<p>While BC and BU are frequently compared, and also BU and NYU, I see relatively few who compare BU and NEU. NEU seems to be a hot school these days, and the campus is much nicer than the long and narrow BU. I get the sense, however, that BU is at least better regarded than NEU, even if it is more perception that reality. D is in at NYU and NEU, waiting to hear from BU. Any thoughts??</p>
<p>In the past, BU has had a stronger academic program than Northeastern. However, they're all but equal now. The only real disadvantages to NEU are: Lack of recognition (probably likely to change over the next few years), and poor rankings from U.S. News due to them being unable to understand the 5-year program.</p>
<p>Hello, folks, I'd like to learn everything from the start.</p>
<p>Northeastern is growing in popularity. I think last year there were something like 25,000 applicants, and this year there were like 34,000. It's starting to emerge, while BU has had recognition for a long time. </p>
<p>I've applied to both, and been accepted to northeastern, still waiting for BU. I think with the combination of the nicer campus, co op program, and really nice honors dorms, I'd rather go to Northeastern. I got a pretty good scholarship, 13k/yr, and I doubt I'll get much from BU.</p>
<p>Yea, I've always noticed that BU is given more praise than NEU. I think I may prefer BU more though.</p>
<p>BU has more praises than NEU for a very good reason: BU has some of the best grad schools in America with Nobel Laureates teaching in them. How many celebrity faculty and alumni does NEU have? BU has MLK as an alumnus of its Theology school, the famous historian, Howard Zinn, teaches there, Saul Bellow (one of my favorite authors and a Nobel Laureate) taught there, the famous peace activist Elie Wiesel teaches there as well, and let not forget the famous physicist Sheldon Glashow left Harvard for BU. In term of the history of accomplishments, NEU has a LONG way to go to match BU's credential. </p>
<p>NEU won't reach BU status in the academic community for a long while, if ever. The new NEU president is trying to hire 100+ faculty, but to get the superstars takes a lot of efforts. Not many will leave the comfort of their prestigious job for a seat at NEU. NEU must develop homegrown academic superstars, and that may take a while.</p>
<p>I'm a BC student, so bias here.</p>
<p>Northeastern can boast with Mike Dukakis and Shawn Fanning...</p>
<p>Dukakis was a great governor of MA, but will be remembered as the one who lost to Bush Sr...I don't know who Shawn Fanning is...</p>
<p>At my school, Northeastern and BU seem to have roughly equal standing- several apply to either (or both) and at least one or two kids goes to each one every year.</p>
<p>Personally, I prefer BU, so I applied there and not to Northeastern. The idea of doing the co-op and delaying graduation by a year doesn't really appeal to me, and I prefer BU's more urbanized campus. They're both very good schools, though.</p>
<p>Congrats to your daughter on getting into NYU and Northeastern, and best of luck to her with BU!</p>
<p>As someone mentioned, BU simply has the better overall reputation. While NEU has many strong programs, BU has some world-class schools and programs. Their engineering is among the best, and they truly do boast one of the most impressive and accomplished faculties that you will encounter. However, NEU is a solid school that is gaining momentum.</p>
<p>thanks for all the good feedback--keep it coming</p>
<p>Actually, it is debateable about Dukakis' greatness as Mass governor and he lost the presidential election to Ronald Reagan , not George Bush.</p>
<p>Shawn Fanning invented Napster when he was a freshman at Northeastern</p>
<p>It was George Bush</p>
<p>In the local high schools, BU generally wins the better students than Northeastern. Some kids choose Northeastern because of the co-op education. </p>
<p>Northeastern has done a great job building a campus and converting from a commuter school. The negative about the campus is that it abuts one of the worst sections of Boston and the new parts of campus are on that side of Huntington. </p>
<p>While he's taught at Northeastern, Mike Dukakis went to Swarthmore after BHS (Brookline High School). </p>
<p>In prestige terms - something I don't care about - NYU is higher than BU (or BC) and BU (and BC) are higher than Northeastern.</p>
<p>I am a student in a Boston Public (charter school however) and I have to say that Northeastern is just as valued as BU, if not more. All my friends applied to NEU but out those people, only a few to BU.</p>
