<p>^ Please note the IF in my previous statement. If you do not fulfill that criteria, fine–the second part of the sentence naturally does not apply. It does, however, apply far too often in these types of discussions.</p>
<p>I have not visited either St. Olaf nor Furman, and I made no claims to have done so. I have visited 20+ different schools and I find little value in visits. A subjective one-day impression often colors one’s entire perception of the school, which is inaccurate no matter if it’s positive or negative.</p>
<p>My opinion on St. Olaf is based upon curriculum requirements explicitly spelled out on the school’s website. If, as an atheist, the OP’s D is OK with these Christian requirements, fine–she is absolutely entitled to that and indeed, she will do better than I in a Christian USA. But I personally think it is fallacious to privilege subjective feelings from visiting over a clear indication of institutional mission. As an institution, St. Olaf clearly feels it important that all of its students receive a strong academic grounding in Christianity and the Bible as part of a liberal arts education. As an atheist, I don’t agree, and I think many atheists would not agree.</p>
<p>Re: Furman, my impressions are indeed subjective, but many different subjective reports adding up to a common factor are stronger than any single report. You said yourself that Furman’s student body is mostly conservative Christians. CB states that Furman is in the suburbs of a small city–perhaps not as isolated as Williams or Grinnell, but certainly moreso than Macalester or even Swarthmore (IMO). It is a “dry campus,” which means relatively little unless the students respect that for a philosophical reason as in Earlham; I have not heard of Furman as a particularly dry school. Please note the distinction between fact (St. Olaf’s curriculum) and hearsay.</p>
<p>I agree that St. Olaf is less conservative than Furman; I disagree that either school is a good fit for a dyed-in-the-wool atheist.</p>