<p>Having visited a few of the usual suspects, I was struck by a “lady or the tiger” question this week.</p>
<p>All other things being equal (and great!)…what means more to you when looking at BS: Facilities or People?</p>
<p>For example, School A has a state of the art science center but the people (students, admins, faculty) were just okay. Whereas School B does not have a “star” science (or arts or sports or whatever is important to your child) building, but you are blown away by the people you’ve met.</p>
<p>Obviously, in a perfect world, you’d want the best of both…but if you had to, which one would you choose?</p>
<p>FWIW, I am finding myself leaning toward people (though perhaps this is the obvious way to go?).</p>
<p>Doesn’t it depend, really, on how much the facilities matter to YOUR child? In other words, if your child is a dancer and has to choose between mediocre studio & performance space and really excellent space, perhaps that makes a difference. Or, maybe a better example would be facilities that simply don’t permit your student to pursue his or her passion at all, e.g. a potter at a school without a kiln.</p>
<p>In our recent visits, my student has responded more to passionate faculty than fancy facilities. And, despite my attraction to this or that really beautiful building, I agree with him. (Besides which, the really beautiful new building with really high ceilings at school X just made me dizzy! :D)</p>
<p>@dodgersmom: Agreed on specific facilities matching kid specific interests…but I was talking more generally…visual arts vs. pottery (or any other specific pursuit).</p>
<p>It’s hard not to be impressed by the investment in facilities at many of the top schools. But then again, a building is just a building without great faculty and students.</p>
<p>7D I hear what you’re saying. On one hand the great economics team seems ideal for my son who “thinks” he wants to pursue a buisness career, albeit too early to think that way, which is why I would go with people over programs or facilities</p>
<p>It’s interesting, son is falling in love with his school more and more every day, both people and programs and buildings even (campus). It’s interesting how perspectives can change over time. We had occasion to go back to one school he thought was his dream school, and things didn’t seem as rosey.</p>
<p>I definitely say go with your gut…can you see yourself there? What was your reaction to the people? Is that your tribe? </p>
<p>As someone suggested to me, in the end, fall in love with the school that falls in love with you no matter how the gauntlet falls on march 10…somehow it’s working…</p>
<p>How are you guys judging the people at the schools you visit? I would be cautious to judge a school too harshly if you didn’t connect with an interviewer or had a subpar tour guide. Don’t base your opinions on a school by a few students/adults you meet at a school. Wait until revisit until you make a judgement of the people so you will have met a much larger group of people.</p>
<p>@2010: I don’t know if I agree with you. The interviewers and tour guides, whether they want this role or not, ARE the face of the school. The first line of defense/offense. I’m assuming that the school put them in these positions for a reason.</p>
<p>If they don’t click with our family, how am I supposed to assume that the rest of the population will?</p>
<p>RBGG’s statement “I definitely say go with your gut…can you see yourself there? What was your reaction to the people? Is that your tribe?” rings very true for me. At the schools still in the running for us, we definitely felt an affinity that was missing at others.</p>
<p>2010 hopeful: Am I incorrect in assuming that if you didn’t click with your interviewer, there is a pretty good chance you are not going to have the opportunity to attend a re-visit day at that school? I have been told that it is the interviewer that has to make the case for you at the final round of decisions. Without his or her support you really have nothing - hence the real importance of the interview. It is not so much what you say but connecting with the interviewer that counts.</p>
<p>One option to consider if it’s a light interview day is to ask to speak with teachers or coaches in the student’s interest area if possible. It helps to email them in advance if they don’t email you first (at two schools, the teachers were proactive and already knew my D was visiting).</p>
<p>So “people” has to go beyond the interview when you’re on campus. It’s observing the interaction of teachers and students while walking the campus during the tour, how they act in classrooms (if you’re allowed to peek in) and in the hallways.</p>
<p>Part of interviews and tours is picking up on the “vibe.”</p>
<p>My D chose a school based on “people” first and facilities second. In the end - facilities can’t reach out and touch a job. Students will be spending three-four years with human beings who will become part of their lifetime network and form the “fabric” of their academic and extracurricular lives. Buildings are nice - but temporary assets in the scheme of things.</p>
<p>Kids are more resourceful and less “status” conscious than us older folks :-)</p>
<p>@Exie: We were able to meet teachers at a few schools, and it definitely added color to our perceptions of the schools. This points to my griping about not being able to sit in on classes (for which I was soundly chided)…but even sitting in the cafeterias and seeing the interaction of kids in the halls helped round out the vibe.</p>
