<p>Do people enjoy going to these schools? Or am I just weird for considering it? People think I am kind of odd for wanting to go to places like these but, hey, I’m into the whole natural scenic type of thing.</p>
<p>I’m from Los Angeles and wants to try and experience what it feels like away from all the glitzy, crazy stuff LA is known for…</p>
<p>By middle of nowhere I’m talking about like Montana, Idaho or Iowa (yes I applied to all 3 :P)</p>
<p>Are these schools actually in the middle of the nowhere, or are they in cities in states you consider to be the middle of the nowhere because they’re not on a coast? Just curious.</p>
<p>There are people who go to schools in cities in rather “middle of nowhere” states, and there are people who go to schools in the middle of nowhere.</p>
<p>I get what you’re saying to an extent. I’m from NYC, and I definitely want to get away from it for college. Not “middle of nowhere”, but a quaint New England town with some culture would be perfect.</p>
<p>Yes, the people who are excited by the prospect of a “middle of nowhere” school often do enjoy it. I know Williams, Middlebury, and Washington & Lee alumni who loved being in the country.</p>
<p>Maybe you’ve already visited and know this, but Iowa couldn’t be more different from Montana and Idaho from a “natural scenic” standpoint. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but Iowa ranks 50th out of the 50 states in the proportion of its land that is in its natural state (my home state, Illinois, is 49th). So if you want bucolic, rural, peaceful, etc., Iowa has that, but we’re talking about farmland, not wilderness like you find in the mountain west.</p>
<p>Hanna - You’re absolutely right about Iowa being not naturally scenic, I guess I just like the peacefulness of it all…plus I do have good friends attending schools there…</p>
<p>Gub - I guess I am talking about schools in cities in states that people associate with being not heavily populated, I applied to Boise State, which isn’t exactly deserted, but nonetheless is not densely populated like LA or other major metropolitan areas</p>
<p>Overall I just like to experience what it feels like to not be in an urban area, and Montana and Idaho are two states that I’ve always been fascinated by</p>
<p>UIUC (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign) is a top public university that is definitely in a rural environment. Rural = cornfields as far as the eye can see, except for the town(s) of Urbana/Champaign themselves. You might want to consider it!</p>
<p>I actually really like the idea of attending college in a place that has very little except for the college. For example, Dartmouth, Carleton, and Middlebury are all in tiny little towns that are pretty much in the wilderness, and I would love to attend any of the three. I love the idea of both a true college campus and the idea of my social life being all in the college. I dislike the idea of a city campus far more. For example, I would hate NYU, because there is no campus and the social life is almost all just being in the city. I want to go to college for the environment, not just the education.</p>
<p>A good friend of mine from an east coast city went to Montana because he loves hiking/skiing/rock climbing, and because he wanted to experience something different from what he grew up knowing. </p>
<p>After he graduated, he moved back east, but absolutely loved his years in Montana. For him, the proximity to wilderness and mountains were important factors. But the point is, pick a school based on what is most important to you.</p>
<p>I’m personally trying to avoid a rural college because I live in a rural town now. I want to know what it’s like to go to a coffee shop or out to a restaurant that isn’t fast food. I’ve done these things a few times, but in a rural town there just aren’t the same cultural opportunities as even in a small city.</p>
<p>I’m looking for a happy medium between NYU and Montana. I don’t want to stay in the sticks, but I’m not sure if I’d want the big city thing, since that can get old fairly quickly.</p>
<p>I transferred from a city school (Columbia) to a school in the “middle of nowhere” (Dartmouth). Best decision I’ve ever made. Dartmouth, in my opinion, provided a far richer (and more fun!) experience.</p>
<p>I’d suggest defining what you mean by a school in the middle of nowhere. A small LAC in a tiny town (1800 person school in a 10,000 person town) is A LOT different than fair sized University in a dair sized town (10,000 person University in a 50,000 person city). There are at least a couple dimensions to this.</p>
<p>First, how big is the school? For me some schools are of the size that they can be self-contained … there is enough sports, arts, food, movies, parties, etc on campus to keep students entertained the lion’s share of the time. Personally, self contained campuses work much better for this for me.</p>
<p>Second, how big a city? Do you need a fair sized collegetown next to the school (a plus for me)? Do you need access to primo shopping (I don’t care)? Do you need access to pro sports, tons of concerts, and lots of night clubs (again not a draw for me)?</p>
<p>For me I ended up at a pretty big school in a a 50,000 person city that was 3 hours from major civilization and LOVED the experience … I loved being at a place where the major social experience was the college campus itself and the immediate surrounding town. Life at tiny LAC in a tiny town or going to school in a big city would have led to a VERY different experience.</p>
<p>The thing is, colleges in the “middle of nowhere” have thousands of students. So there are tons of parties, formals, bars, etc. The lack of a city is more than made up by a robust campus life (at least at the more social rural schools). I always felt that I’d have my whole life to live in a city, but getting the chance to live amongst other college students my age in a resort like setting would only come once.</p>