If I didn’t already go to Hunter, The Princeton Review would scare me away
It’s all rather bleak
If you stop reading after the “Admissions” sections of The Princeton Review’s dissertation of Hunter College, it sounds like a pretty average, appealing school.
Sure, there is some selectivity and getting into Hunter is a nice achievement. And odds are, you’ll find your passion amongst the dozens of majors that are offered.
Under the “Staff” section of The Princeton Review it reads, “Hunter boasts an ‘outstanding’ reputation based in part on its ability to offer ‘a solid education at an affordable price’ and ‘exposure to New York City.'” This is certainly truthful, and remains similarly truthful if those quotations are read with the sarcasm of a Hunter student.
It goes on to describe, “While there are some ‘very tedious professors,’ most students find that professors are ‘intellectually challenged by brilliant instructors.’ A few students wish there were more tenured professors on staff and say that part-time educators ‘would care more if they were paid more.'”
Not only does this politely say that Hunter professors can really suck, but it also dances around the very serious issue of TAs being underpaid (which makes sense as to why some really suck).
And while The Princeton Review really revels in the “bang for your buck” aspect of Hunter, there should really be a disclaimer about how difficult it is to get in contact with the Financial Aid Office unless you have 3 hours to wait on line.
And sure, there may be “100 chartered clubs” at Hunter, but the only ones that constantly table are The Internationalist Club and Students for Justice in Palestine. While diversity is not a problem, finding people who fit your interests can be.
“If you’re a commuter student or work full-time, as many Hunter students do, ‘socializing is nearly impossible.'” Fantastic.