester in London would be great if she were offered it. Much changes in their perspectives between then and now. She felt she wanted that whole big freshman on campus experience, so she ended up deciding to attend U Michigan (still waiting on Chicago though). But she feels like she'll be happy at Michigan, especially since she got into the Residential College program that has much of the artsy intellectual atmosphere that she loved about Skidmore and Chicago.</p>
<p>2forcollege, thanks for the update. UMich Residential College sounds awesome, and I hope she is looking forward to that enough that the UChicago waitlist starts to fade in her interest.</p>
<p>They are again tinkering with the London thing. D just submitted her Skidmore application a week ago and today got a mailing on the program. She has to respond by saying she wants to be considered for London only, Saratoga Springs only, or both. (Not responding will automatically put her in the "both" category.) Perhaps last year a large number of those assigned to London said "no dice" and they couldn't fill all the slots? I can't imagine how this works in practice at the admissions office, since the "London only" option doesn't make much sense to me. Anyone who picks "London only" is saying they are only interested in Skidmore because of the London semester and would go elsewhere if London isn't available. This doesn't seem to demonstrate much interest in the school where the person would spend the remaining 7 semesters. </p>
<p>The London program appears to be just a gussied up overflow valve that assures all the dorms will be filled--any first semester dropouts will be replaced by the returning Londoners--and doesn't seem to have much academic justification, if any. The fact that the rules keep changing suggests they don't really know what they're doing with the program. D will be checking "Saratoga Springs only" and defer any overseas study until junior year.</p>
<p>I'm glad to hear they gave students the option this year. I'm wondering how the London kids fared, since my D had strongly considered it. Thankfully, things worked out fine for her where she decided to go.</p>
<p>Wow MommaJ, you are so far from the truth it isn't funny. In fact, the London kids have a higher G.P.A. than their counterparts who stay on campus. Just for your info, there were Skidmore professor's kids who went to London. 2for college, they kids absolutely loved it and I mean loved it. They travelled with two Skidmore professors who lead the seminars that everyone at Skidmore has to take. So, instead of reading about it or talking about it, the London kids lived it for real. It was an incredible experience for my child and I recommend it to anyone who is thinking about Skidmore. I couldn't be happier with Skidmore and the educational experience my child had! How many kids go to Oxford, the Sky, Parliament, Big Ben, Stonehenge, pubs, soccer games, a Kanye West concert, twenty plays including the Globe Theatre, museums, libraries, and so much more? It was truely an incredible lifetime experience!</p>
<p>Glad to hear the London program was a good experience. Thank you for the update. One always wonders about the path not taken.</p>
<p>I'm not saying the London program itself isn't high quality, and I certainly don't mean to imply that the students in it are less qualified than anyone else. I just find it a strange educational choice, and I believe it was cooked up for reasons other than its educational value. After all, in its first iterations, students were placed in the program involuntarily, with their only alternatives being January admission and, later, no admission. I don't think most college educators would see the first semester of freshman year as an ideal time for study abroad--why not second semester, or sophomore year? It seems clearly conceived as a mechanism to manage the size of the student body, and no matter how great the program is or how much students end up liking it, that concept just doesn't sit well with me, especially in its previous, very manipulative format.</p>
<p>does london program kids get to choose* dorms when they return?</p>