<p>@mogrimoogle, I agree with your overall point to ribalto that he(?) should think long-term about his college decisions instead of basing them on the current dreaminess of a school. However, I take issue with some of your supporting reasons. Rice students are not happy because “no one talks about” the negatives; that is demonstrably false. One has but to sit at a meal table or pick up the latest copy of the Thresher to hear and see students voice their opinions on the issues you mentioned. But the vast majority of Rice students are not outraged to the point of rioting about these issues because most are aware that in each of these categories Rice is faring etter than most of its peers. </p>
<p>“Housing assignment issues.” Rice is currently able to support nearly 80% of its undergrad population with excellent on-campus housing. Because of the facilities and the residential college system, this is one of the few universities in which students actually WANT to live on campus; at many other places it’s the other way around. Of the students who do not live on campus, some do so voluntarily, but most are forced off. I very strongly dislike this for a number of reasons, and I think it is unfortunate that the administration did not work to resolve this issue during expansion. However, I’ve encountered Rice students who disagree with me; after living off campus for a year themselves, they think everyone should experience the OC life. </p>
<p>“Unnecessary rise of tuition.” Tuition hikes, whether they are necessary or not, burden my family even further so I oppose them. We are feeling the pinch already with this new one. Unfortunately, though, tuition has risen ridiculously all over the country for various reasons. Even with this new hike, our tuition is still markedly lower than most of our peers, maintaining Rice’s better value. Plus, there will be an accompanying increase in aid offered. </p>
<p>“Increasingly overbearing administration.” You may see it this way, but people at other schools with truly imposing administrations view Rice differently. In fact, new star hires of ours from California cited the relative lack of hawkish bureaucracy at Rice as one of the factors that lured them here. </p>
<p>“Retention rate of professors.” This is a general higher education issue. Rice is pretty good at keeping faculty it wants here. Every now and then we get raided by other schools that want a prof or two and are willing to pay an arm and a leg to get them. At the same time, Rice is actively and unabashedly raiding other schools for talent it wants to gain and keep. Take the UCSD Biophysics profs, or the acclaimed organist from Rider, or the MIT materials science dept head for examples. </p>
<p>Mogrimoogle, I am sorry you are no longer as happy at Rice. I have been here several years and will be graduating next year, but I am more pleased with this remarkable place than I have ever been. This is not because I ignore and don’t talk about things I dislike. Rather, I am quite vocal about them because I want Rice to be even better for future students. </p>
<p>@ribalto, I do encourage you to think long-term. As mogrimoogle has shown, the idea of a dream school is subject to fading. Given the info you’ve supplied so far, Rice does seem to be a practical option for you: it presents less of a financial burden, it has historically had excellent graduate school placement (72% accepted to their first-choice programs), and you appear to like the school somewhat at least. You should post in the Stanford forum to get their opinions too. Good luck with your decision!</p>