<p>I do get your point after sitting in on classes this past weekend. </p>
<p>I remember what finally put one school over the top was my daughter sitting in a Latin class and my husband sitting in Spanish during the revisit. They compared notes and were both in love with the teachers and the teaching methods.</p>
<p>So you’re right - sitting in classes is a good way to “look under the hood”. And it was amazing what I picked up from sitting in various spots on campus or in the cafeteria. Although - you know, I was able to get some insightful advice through PM’s from CC parents who sat in classes at various schools during their revisits the previous year. It was very helpful for us to get some first hand impressions during the process.</p>
<p>I’m just grateful that I don’t have to do this again until college - and then it’s a completely different can of worms. Sigh.</p>
<p>@SevenDad:</p>
<p>In answer to your original question: people, people, people.</p>
<p>Seven: I’d tend to go along with your sense of things, except for the one school my son applied to with a coach who was a terrifically warm guy who sent us long, glowing emails about the school, getting everybody all fired up about it. The interviewer and the tour guide, however, were NOT good matches for my son–things didn’t exactly go badly, but there was no real spark or connection there. He applied and was ultimately waitlisted–we’re guessing partly because of fa, partly because of the blah interview/tour. But it’s hard to say that the school would not have been a good fit…it seemed so in every other way, and his contact with a coach who would have been a big part of his life was very positive. I don’t know if that example supports or disproves your hypothesis… :)</p>
<p>i would say people because facilities are usually improved upon over years and you don’t spend all of your time in certain buildings. but, you do spend all of your time with people</p>
<p>SevenDad, I’d choose people over facilities. However, at this point in the process, the average applicant hasn’t met enough people to make an informed decision. I’d choose people over facilities, after revisit day (should we be so lucky as to have more than one.)</p>
<p>
, I agree with you. However, different schools face different groups of applicants. A school that needs to beat the bushes for applicants will have a very warm and friendly interviewer. A school that has the luxury of many applicants does not need to charm your socks off. </p>
<p>Tour guides are volunteers, not employees. I appreciate the effort, when an admissions office is able to match the tour guide’s interests with my child’s. It could be, though, that the underwater saxophone player who’d get on great with my child has a class at that time of day, and we have to tour the campus with the underwater basket weaver instead. It doesn’t mean that that campus doesn’t have compatible students. It just means that the sample is much too small to judge the school, particularly the very large schools.</p>
<p>We’re “people- people” too, but a warm welcome at a safety school cannot make up for a lack of rigor and variety in courses offered. There has to be a balance between academic and social needs.</p>
<p>I wonder if we all have different ideas of what a “safety” school is? I agree with SevenDad that it doesn’t make sense to go to a safety if what is offered is the same as what can be had at home for less (boarding life aside).</p>
<p>For me - a “safety” is a school which has the same academic prowess but might not garner the obsessive “must have” pathology that is generated by schools considered “top tier.” </p>
<p>A safety means applying to reach schools AND those with competitive academics where there is a match in terms of the student’s needs and personality and a reasonable chance that he/she fits their profile and is a likely admit over other candidates. That shouldn’t be thought to mean schools that take a large percentage of the applicant pool.</p>
<p>So maybe “safety” is an overused word. Perhaps it should be stretch for the Exeter type schools and “within reach” for those that are challenging but not as “popular.”</p>
<p>Exie, I think of the type of school you describe here as a match. They appear in many ways to be similar to the big name schools, but do not have the same instant “brand recognition”. The tier one schools are reaches for everyone, merely by having the huge applicant pools that they do. Safeties, in my view, are quantifiably different in terms of offerings, as well as having a lower application rate. </p>
<p>Oh well, it’s all semantics.</p>
<p>A Safety school is one which the child has a safer chance of being admitted. Everything else is just Individual Case Basis. For my own child, we equate “safe” to a >70% chance of admission.</p>
<p>Rellielou, you’re adding a third factor!! :)</p>
<p>Now, we have to debate People, Facilities, and Academics.</p>
<p>I think whether a school is a “safety” or not will depend on the child. And one might get it wrong, because many schools closely monitor their yield.</p>
<p>What if we try to vary the terms?</p>
<p>Reach —>> Long shot*
Match —>> Competitive
Safety —>> Top tenth </p>
<p>Whereby the terms describe the applicant’s chances of admission, or their status relative to the rest of the applicant pool, rather than a judgement on the quality of the school.</p>