Letters to the Editor
teneuse
Published Letters: 3
-
For Nepalese and Laotian, make your way to...Wisconsin?
[Read the article: Will Cambodian food ever catch on in America?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Here in Madison, we don't have any good Mexican food and until recently didn't have any good Indian food, but we do have three very good Nepalese restaurants (all owned by the same family - each with a different focus and price range), and two excellent Laotian restaurants (again both owned by the same people). The Laotian restaurant is authentic enough that it needs to explain that their food is actually spicy - not 'spicy' in a Wisconsin way.
And, BabyGrumpus, I'm not quite sure why you needed to unleash your NYC superiority rant on everyone else. There are many reasons people choose not to live in the "center of the universe" - and one of those is getting away from attitudes like yours.
-
Yes, move there!
[Read the article: We're sick of Southern California! Should we move to the Midwest? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As context, I grew up in the Twin Cities, lived in the Bay Area for five years, then lived in Madison for six, and now live in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia. I've also spent significant amounts of time working in Philadelphia, New York, and Chicago. Having experienced all of those places, I'm at the point where I can tell pretty quickly if a new place feels like 'me' or not. The Bay Area never did - I know so many people who love it, and I just never got that. When I moved to Madison, I instantly felt like I'd lived there forever and would never to leave (and I wouldn't have if my job didn't require it).
This is not to say that Madison is 'better' than the Bay Area - I know plenty of people who will vehemently argue that the Bay Area is the best place to live on Earth, and I respect their opinions - but that Madison was better _for me_. It sounds like the writer is having a similar experience after having visited the Midwest - it just feels more right than SoCal.
The next step is to think about why the particular place you visited in the Midwest generated those feelings. Was it size? The people? Affordability? As many other people have already mentioned, the Midwest is far from homogeneous. Places like the Twin Cities and Chicago are sprawling metropolises with lots to do. Madison, Iowa City, and Ann Arbor are small cities with very liberal populations and the sorts of resources/events you'd expect from college towns. And then there are plenty of small towns - some close to cities (e.g. Northfield, MN - ~20 min. from the outer Twin Cities suburbs, but still a small town), some not. The proximity to a city is key - the further you get from one, the more 'traditional' (not necessarily 'conservative,' but more farm- and church-centered) the culture is likely to be, and the bigger your culture shock will be.
Another option is to try the Pacific Northwest (Portland, Seattle, smaller places like Corvallis) - follow the path of many of your CA brethren and move north, to where the values are a bit more grounded, but the culture is still West Coasty.
And if you do move to the Midwest, prepare for a lot of (often-annoying) questions/comments from Coasties about why you'd willingly move inland. Just keep in mind that you're looking for the best place for you - and if that's a small town in Iowa, embrace it!
-
Consider a small college!
[Read the article: Desperately unhappy in the top Ivy League school]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Many are right when they say this is a common 'college' issue - you move away from home and are suddenly expected to manage courses, finding new friends, discovering yourself, and many other things all at the same time. But it also sounds like the writer has not found a good 'fit' for her in terms of a school. I didn't attend an Ivy League school, but I know a lot of people who attend them, and in general they don't seem particularly enthusiastic about the experience (Brown alums are an exception here, I think).
Part of this is because most Ivy League schools are not really focused on at educating undergraduates - they aim to support world-class researchers and educate graduate students (who will then become world-class researchers themselves). Although some professors at top research universities truly care about teaching and the undergraduate experience, many of them do not.
So what are the other options? Stanford is certainly one. I both have a degree from and worked at Stanford, and my impression is that it does a very good job of balancing research, graduate education, and undergraduate education. Also, as many have mentioned, Stanford is both diverse and very Californian. And honestly, I don't think you'd be hurt in terms of 'networking' - if anything, Stanford would be better if you want to get into a creative or new-media field.
Another option is to look into small liberal arts colleges (SLACs) - someone may have mentioned this (I haven't read all 24 pages of letters!). I attended a SLAC (a private, top-ranked one in the Midwest) for my undergraduate degree, and I can't say enough about how much I loved it. At SLACs, undergraduates truly are the focus in and out of the classroom. Also, SLACs are excellent for introverts - it's very hard to 'get lost' when your school is so small, and making friends and getting involved is not as challenging as it is at a bigger school. Some SLACs are not that diverse, however, so I would make sure to talk to students about the campus climate in that respect.
Recently a colleague of mine, a Harvard alum, asked where I would have gone to college if I wanted to go to a place with a good social environment. I said I'd go back to my SLAC in an instant, and she was shocked - it was obvious Harvard wouldn't have been her choice based on that criterion. In contrast, my college friends and I talk about creating our own retirement community because we loved our SLAC experience so much.