<p>Er, I think that you should review your post, Rutgers. While your points may be good, I think you need to remember one of the basic rules of the internet, namely:</p>
<p>Don't take an argument and make it about spelling. And, more importantly, if you do make it about grammar or spelling, ensure that your post is absolutely perfect. </p>
<p>I only mean to call you out on that to prevent others from doing so, that way the topic can remain on its course without it becoming a bickering competition between two posters.</p>
<p>In any case, as I said, (and I didn't mean this so much in a give/take way) you do make some good points. How can we know whether or not anyone discussing here has been to both schools? Furthermore, we probably need to question the worth of anecdotal evidence, especially from a student who doesn't even attend. The amount of variables in play in such a situation are vast. Who one is friends enough with to discuss their college with them is largely a function of personality, location, and a myriad other variables. That "my friends" think something is just not statistically independent enough to be meaningful in a school the size of Rutgers. I mean Deep Springs sure, and even Hampshire. But at even a few hundred people it becomes more and more arbitrary.</p>
<p>Asking current students would be a much better idea, and especially those who have been in both situations. Although there is still a tremendous amount of bias, they have more functional knowledge of the school and more importantly, they know other people there whom they may not be friends with, and thus are of some seperate personality type. By sampling them, you can get a sense of what these people believe.</p>
<p>Admittedly, at a school the size of Rutgers only a well researched poll would be of any use to judge the school, at least without specific segments such as major or even particular school. As it is, we're discussing the entire undergraduate experience of two huge colleges, with a variety of majors and individual schools, and in Rutger's case, campuses across schools.</p>
<p>That does not, of course, discount any individual's perception. But what must be considered are the specifics in any case such as this. A general feel might be gleaned from a few anecdotes, but beyond that, and especially at such a varied school as Rutgers, any personal stories lose their value over time. </p>
<p>Again, and I feel I must repeat myself, I trust the experiences of a Rutgers student, and especially one who has been to both Cornell and Rutgers, to lend themselves better to a comparison between the schools than many other types of evidence. The experiences of a guest, however, are entirely different. </p>
<p>Compare the tourist who visits New York or London or Florida to one who lives there. The perspectives are hugely different, for a large variety of reasons. </p>
<p>The same is true of visiting schools. Who you go with, and what you do are going to lead to different experiences than even another visitor, and all this is ignoring the overwhelming truth that you aren't dealing with the school in the same way at all.</p>
<p>A visitor is going to hear more about parties, if that is what he is interested in. Why would anyone tell a friend about classes they aren't taking and have no interest in? Everyone can enjoy a Duke or Rutgers or Pitt basketball game, but how many will be concerned with the effects of gender on the development of the colonization of Africa? Sure some, but in comparison to those who like sports, they're hardly even noticible(and I don't mean that as an insult, it's true of any major or class. More people won't care than will.)</p>
<p>I'd reject, merely based on my own prejudices, off hand the idea that Rutgers or any large flagship school has terrible academics or even mediocre due to the options and general self-reliant nature of such schools. This is not necessarily true, of course, and it is very well possible, but it would seem to me that aside from scheduling issues, the ability to learn is likely placed on the student.</p>
<p>But, as with all the rest of my post(save the first part which I think is entirely sensible, and should be held by all sides in any debate, on or off line, that we might actually do something more than insult each other! Er, anyway...) as with the rest of my post, I may well be wrong. But such generalizations don't seem to lend themselves well to such a large place, at least in my opinion.</p>