I can't find any decent colleges in smaller cities

[128shot]

..i have a phobia of living in cities with more than 800,000 people I don't know why, but every time I'm in a city that has roughly more than that, I just can't seem to manage the monster size of it all..

But all the decent colleges I could ever get in to (except 2) are located in such places.

Anyone got like a decent way to search colleges by both criteria and size of town they're located in?

 

[rathi]

If you want a suggestion, University of California Merced is located in a small town, has somewhat low entrance requirements and isn't horribly expensive.

 

[SFLRN]

Liberal Arts colleges are generally located in some of the smallest (population wise) areas. I'm fairly sure collegeboard.com has a college match maker that may help. I can give you more detailed information if you do the same. What do you want out of your college?

 

[new coup for you]

..i have a phobia of living in cities with more than 800,000 people I don't know why, but every time I'm in a city that has roughly more than that, I just can't seem to manage the monster size of it all..

But all the decent colleges I could ever get in to (except 2) are located in such places.

Anyone got like a decent way to search colleges by both criteria and size of town they're located in?

try Boston or Philadelphia, they may seem big from the outside but they're actually quite small once you get to know them (particularly Boston- you can do everything there is to do in that town in under three hours).

 

[jallman]

..i have a phobia of living in cities with more than 800,000 people I don't know why, but every time I'm in a city that has roughly more than that, I just can't seem to manage the monster size of it all..

But all the decent colleges I could ever get in to (except 2) are located in such places.

Anyone got like a decent way to search colleges by both criteria and size of town they're located in?

Could I suggest Appalachian State University in Boone, North Carolina? Or even UNC at Chapel Hill. Sure Chapel Hill has a big population, but the campus area is actually nice and quietly secluded with lots of wooded areas and gorgeous architecture.

 

[SFLRN]

There's UMass-Amherst. Or Amherst (although that's not especially easy to get into). You're in a college-heavy area (not to mention Holyoke and Smith, all girls schools, are nearby).

 

[new coup for you]

UMass-Amherest is great if beer pong is your idea of a great time.

 

[quatrotritikali]

You should visit Conway, Arkansas. It has three colleges/universities:

* UCA (University of Central Arkansas)...the largest university in the city;
* Hendrix University...a highly-ranked liberal arts college that is going places;
* Central Baptist College...a very small, but good college geared towards Christians.

Conway has a population of approx. 54,000 people...and is growing quickly. It is a short drive to Little Rock, the capital city (about 30 miles).

 

[SFLRN]

UMass-Amherest is great if beer pong is your idea of a great time.

Sadly UMass-Amherst's affliction for beer pong is the norm for most colleges. Not everyone can be a U-Chicago, Reed, Pomona, Columbia, or Brown (or a few others).

 

[bub]

University of Namur - 100,000 inhabitants, it's a nice little city with a medieval center and a huge citadel. But there isn't anything to do at night
Facultés universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

University of Leuven - 90,000 inhabitants, there is an amazing cityhall but it's in Flanders
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

University of Louvain la Neuve - 30,000 inhabitants, most of them being students. But it's too new, there isn't any old building over there
Université catholique de Louvain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

University of Gembloux - 20,000 inhabitants, but you have to study biology or something scientific
Faculté Universitaire des Sciences Agronomiques de Gembloux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

why don't you go to Berkeley? It looks so great!

 

[americanwoman]

Try Nebraska. We got some great colleges here and most cities have low populations.

 

[new coup for you]

..."most"?

 

[quatrotritikali]

University of Namur - 100,000 inhabitants, it's a nice little city with a medieval center and a huge citadel. But there isn't anything to do at night
Facultés universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

University of Leuven - 90,000 inhabitants, there is an amazing cityhall but it's in Flanders
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

University of Louvain la Neuve - 30,000 inhabitants, most of them being students. But it's too new, there isn't any old building over there
Université catholique de Louvain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

University of Gembloux - 20,000 inhabitants, but you have to study biology or something scientific
Faculté Universitaire des Sciences Agronomiques de Gembloux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

why don't you go to Berkeley? It looks so great!

