<p>Give me the pros, cons, benefits, detriments, advantages, disadvantages. </p>
<p>By the way, would studying in a rural campus be detrimental for an individual who wants to enjoy a "city life"? </p>
<p>Yes, studying at a rural campus would likely be detrimental for someone who wants city life. Rural schools are best for people who really want to bury themselves in their studies.</p>
<p>Ultimately, it depends on the school itself, of course. Whether it is urban, suburban, or rural could be a “deal buster” (just like financial aid).</p>
<p>Rural schools don’t have a city to rely on so they try to offer a lot of activities, most of those for free.</p>
<p>there is a correlation between alcohol abuse on campus and population density of the surrounding region. in general, the more heavily populated the region is the more there is to do in that region besides abuse alcohol or study. I don’t know that there’s a generalization we can make about access to hiking, climbing, backpacking, enjoying nature because some city colleges like WashU and Tulane abut parkland and very rural campuses often have no hiking trails because there’s no population base there. If you have any interest in primary document research, a larger region (and a larger library) are to be preferred. Take Washington, DC, where we have many very urban campuses. This large city is full of hiking and running and biking trails. There’s a national park that runs north to south thru the city. There’s a major river or two, with kayaking, rowing, fishing, sailing, boating, water skiing, birdwatching, etc. There’s also free museums out the wazoo and historical archives and monuments. There’s the Library of Congress, for goodness sake. There are major medical and technological research centers here, public and private, for internships and lectures. It’s an ideal place to study and intern and be a professor. You won’t find those kinds of resources in every headwater or in many rural campuses. Sometimes the truly rural campus will also have trouble attracting good professors because its distance from resources is too great; there are famous exceptions to this rule, as you can imagine. It’s also easier to fly in an out of–to just plain get to–most urban campuses. I looked at Grinnell the other day and realized I’d have to take 2 planes to get to Cedar Rapids and still have a healthy drive left to get to this rural Iowa village. As a professor who loves the outdoors, I would find that a negative.</p>
<p>Proximity to internships and the opportunity to work during college distiguishes most rural areas from urban/suburban. DS1 attends a rural campus which works out well for him - he is studying to become a Professor of English. Having not much to distract him allows him to dig in and focus and a small school gives him direct access to the faculty that will oversee his capstone project. But DS2 wants computer science and lots of hands-on opportunities, and bigger universities in urban/suburban settings fit the bill. </p>
<p>Rural schools have several advantages over urban schools IMO: less dependence on urban ammenities for entertainment, more outdoor focus (less air, noise, and sound pollution, as well as more space), increased appreciation for the simpler things in life, and the lack of “formal” entertainment options challenges you to find creative ways to spend your free time. Obviously location is key here, but many people find the college experience more enjoyable in a rural setting without the urban problems and congestion to have to deal with. </p>