Today's @deandad post credits me for a specific formulation of that's not mine, but comes from a twitter thread by @stephanPhD (via @jrieffel ) I do at least partially agree with the core idea, though
https://twitter.com/stephanPhD/status/1278460053830266880

https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions-community-college-dean/feedback-finding-good-english-department

To clarify: the claim is that students largely assume that, above some threshold of perceived quality, the teaching will be good everywhere, so they focus on amenities. I can't swear that's accurate about the student belief, but I'd say that they're not wrong to think that.

That is, the most important factor in education is NOT the faculty, but the student. Real education is not something the faculty do TO students, it's something we help students do FOR themselves.

A student who takes an active interest in their education, seeking out courses that suit their talents but also require them to stretch a bit, and puts real effort into their schoolwork, can get a good education anywhere. And a student who doesn't, won't.

This is not to say that faculty don't make any difference-- a good professor will lead students to connections between ideas they wouldn't otherwise make, a great one can inspire and cajole even the laziest clods to exert effort in classes they'd otherwise blow off.

A good professor can spot signs of talents that students don't consciously realize they have and encourage them in directions that suit their ability. A great one can encourage students to develop talents they didn't WANT to have.

At the end of the day, though, the direct effect of faculty is mostly around the margins. Good faculty will pull a few students up, bad ones push a few students down, but the net effect is small compared to the part that comes from the students themselves.

So, in that sense, I think the student attitude in the original thread is at least not wrong. A student who really cares about educating themselves will be able to do that basically anywhere, in which case the college decision comes down more to a nebulous "feel" for the school.

Good faculty and institutional resources can make that process of self-education easier in ways big and small, and at the end of the road the name on the diploma can make some doors easier to open (I don't think it can totally shut them), but in the end it's mostly the student.

In that context, the local culture and amenities are not a trivial factor-- if you believe that all education is ultimately SELF-education, that process will work best in a place where you're comfortable being yourself.

In that context, some focus on amenities makes sense. If you're a person who needs personal space, you'll likely do better in nice modern dorms than a triple in a crumbling tower. If you need physical activity, good athletic facilities really do make a difference.

Back when I was looking at colleges, one factor pushing Williams above Swarthmore was that the latter was too close to a city. I would've gone out of my mind at one of the Boston schools. Kate had the opposite reaction to Williamstown, and stayed in Boston.

There's also a non-trivial component of "Are the people here the sorts of people I can imagine myself happily living with for four years?" You can only really get that from an in-person visit, alas.

This can obviously be taken too far-- picking a lesser school because is has a really sweet gym is silly-- but so can a focus on academic factors. If you don't deal well with viciously competitive strivers, you should probably avoid Harvard Law, despite its prestige.