Yes, yes...attend a French or Belgian university...learn how to surrender in 30 different ways. Students must carry a white flag in their backpacks at all times......:mrgreen:

 

[bub]

Yes, yes...attend a French or Belgian university...learn how to surrender in 30 different ways. Students must carry a white flag in their backpacks at all times......:mrgreen:

you forgot the class "throw your gun away as fast as possible"

 

[new coup for you]

Bub, no offense, I think your a cool guy and all, but Continental European colleges are terrible. Just take a look at the international rankings. Like two third of the top 100 are either Anglo, American or in a country formerly colonized by the English (and therefore operating under an anglo-style of higher education).

French colleges are particularly pathetic.

 

[Scucca]

Just take a look at the international rankings. Like two third of the top 100 are either Anglo, American or in a country formerly colonized by the English (and therefore operating under an anglo-style of higher education).

Aren't the rankings really just an example of the worthlessness of league tables in education?

 

[new coup for you]

Oh I love the "rankings mean nothing" argument.

No, sorry, they do. All things equal a higher ranked college is better then a lower ranked.

Better as in provides a superior level of education from a superior level of educator.

 

[Scucca]

No, sorry, they do. All things equal a higher ranked college is better then a lower ranked.

You're easily bought by blunt methodologies?

I certainly hope my kids aren't. I'd rather they go to Warwick than Oxbridge

 

[new coup for you]

attend both and see if you still think so.

I go to Boston University (second tier) but I'm attending classes at Temple (maybe..100th..tier or something) while I work at internships at home.

They don't compare.

 

[Scucca]

attend both and see if you still think so.

The wife went to both Warwick and Oxbridge. I'll go with her understanding, rather than these blunt nonsensical tables.

By the way, which table are you using? I hope it isn't the Times Higher version, given their reliance on dodgy peer review techniques.

 

[new coup for you]

I can't remember, I did a ton of research while I was applying...4 years ago.

 

[Scucca]

I can't remember, I did a ton of research while I was applying...4 years ago.

You should have a look now. You'd be able to note the volatility in rankings, particularly as methodologies have been adapted because of more vicious criticism

 

[bub]

Bub, no offense,

Hey from what I know you're not a stupid bastard! Needless to excuse yourself when you don't agree with me :mrgreen:

i think your a cool guy and all, but Continental European colleges are terrible. Just take a look at the international rankings. Like two third of the top 100 are either Anglo, American or in a country formerly colonized by the English (and therefore operating under an anglo-style of higher education).

French colleges are particularly pathetic.

As Scucca said, you should not give too much credit to the rankings. They are made by US universities and only take into account factors that are relevant to US/UK universities and not the others, and don't take into account several factors that are important here.

For example, how much did you pay for a year at university?
Here, 95% of the people could afford a bacchelor and a master. It's around 850€ I think (+ the books, the food, a student room...) and if your parents are jobless you pay only something like 200€ and have train tickets for free, money to buy your books...

However, I agree that the best universities in the world are Cambridge, Yale, Oxford...the best teachers go there and the scientific revolutions also come from there.

But that's because those few universities get most of your education budget. The dozens of other universities get much less money and their average level is lower than European ones. On the contrary, European (or at least Belgian universities) get a fixed ammount of money per student. That's less than in Oxford or Berkely, so the ammount of money that goes to experimentations etc... is lower, but it's still higher than in most of the other US universities.

Then, if our colleges were "terrible", I don't think that so many of our graduates would be hired by US companies. I've got a nice example in my family, I can PM it if you want!

 

[SFLRN]

Outside of rankings, U.S. universities usually have more assigned contact with professors. At the liberal arts colleges this is especially true. The place where European universities "beat" American universities is usually in cost, but some of the reasons for that are outlined above. One should also consider the fact that if you attend Princeton (and major in Econ) you have a chance (if you have a 3.5) to work in I-Banking, which usually has overall compensation packages over six-figures. In these cases the extra cost of education certainly pays off ( it opens you up to job opportunities). Certainly there is Cambridge, LSE, Oxford, and some other European universities that will open up such lucrative careers, but they are less in number than the American unviersities. Even The Economist agrees that the U.S. universities are superior (and European secondary institutions are equally better than American ones). This is partially shown through research production, and the quality of said research (in Economics it's especially slated in America's favor).

 

[Scucca]

This is partially shown through research production, and the quality of said research (in Economics it's especially slated in America's favor).

Even then you're in dodgy waters. The methods used to measure research quality is a tad murky. For example, when is the American Economic Review superior to the Cambridge Journal of Economics?