<p>Yeah that’s basically what I’m trying to decide between. I am actually visiting BU tommorow, but right now I have a feeling this is going to be a tough choice.
Can anyone tell me the pros and cons of each? I only know about BU’s great location but also its grade deflation.</p>
<p>AT BU the courses are very structured. They seem to believe in a very classical manner of teaching-- very very liberal arts.</p>
<p>At NYU, you really have to be your own individual-- and the courses are still relatively structured there too.</p>
<p>Both these topics have been beaten to death. Search for the threads in this forum.</p>
<p>DONT GO TO BU....
nyu is better....much better
the only thing going for bu is the town...the college town of boston. that is IT!</p>
<p>dont make the same mistake i did and go to nyu</p>
<p>That's hilarious...The only thing BU has is that it's in Boston? LMAO. Lemme guess--You werent liked because you're a complete ditz? You'll fit in better at NYU.</p>
<p>I posted in the other BU vs NYU thread about the differences between the schools. I want to elaborate here on the subject of college and success generally.</p>
<p>NYU has far more prestigious arts schools in acting and film / tv. Those schools are very selective. I would love to see the relative selectivity of Tisch versus NYU generally but the school doesn't put that info out there (of course). A lot of well known people have gone through Tisch for acting or film or tv. "A lot" in this case means that a relative handful of the total graduates have been successful in really large ways. Many more have good jobs and, since this is the arts, a lot are under-employed or working in different fields. Maybe, just maybe going to Tisch gives a person a leg up, but arts is a talent field. A college application is probably the worst possible way to determine a person's talent. When a person has tried out for roles, has worked on shoots, has edited film, lit real sets or done whatever in a way that shows competence and then artistic flare and then brilliance, the absolute last thing that matters over time is the name on that person's degree. </p>
<p>In a similar vein, it's often said of Berklee, the music school in Boston, that you don't want to graduate from there because if you're really good you'll have a career before then. </p>
<p>As for the comments above, I really have to wonder when someone says the courses are structured. Um, all college courses everywhere have essentially the same structures. You go to class, take exams and write papers, all based around a curriculum. It's not different from high school except you have more work and more time to get it done (except you spend so much time doing other stuff). </p>
<p>As for the negative comments by shoewhatever, sorry you didn't like the school. Hope you like it elsewhere. </p>
<p>To address her specifics, some classes take attendance, and that is true at every school. Some teachers care about that and some don't. Attendance tends to be required most in intro courses and, though that can be total bs in some cases - like COM 101 - the idea is that if you go to class as a freshman then you at least have a leg up on your work and won't fail. Where that rule is in place, it's because they don't want you to fail, not because they're trying to browbeat you into submission. </p>
<p>The other points have been covered in abundance, particularly grading. BU's average gpa is about a 3.1. Some schools are notably higher, which cheapens their grades. Does BU get full credit for holding the line relatively more than some schools? That's unclear but students clearly get into good graduate schools so it appears not to be a huge issue. I can tell you I've not heard it discussed with any sense of urgency by anyone in the upper classes. Those are the people affected but the grading policy seems to be an issue which most interests high school seniors. Since BU is a big school with many colleges, there is great disparity in grading and wide variation in ability and effort. If you want good grades, you can get them. I equate the situation to that which exists at any good large school. </p>
<p>Whatever issues the poster has with UNI are her own. No program is universally loved. Then again, a large number of kids either transfer or consider transferring from their colleges - I'm not talking about BU but everywhere. A subset then transfers again. Some find eventually find a place at which they can be comfortable and others are simply unhappy.</p>
<p>A small but meaningful correction to an excellent post: BU's acting program is as strong as NYU's, in its rather conservative, traditionalist way. The acceptance rate is quite low, around 1/7, and alumni include Julianne Moore, Geena Davis, and Jason Alexander.
Film/TV is another story, the most notable difference being that BU treats Film/TV as a close cousin of general mass communications, whereas NYU lumps it/them with acting, and popular music. Tisch is comparable to BU CFA only in the theatre department.</p>
<p>I recommend that people check out the research by Alan Kreuger and Stacy Dale. They looked at earnings for people who had been admitted to schools of varying selectivity. That is, students who were admitted to two or more schools, some choosing to go to the most selective, others choosing a less selective school. </p>
<p>Studies have shown that you make more mone</p>
<p>The post above got cut off for unknown reasons. Sorry.</p>
<p>I suggest people look at the work of Alan Kreuger and Stacy Dale. They examined whether people earn more if they choose a more or less selective school. </p>
<p>Other studies have shown that attending a highly selective school leads to higher earnings, but that work includes kids who did not get into the highly selective schools. Kreuger and Dale compared people who got into schools of varying selectivity, with some choosing the most selective and others choosing a lesser selective school. </p>
<p>In sum, for people admitted to schools of varying selectivitythere is no difference in earnings, unless you come from a very poor family. I assume that means for the very poor that attending a highly selective school tends to remove you more from your socio-economic class. </p>
<p>As Kreuger says, "It's not the school that has the magic touch. It's the students." You find a higher concentration of people with more ability and more motivation at Ivies, but you find them everywhere, including UMass and certainly at BU or NYU. (As you go up the selectivity scale, you may also find more of a wealth effect, that the people attending those schools tend to have more money to begin, and that may affect future earnings independently.)</p>
<p>The bottom line is that it's you, not the school, so go where you want.</p>
<p>The odd thing is the study shows spending more on college leads to higher earnings. Maybe that's why the term bill keeps going up - they're trying to make all the students richer in the long run!</p>
<p>Kreuger and Dale compared such schools as Denison, Miami of Ohio and Penn State versus schools like Yale, Columbia and Swarthmore. No earnings difference. I would bet the data now backs this up even more, since it is now much harder to get into a school like Yale.</p>