lalalacheesejah

but now I've been confused. All you people with travel experience keep commenting on my whirlwind trip to Europe, saying that its really fast-paced and that I will just be getting a timy taste of these places (which I know is true). But I'm starting to reconsider now.

Keep in mind, that I am young and a fast-paced tour suits me, although, contrary to my other posts regarding alcohol I do enjoy relaxing and really getting to know the place(which is my plan for the majority of the trip actually) And I do want to see all of the places on my trip itinerary (found in link below).

But should I maybe just take a 12 day tour to like 3 cities? I'm second guessing my decision to do the 25 day tour now...

http://www.efcollegebreak.com/colleg...&tourcode=ITSB

lalalacheesejah

More info on me:

I'm 21. I love history. I have been in love with UK since my childhood so I'm particularly interested in going there.

So...yeah. I want to do this tour because I get to see Ireland and Wales and England and castles and all that good stuff that I love. But I also wanna see France and the other places are all nice too.

But I want a long trip.
Oh boy, I'm confused now....

lalalacheesejah

I thought this trip would be fine for me. A little fast-paced, but you all have got me thinking...

I'm usually too stubborn to listen to others' advice lol.

But what do you think?

kybourbon

I don't know if EF runs their college tours any different than their high school tours, but I doubt it (I just glanced at your post about spending money). Breakfast with EF will be pretty skimpy and the daily included meal won't be much either. Other meals, they will either stop at a restaurant in the middle of nowhere while they are traveling between cities and you will have no choice but to eat there. Many times it will be expensive. When touring cities, your lunch break will be in a touristy area where prices will be high also. They will depart early mornings so you won't be able to party late.

If you want a college party trip, then you should look at the companies that provide that type of trip such as Contiki. They cater to people that want to party and arrange club nights and no early morning departures.
http://contiki.com/pages/365-groups

jamikins

My first trip to Europe was on a Contiki tour. I was 24 and had a lot of fun. Most people were a couple years younger than me...and it was a great way to meet people and have fun.

Pros
- have people to travel with
- everything is organized for you
- good way to see alot of Europe
- there is always a place to go drinking everywhere you stay
- easy first trip if you are alone and not comfortable with planning an overseas trip yourself

Cons
- stuck with the same people for 25 days (I did a 25 day tour as well)
- extra activities cost more, and the bus goes to the activity so you have no choice but to either do the activity or sit on the bus in some cases (i.e. white water rafting)
- their hotel locations are almost always on the outskirts of town, so you really do have to come back with the bus
- shared accomodation with people you dont know at first
- there are definitely early mornings!!!
- they stop at some annoying commercial places where they are only looking for you to shot (lace making places, glass blowing places)
- you will spend a good portion of the travel days on the road in a bus

Would I do it again - NO. But I had a good time, saw lots of things I know I want to go back to, and made some friends. I think if you are a social person (who likes to drink) you will enjoy a Contiki tour.

lalalacheesejah

I don't want to party. I want to get a few drinks somewhere a few nights a week.

So I'm not looking for a party-party tour company (although, yes, I know my comment made it sound like that in my other thread, but I only said heavy drinking because I want to be clear that I'm not only having 1 or 2 glasses of wine).

lalalacheesejah

Look, I'm trying to travel, with a few drinks thrown in some nights, not vice versa.

lalalacheesejah

Will I get a chance to relax/explore/not be rushed on that trip, do you think?
Probably not?

lalalacheesejah

Would it be cheaper, or more stressful, or would there be a better outcome (that I get to do my own thing) if I were to plan a trip myself?

grandmere

I'm wondering why you're asking us if you're "usually too stubborn to listen to others' advice".

lalalacheesejah

Because I said usually.

lalalacheesejah

Why can't anyone stop dissecting my every word and just start giving me some help, like jamikins and kybourbon did above?

jamikins

I hope you didnt take my post as calling you a 'partier' cause that wasnt my intent at all. I am a drinker too, not a partier, I enjoy a few glasses of wine on vacation hahaha.

What I meant was that the hotels are sometimes in very remote places where you cant go out to a restaurant, but they always have a place you can go hang-out and have a beer.

There were lots of big partiers on my tour and I think that is the norm, but they were all fun and never pressured anyone that didnt want to go. I had no problems with that at all.

As for being rushed - likely. Depends on your expectations. Will you be happy just to see a few things in each city? Or do you want to spend a long time getting to know a place. For example, we had 1 full day in Paris and I went to Notre Dame, Eiffel Tower, Champs Elysees, and thats about it. We also got a drive around the monuments at night to see the lights and hang out at the Eiffel Tower a bit. Now my hubby and I like to spend at least 3-4 nights per place, if not a full week cause we like to see 1 site in the morning, have nice long lunch, 1 site in the afternoon, glass of wine, dinner, wander at night etc.

jent103

I think that the tour vs. self-plan question depends on you, and not knowing you, it's hard to answer. If you are someone who enjoys planning and isn't afraid to travel to new places completely on her own (it sounds as though this would be a solo trip?), then you might like planning your own trip better. If you feel nervous about going to a lot of new places on your own, or don't enjoy trip planning, you might stick with a tour for this first trip.

