I'm having an awful hard time searching about this topic (BU vs BC) on the forum. I've typed all sorts of key words on the forum search but I haven't been able to find any posts....... Would someone please help me?

There's a lot of material on these forums about BC v. BU. The particular thread above though is irritating because most of it is spent arguing about the respective location of BU and BC as it pertains to Boston. There are better threads out there, just use the search function.

No need to hash it out - go to the cheaper one. When it came down to it, I only chose BU over BC because they gave me more money. Had BC been cheaper, I would be there right now.

If its the same amount of $ - visit both, talk to students and just go with your gut.

1. Go to the cheaper one.
2. If they are similar price, go to the one which you personally prefer.
3. Don't go to either at sticker price unless someone else is footing most of the bill.

TITCR

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... 2543436520

Whichever one is cheaper. While BC has better placement in biglaw, if you can get a significant scholarship from BU, go there. Your shot at biglaw is less, but if you can drop your student loans 20k less at graduation, you may be happy with other opportunities.

If you're focused on Biglaw and only Biglaw, go to BC.

Yeah, this isn't true. They're about the same.

That's true. It's only a 5% difference. That is about the same. Just 5% of 285 or so students isn't all too many...unless you're in that 5%. I wouldn't take that kind of risk on a $150k investment, but to each his own.

You're only looking at data points from one year. Next year, it could swing 5% in BU's favor. It wouldn't be any reflection on either of the schools' placement abilities.

I don't think the difference has been statistically significant in any year's data I've seen. The 2 prior years they were tied one year and BC had about a 3% advantage the other. So in the last 3 years there isn't really any significant difference between the chances BU or BC affords you.

They are fungible. BU has mount doom. BC isn't in Boston proper. Jk about location. Go to the cheaper one. These are peers by any measure, especially when you look multiple years.

Yep, the only credited response.

Step 1: Which school gave you more $$? If one award is better than the other, just pick based on that. While the schools aren't exactly the same, none of the minute differences justify leaving $$ on the table.

Step 2: Assuming the cost would be the same, decide based on location. One is more suburban, campusy, etc. and the other is much more urban and busy. BU of course is located much close to Boston itself, whereas BC has you take a shuttle to main campus, and then T ride down into Boston from much further away. Some people really like the more suburban setting, and don't need to go to Boston proper all that often. Some people need to have close and constant access to the heart of the city. So that is certainly a distinguishing factor

Step 3: At this point, you would have to stretch to find differences. Placement figures are very similar, and the "differences" people point out are really just splitting hairs since we can't figure out any real grounds for distinguishing the schools. Both have great professors, similar placement, good name in Boston and in the region, etc. You should be able to decide this within the first 2 steps.

I also believe BU selects slightly more into PI.

I agree, maybe we should look at multiple years. Here's 2010.

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... slreturn=1

Oh man, you're right. BC is actually way better than BU. Sorry guys, I really dropped the ball there.

BU is significantly less respected in boston and is a shithole of a building inside and out

You know full well that the first part isn't true, though the 2nd part has merit. The placement wouldn't be so similar if the reputation was that much worse. And the size of the alumni network in the city means both schools have partners in every firm. Neither is significantly less respected in Boston. I understand saying something like that when we are jokingly trashing the other school, but when a kid is actually deciding, and can't tell the different between honest critique and obvious hyperbole, then perhaps we should either clarify or refrain from it.

And the year before that they were tied at 34.6% apiece. I hardly think 3-5% is statistically significant.

I think his sentiment is true if we are talking about lay prestige. Inside the legal world, I would say they are peer.

Lol, 3% difference means all of 7 students

Oh agreed. BC is THE school of Boston when it comes to undergrad (since it is the school that Boston natives largely gravitated to historically, whereas BU was always the more international and eclectic school for kids who aren't usually from the area), and it definitely has a leg up in undergrad prestige (partially due to its more pervasive sports culture, but certainly due to its academics as well). But as far as law schools go, with legal recruiters that don't care about lay prestige, it becomes an irrelevancy.

I'd ignore this Slevin Kelevra 2011 guy for three reasons:

1) That movie was awful; don't trust anyone who names himself after it.

2) He's an obvious troll with no real input other than posting NLJ250 numbers constantly while telling people to go to BC.

3) I'm 98% sure he's an alt of informative, who was an obvious troll with no real input other than posting NLJ250 numbers constantly while telling people to go to BC. Then one day he decided to get fancy, change his story from applicant to actual lawyer to troll even harder for BC, and got caught red-handed lying. Slevin Kelevra 2011 appeared all of two days after informative's last post.



Ok, that troll aside, everyone else has the right idea. Peer schools, decided on which gives you more money, and if the money is similar, visit each and see which one you like better. They have the same firms come to on-campus recruiting, they co-host the NYC off-campus recruiting event, etc. Peer schools.

Oh yeah, I forgot about Informative, who was anything but. And how Slevin showed up right after Informative was finally banished for his lies when we caught him in the act.

Bottom line: Slevin is likely the same troll we tried to get rid of in the past, and typically says little of actual value aside from playing up minor differences in statistics and reaching overly broad conclusions on the basis of them

Agree with everything Harlan said, and this is the opinion you would get from almost any BU or BC student.