<p>I guess will just have to agree to disagree, but I must say I find your comment “Stop busting the OP’s chops” unnecessarily aggressive.</p>
<p>I apologize, if you object to the use of the common vernacular. But, I despair of the tone we CCers so often take with young people: answering questions they didn’t ask, criticizing spelling, and generally treating them like they were morons. It’s pretty patronizing.</p>
<p>OP, I have to say that I agree with @momrath on this one. Trinity probably isn’t the best place to visit if you want to check on an LAC that is not urban. You might take a look at Dickinson – in small-ish town PA.</p>
<p>Muhlenberg is a small LAC in an upscale residential neighborhood of fairly large Allentown, PA–if that is any help to you, OP. </p>
<p>I could get behind @circuitrider’s complaint about CCers patronizing applicants IF we were conversing with the applicant. This medium is hardly a conversation, nor any kind of speech. There are many cues that we would have in a conversation that we don’t have now, there is more than one audience for what we write, etc., and so asking an applicant for more information or trying not to mislead an OP–or anyone else who might read our posts–seems a defensible course of action to me. </p>
<p>If one knows, for instance, that the #1 mistake families make in creating a college list is to ignore affordability (and yes this is a hobby horse), then to offer information about affordability even if the OP hasn’t asked for it (perhaps because it never crossed his or her mind) is a defensible course of action even if it seems patronizing to some. </p>
<p>I cannot defend treating an applicant as if he or she was a moron, @circuitrider, but I guess we think differently about the technologies we use and where those technologies suggest we draw the line between being a FAQ index and being a helicopter parent. </p>
<p>I don’t think we’re that far apart, @jkeill911. For example, I don’t see any harm in continuing a conversation on a specific topic long after the OP has “left the room”. That happens all the time on the internet and is often an indication that the subject has taken on a life of its own. How Trinity stacks up against other LACs is one such legitimate topic of conversation. However, I don’t see the point in calling an OP’s judgment into question once they’ve explained their reasons for choosing a certain course of action (about 18 posts ago, btw.) We wouldn’t treat the OP’s parents that way. Why discount their intelligence just because they’re kids? </p>
<p>
I assume you’ll be travelling by car, not bicycle; therefore, these are really just TWO geographic areas, not 4:
- above NYC
- below NYC</p>
<p>I hope u have the stats to be a serious candidate for these school; otherwise, its just tourism. Personally, I’d rather not waste limited precious vacation time visiting low probability schools.</p>
<p>yeaaaaaah, @circuitrider, I don’t know we’re that close. are we disagreeing on what constitutes intelligence and what information? cause I don’t see the point in avoiding sharing info when you suspect the person lacks that info. I suspect you don’t want that to happen, either.</p>
<p>I don’t see any evidence that any poster on this thread discounted the OP’s intelligence or condescended to him because of age or because anything else. He asked (repeatedly) for advice and “wanted to input as much information as [he] could.” </p>
<p>No one corrected his spelling, treated him like a moron or interacted disrespectfully in any way. The OP presented several itinerary options and asked for opinions on the relative advantages and disadvantages of each. In other words, he asked for information that would help him make a decision. And that’s what he got. Not in the least patronizing or hectoring.</p>
<p>As noted, CC threads often veer off on tangents that may or may not be pertinent to the original post – including disagreements between other posters and extraneous, off-topic information – but I don’t see anything in this one that remotely borders on insulting to the OP’s intelligence.</p>
<p>@jkeil911
</p>
<p>The subthtread about Trinity ceased being about information-sharing fairly quickly. The premise seemed to be that the OP would be so rattled by the sight of people living across the street in apartment buildings - sans doormen and valet parking - that they would be forever prejudiced against all small colleges everywhere regardless of location. In essence, it assumes that the OP is an imbecile.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good heavens, now you’re accusing me not only of insulting the intelligence of the OP but also disdaining people who don’t live in doormen buildings or have valets to park their cars. Don’t know where this vitriol is coming from, but the reaction is way out of proportion to the actual words written. </p>
<p>@momrath
</p>
<p>Let’s not be coy, @momrath.</p>
<p>I said exactly what I meant and meant exactly what I said: Trinity isn’t the best choice for some one who doesn’t want an urban environment. Your twisted interpretation of my meaning is offensive. </p>
<p>My guess is that the OP (and a lot of other people) are probably more curious than ever about Trinity and that they will ultimately use their God-given intelligence to apply whatever filters are necessary when deciding whether a small residential college is for them. Just as they would if the college were Williams. And, hopefully they’ll come back here and give us a report. :)>- </p>
Hi everyone! Sorry I forgot to report back but my list changed a tad of where we ended up going.
Wednesday morning: Flew into Hartford, CT and drove to Nee Haven to tour Yale
Thursday: drove to Providence to tour Brown, then we drove to Boston to tour BC. We also walked around BU (my dad went there) and walked around Harvard, not on tours.
Friday: Toured Tufts, and then flew home.
All in all, I’d say it was a productive week.