I haven't taken a tour with a tour company, so I can't speak to anything but that itinerary. It's very fast paced. Some people like that. Some do not. A lot of it depends on your expectations: If you expect to really get to know London (for example), you won't. Two or three days with this itinerary just isn't enough time. You will be able to get a small taste of the cities you visit and be able to say things like "I saw Big Ben! I saw the Eiffel Tower!" In another thread you asked about other less-known places you could visit - I seriously doubt you'll have the time. They don't even have major museums like the Louvre on the itinerary; those will be up to you to fit in your free time, if you're interested.

It will not be a relaxing trip. Sometimes that's okay. Just depends on what you want out of the trip.

jamikins

Oh I meant to add that you said in another post you wanted medieval sites - you wont have time to do stuff outside of the city you are in. So if you want to see the stuff say in Paris on your free day you will have to give up something else like going up the Eiffel Tower. You wouldnt have time to do a day trip etc.

lalalacheesejah

Okay thanks. These are good answers. You've made me feel better.

Jamikins, I didn't take offense though

I think it would be a good intro to Europe. I would at least like to at LEAST GLIMPSE the Tour d'Eiffel once in my life lol.

So maybe just start out with this and then plan my own trips in the future.

Christina

I think it's hard for anyone to tell you what you should do -- because it depends on a lot of things that are just your own personal preferences. Lots of people would like that kind of tour just fine, especially younger people. And you can't really do that kind of tour on your own that well in the same amount of time. Lots of younger people do not want to travel alone, either, and to be honest, I don't think I would have at college age.

I never had the luxury of doing any traveling like that in college as I didn't have the time or money, so I don't know which would be better.

I think most people wouldn't call a few drinks a couple nights a week as "heavy drinking", which you did in the beginning, that's all. In fact, I think you are downplaying it now compared to what you originally meant (which wasn't just a few drinks a couple nights a week). I don't really care, to be honest, and had no personal opinions about that.

But you are just saying contradictory things -- you absolutely CANNOT slow down and "get to know a place" on the 25 day tour on your URL. Surely you understand that. At most, it is a couple days in the major cities. So you can forget getting to know a place on that tour. I really think that idea is a bit more for more experienced travelers, to be honest. The first time I traveled abroad, I didn't think about slowing down and "getting to know a place" at all, that wasn't the goal of my travel when I hadn't been any place yet.

Part of this depends how tight your money and time are. For example, this would give you a taste of Europe and allow you to see many cities. If the fast pace isn't to your liking, will you be able to do something else in a couple years or so? Conversely, if you do the short trip and only go to a couple cities, will you be able to do a few more in a couple years?

lalalacheesejah

I'm saying I want to get to know a place as well as anyone possibly can in 2 days, which obvioulys isn't well at alllll. I'm saying that I want to see sights that are not necessarily big tourist attractions. And I don't want to have to rush, rush, rush. Although, if I could do more trips as a solo traveler in a few years I would be fine with the fast-pace and a schedule tour.

And I said heavy drinking in the beginning because I have no clue how old people here are and I know that what I call normal drinking my mother considers heavy drinking. Also, why not overestimate my daily budget by overestimating my alcoholic consumption? Better more than not enough, right?

jamikins

To give you an example of a 'free' day on a Contiki tour we had to be at the bus, ready to go, having eaten breakfast by 8:30ish. Then you drive into the city and usually the tour guide would give a little speil about the city. They drop you off somewhere central (drive takes up to an hour due to traffic) you then usually have until 4ish to do what you want. So about 6 hours on average. Then there is usually either a group dinner included or a group dinner extra where they take you to some touristy restaurant that is 'typical' for the area (not good in my experience). Then you might have a few hours at night after dinner and then the bus leaves for the hotel. If you miss it you are on your own getting there which can be pricey.

Hope that gives you an idea. Only you can decide if that is too rushed.

jent103

<i>I'm saying that I want to see sights that are not necessarily big tourist attractions.</i>

You will have to carefully research what you want to see and fit in as much as you can on your own, it looks like, and you will have to miss some of the usual "must-sees" in order to do it. For example, in London you basically have 2.5-3 days. One of them is fully scheduled with the hop-on-hop-off tour. Assuming you do that with the tour group, you'll have seen the outside of a lot of places, and let's say you'll get off and take a tour at St Paul's and Westminster Abbey as well. *If* you skip Stonehenge and Bath, you have about 1.5 days left depending on what time you have to leave London for your ferry to Amsterdam. Most first-time visitors want to tour the Tower of London, the British Museum, maybe the National Gallery or the Tate Modern, ride the London Eye. You'd be rushed fitting all of that in, much less any other "smaller" attractions. So it will be some give and take (and research on your own) if that's your goal.