This is an interesting thread... I was accepted at Columbia, Brown and BU. I actually committed to attending at Columbia before I had even heard from BU... it took so long for them to respond to my application; it was a little ridiculous. I think BU is a good school of PH, but I don't think it's on the same playing field as Columbia. I guess I feel as though the fact that I committed at Columbia before even hearing from BU said everything about the difference between these two schools. I also like the fact that you complete a practicum and a thesis at Columbia vs. only a practicum at BU (and the practicum is actually a requirement of all accredited schools of PH). I didn't feel that the BU program was very challenging, at least for me. Having completed an undergraduate thesis, not having the opportunity to do so in a graduate program would have been a step backwards. In all honesty, it depends on who you are and what you are looking for in a graduate program. Of course, these are just my own personal opinions and thoughts, but I think Columbia and BU are on two totally different levels as far as PH schools.
Andrea- congrats on Columbia... I agree, I was sold on Admitted Students Day. I could tell right away that Columbia is where I belong. What dept will you be in? I'm in the SMS Dept and so excited about beginning classes!
I agree and disagree with this. I was admitted to Columbia; however, I have decided to not attend. I never applied to BU so I can't speak to the school. I have already earned a degree from UNC's SPH and I've completed a practicum and thesis, as well, so I feel I have some pretty decent academic and field experience -- and subsequent perspective.
I was fortunate to be able to visit/consider several Schools of Public Health: Hopkins, Harvard, UCLA, Emory, UNC, Columbia, etc. I noticed a few things. The best SPHs (which include all the above listed) have several similarities (affiliations with world-class medical schools and research facilities, great resources, published faculty, etc); however, there isn't much differentiating them. Public Health is still so new that it really is what you make of it, wherever you go.
I chose to go to UCLA after seriously considering Hopkins, Emory, and Columbia (out of the 10 schools I was admitted to). After pouring over questions and speaking with mentors of mine who are MD/MPHs, it became clear to me that I will be no better "educated" at UCLA than at Hopkins. I was very lucky to have that decision to make.
My point is this: It is somewhat arbitrary and misleading to deem one school as a step above another. Yes, schools like Harvard, UCLA, Columbia, Emory are going to have tons of resources that others may not. But, you're almost guaranteed a great opportunity if you find a program that is supported by accomplished affiliated institutions and have plenty of resources. Boston is a great town with plenty of opportunities and health institutions and BU is a decent medical school.
What's more is that certain curriculum structures appeal to different people. BU not having a thesis does not mean it is a less-quality program. Hopkins is "ranked higher" than UCLA yet its condensed schedule was unappealing and UCLA's more flexible quarter system was better positioned to allow me to do research and take extra classes for medical school.
I could sit here and list several negative things I've heard about Columbia but that doesn't mean UCLA or Harvard are better -- every school has negatives. If someone chooses to go to BU and asserts themselves, they can do just as much as someone who goes to Columbia.
I'm speaking in theory here but I, myself, thought I had to go to Columbia or Yale or Hopkins because they are Ivies or 'ranked higher' and that just doesn't mean so much when you're deciding between world-class medical and health institutions like UCLA and Hopkins.