I’m sorry for being standoffish…I just think we as undergraduates or former undergraduates need to be careful when evaluating qualityand we also need not conflate “name” with quality or “newness” with it and generally careful when we try to sell our schools. I would be disappointed if seeing a new science facility with the same things going on as before swayed someone to come. It is the biggest trick in the book. I have seen this in other threads, especially with engineering. At one school (a top 20 university), someone was asking why the undergraduate engineering program ranked in the 30s and the responses were: “That is okay, we just opened an impressive new building, so that should help”…I just slapped my forehand and then realized it was coming from undergraduates who likely knew no better or were just only dead-set on yielding someone to their school no matter what. It isn’t about the building itself, and how it looks, or even the classes held in it, so much as how those classes are taught in new vs. old, and other programs that may come about as a result of the building. When someone says, “program is moving up because of a new building” I can’t help but be cynical and ask others to be cynical as well. It, like disciplinary concentrations in some STEM subjects are often just gimmicks.