<p>Two VERY different schools, I know, but I love both!! I'm planning on majoring in communications, but I certainly didn't pick my schools based on that. Anyway, any insider info would help. thanks :)</p>
<p>do you speak french well? do you like montreal and the french canadian culture?</p>
<p>McGill. Montreal is an awesome place to go to college.</p>
<p>both great schools. Montreal is a fabulous city, and I think NOLA will be again (I'm an optimist). But have you considered the enormous difference in their weather/climates? hard to think of two school at greater extremes....</p>
<p>I'd go with McGill.</p>
<p>Montreal is AMAZING and so is New Orleans.</p>
<p>Tulane seems to be so much better than it was before Katrina and I believe it has a good Communications dept.
Even though Montreal is a great college town I cannot stand Canada or the French so I would choose Tulane. But that's just me.
You really have picked 2 amazing schools so look up every detail of each before you make your decision.</p>
<p>You don't even have to know French to get by in Montreal. If you have an anglophone accent (which I'm assuming you do if you speak french and are from the US) then most people will just speak to you in English anyways.</p>
<p>Groenveld9 -- Why can't you stand Canada? And what do "the French" have to do with McGill? French-Canadians are not French.</p>
<p>I don't know much about McGill, but I know more than a little about Tulane. In the CC world, the school is hugely underrated, but the truth is that this school has an underrated student body (avg SAT is about 1300) and the faculty is excellent. In some respects, Katrina has been a qualitative positive for the school as they have reduced underperforming departments and retained most of their best faculty. The students there enjoy as good a balance of good academics and good social life as can be found almost anywhere in the country. This balance in the school and the students holds them in good stead with prospective employers and distinguishes the school from so many of the others here on CC. </p>
<p>As for New Orleans, many people find this to be a positive, but I am not as sure. Tulane is located 4 miles from downtown and is pretty insulated from a lot of the seedier sides of New Orleans. But if you have ever been there (New Orleans), it is very poor and that is apparent in many large sections of the city. Sometimes, it is hard to know where the hurricane damage stopped and the poverty began. Some people are ok with that, some are not. </p>
<p>Students go down to Bourbon Street for some socializing, but social life is definitely more centered on the campus. The climate is very, very different from Montreal (it's spring now in New Orleans) and again, that is good for some, but not for others. And, fwiw, there is also a French history to New Orleans, though no where near as dominant as what I'd expect to find in Montreal.</p>
<p>well i visited both schools, and i LOVE both of the cities (but i obviously like the weather in new orleans better than that in montreal). as for the state of new orleans after katrina, tulane's campus is totally fine and i'd love to help out down there (half of my family is from new orleans). but what i'm concerned about is the partying aspect. although i want to have a fun and social time in college, i dont want to go to a "party school". i'm aware that mcgill probably has a better reputation academically, but i dont know how heavily that should be weighed in my decision making.
(and thank you for your replies! and btw...i started taking french this year just in case i end up in montreal- ha)</p>
<p>Neither is considered a "party" school. Both Tulane and McGill are respected academic institutions. I prefer Montreal to New Orleans and McGill has a broader international reputation, which is why I recommend McGill, but in terms of academics and overall reputation, both schools are well regarded.</p>
<p>Tulane...Montreal reminds me of france...no thank you..plus tulane is much smaller..</p>
<p>Pateta, have you even been to France? There is absolutely nothing in common between France and Montreal, except the language they share... and even that is debatable given Quebec's attrocious accent. It's like their French never evolved since the French first settled the area back in the early 16th century!</p>
<p>Besides, what's wrong with France? As far as I am concerned, it is one of the World's most ideal countries, one that other nations should aspire to be. It is clearly Europe's intellectual and cultural center and that is not about to change anytime soon. Are you sure that your apparent negative feelings for France has nothing to do with the fact that France always beats Brazil in the World Cup?! Hehe!!!</p>
<p>alexandre,
Is it possible that you are a closet "cheese eating surrender monkey?" Say it ain't so...</p>
<p>Not at all. I am Lebanese. But I give credit where credit is due. I consider France to be an ideal country. However, when it comes to football, Zinedine Zidane is my favorite player of all time, which suits me fine since I have always been a fan of French football...ever since the 1982 World Cup.</p>
<p>On a side note, as a History aficionado, I don't belive it is fair to lable the French as surrender monkeys. France almost single-handedly defeated a much larger and better equipped Germany in the Great War. France also fought valiently at the side of the colonists in the American revolitionary war. And today, France's military has progressed to the point where no country on Earth would dare challenge it.</p>
<p>Alexandre,
I was only kidding.... :) although I doubt that the French will be giving any seminars on military affairs and homeland security...</p>
<p>I know you were being facetious. I have figured some of you out by now!</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is absolutely nothing in common between France and Montreal, except the language they share... and even that is debatable given Quebec's attrocious accent. It's like their French never evolved since the French first settled the area back in the early 16th century!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not a historian or a linguist I see. First, Quebec was settled in the 17th century. Second, Quebec French has evolved since and is still evolving, and bears little resemblance to the mixture of French dialects the original settlers had. But feel free to repeat false cliches.</p>
<p>Blobof, I am certainly not a linguist, nor did I claim to be. Although I am sure it has evolved in its own way, I also know that French Canadians still use words that are no longer used in France and I am sure we can both agree that with the point I was making; that modern Quebecois bears very little resemblence to modern French.</p>
<p>As far as history goes, I will fully admit that I am not that knowledgeable about Canadian history. I just never read that much on the subject. And I know that the major wave of settlements from France did not arrive to Quebec until the 17th and 18th centuries. However, if memory serves, Jacques Cartier, who supposedly gave Canada its name, was very much responsible for Quebec's first settlement, albeit a temporary one that lasted a year or two at the most. Now since Cartier died in the mid 16th century, I naturally assumed that Quebec was first settled in the early 16th century, but I could be wrong. </p>
<p>Either way, I do know enough about modern day Quebec to know that it holds very little resemblance to modern day France. Not a bad thing mind you. I have expressed my admiration for Montreal, clearly stating on several occasions that it is one of my two favorite cities in North America...and I quite possibly like Quebec City even better.</p>
<p>You know, Louisiana has a lot of French influences too...</p>