<p>You'r right , johnyg..I got the 80- 88 races mixed. It was Fritz in 84 against Reagan..but Dukakis still was a dud of a governor and his revolving dooe policy on criminals is what did him in against Bush</p>
<p>Well, for the one who made the Sheldon Glashow comment, it should be noted that Glashow didn't leave Harvard because he was more impressed by Boston University, but because Glashow is a stubborn old mule who can't take the fact that String Theory is a viable scientific theory, accurate mathematically up to something like .00000001%; this is the way the other physicists think at BU, in contrast with those at Harvard.</p>
<p>I have the theory that outside of the universe lies Santa Claus and his headquarter. Where's the proof you ask? It's in the numbers. What is mathematically beautiful and elegant is just that, beautiful and elegant. It doesn't mean it's the truth. String Theory might turn out to be the Grand Theory of everything, but until we have some concrete evidence, it's a nothing more than a bunch of beautiful equations.</p>
<p>Even Einstein's General Relativity required concrete evidence that light can be bended by gravity. Patience is a virtue in the world of science. Don't jump the gun until proven otherwise.</p>
<p>Furthermore, if String Theory is so ground breaking as a physic theory, has any of the many advocates won a Nobel prize for their work on String Theory yet? The Nobel Committee for Physics is notorious for awarding the prize only to verifiable theory. The jury is still out for String Theory. </p>
<p>P.S.
I don't know the internal politics of Harvard Physics department, but do you have any proof that he left it because the department embraced String Theory, beside the uncited Wikipedia article?</p>
<p>It is a theory. It is definitely not proven true, but it's a fricken theory. Old man Glashow doesn't even think it should be a theory, but who cares about him? Certainly not Edward Witten, Brian Greene, and other string theorists who lead in physics. I'm not saying he's not smart, I'm just saying he's a bit too stubborn, and that he definitely left Harvard because much of the physicists in the department, let alone the world of intellectual academia, support the potential of string theory. </p>
<p>Glashow was singing mighty heavily before 1996, before Witten released his M-Theory, the theory that unified string theory, or rather showed how the five separate functions of the theory were actually the same function from different perspectives. After that revelation, Glashow should have been ashamed of himself. </p>
<p>If a student wants to excel in the world of physics, BU should definitely not be near the top of that student's list because of Glashow, it should be near the bottom because of him. </p>
<p>Besides, the man's pretty old and in physics, old is not necessarily gold.</p>
<p>P.S.
You "don't know the internal politics of [the] Harvard Physics department," and yet you know the internal mentality and psychology of myself, to assume such childishly that I went to Wikipedia--what sense does that make? Shame on you.</p>
<p>String Theory is named a "theory." but is it recognized as a theory in the eyes of all physicists? Is it a theory that has empirical evidences that support it on the scale of the theory of evolution or Einstein's two theories of relativity? I understand that in science nothing is proven 100%. But to earn the title of a theory, you have to show substantial data that back your claim and you must be able to test the theory over and over again through many experiments. Where are the experiments that give credence to String Theory? </p>
<p>"P.S.You "don't know the internal politics of [the] Harvard Physics department," and yet you know the internal mentality and psychology of myself, to assume such
childishly that I went to Wikipedia--what sense does that make? Shame on you."</p>
<p>So what's your answer? Where is your proof that he went to BU because his colleagues disagreed with him? Still waiting...I have no shame in questioning those who declare much, but have proven little. You can start name calling all you like, but please, provide some substance to what you are saying.</p>
<p>So far, it seems to me that you just have an ax to grind against Glashow. I don't know him personally, so he may be a big jerk, but in the field of science, liking a guy or hating him doesn't mean he is wrong or right in his assertion. When CERN (or whatever lab that has the power) discovers evidences backing String Theory, even indirectly, then we can all laugh about how foolish String Theory deniers were and Glashow would be embarrassed. But until then, an ounce of skepticism won't hurt you, especially if you are in the field of science.</p>