Studying American English?
 

I'm planning to go to the States in order to attend to an American English course but I haven't decided which city I would go. Please, help me to decide. I'm thinking about Fort Lauderdale, Boston or San Diego. I'll go in July so good weather and leisure time are also important. My main worry is that I can't drive so public transportation is important.

Boston would be the most comfortable, weatherwise, in July. Be careful not to learn a Boston accent, though.

In my opinion, the July weather in San Diego would be less humid than in Boston. We have a lot of leisure activities, as well. Unfortunately, our public transportation is pretty poor; it's fairly difficult to get around without a car.

I would stay away from the South in July. Lauderdale will be sweltering hot and humid. San Diego would be nice, as would Boston. If there are appropriate schools, how about San Francisco, Minneapolis, or Denver? An alternative to cities would be some of the larger universities that are in medium-sized towns.

Ft. Lauderdale be terribly hot in July. There is almost a complete lack of public transportation in the Ft. Lauderdale area. Unless you are used to tropical climates, can buy 15SPF suncreen by the gallon, and have an air conditioned car to use, avoid Ft. Lauderdale for your trip. Boston might have the best public transportation of the 3 cities, as well as a more reasonable July climate. (If you are coming from Europe you will find that American cities have MUCH less pubic transportation than you might be used to.)

I live in San Diego. San Diego has the best summer climate of the 3 cities mentioned. Anybody who says that Boston has a better summer climate is obviously not familiar with the July weather in Coastal California. Ft. Lauderdale will be very hot and humid. By the way, I have lived in Ft. Lauferdale and visited Boston on many occasions so this is from personal experience. <BR> <BR>In any event San Diego would be your best choice not only for weather but for many other reasons as well.

Overall, I would vote for Boston. The weather in San Diego in July would be the best of the three - but, I would not want to be there very long without a car. Boston has reasonable weather in July - and good public transportation.

Boston, without question, for unbeatable public transportation and access to a LOT of easily accessible activities, as well as a nice July climate -- although variable, with the occasional heatwave. Fortunately, "Boston proper" often gets sea breezes, so it's not as bad as some suburbes. But do not be surprised if many buildings are not air-conditioned -- no one expects heatwaves to last long and many count on fans and open windows to cool things off at night. But if you have a choice, get air-conditioned lodgings. The Bostonian 4th of July celebration is my favorite of all -- by the river, with the Pops orchestra and the fireworks. It would be unforgettable for you. <BR> <BR>As to the Boston accent -- it can be frightful, but no one teaching an "American English" course should have an accent, and at least people there know grammar! Actually, I think you can sum up American English in the one expression, "whatever."

Woops, not a good example of spelling -- "suburbs."

Definitely Boston - not only good weather, but the only real city of the 3. It predates the automobile and so is not completely sprawled. As a result, it is dense, has good public transporation, and you can get a good meal at 1 in the morning. Definitely DONT go to Ft Lauderdale in the summer unless you have an exceptional affection for heat and humidity.

I would vote for San Francisco personally. wonderful transportation system, and beautiful weather. also the prettiest city in the states. No I don't live there.

I've just found a course in San Francisco. Is it a good option?

San Francisco would be the absolute best option. The climate is steady, maybe even on the cool side. Public transportation is great. AND there is lots and lots to do! The city by the bay (and not Boston) would be my choice! <BR> <BR>

This is easy if you found a course in San Francisco. The ranking from best to worst is San Francisco, Boston, San Diego, Fort Lauderdale. I would even say this is the only logical ranking given these four choices and Student's restrictions (public transport, weather, leisure activities).

I agree that San Francsico would be an excellent choice in fact the best one. Go for it. San Francisco is a great place to live and visit.

San Francisco is a very good choice. One issue, though, is public transportation. San Francisco's public transportation is fairly miserable, though it does exist, unlike many US cities. I would say SF and Boston are equivalently good choices - I live in Boston, not SF, for a reason - I prefer Boston. THat said, SF is my second favorite city and I spend a lot of time there. One issue to be aware of is that San Francisco itself can be surprisingly cold in the summer - Mark Twain once said the coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco. That said, if you leave town it gets considerably warmer - in some sense you have a choice of climates. It really is a very car dependent area, though.

My final decision is between San Diego and San Francisco. The transport between the school and the apartment is not a problem because they're very close. I'd like to know which one of these two cities has more activities for people in their mid-twenties (clubs, restaurants, beaches, etc)and also where is easier to meet people.

Hmmm. That's a tough question. I have lived in both places, and both are really nice. I think it depends on where in each city you would be living. I didn't find the southern and eastern parts of San Diego to be very nice, but the North near La Jolla is wonderful. The beaches are warm enough to enjoy. But again, if you won't have a car, you won't be able to get around very well. <BR> <BR>Regarding San Francisco, if you are in the City, almost all of it is nice and served by decent public transportation. I have fewer positive things to say about the suburbs, however, except maybe the unique character of Berkely. San Francisco itself has a cooler climate than San Diego, which I found refreshing. There are plenty of beaches, but it is quite cold, so swimming is out. <BR> <BR>If it were me, I would pick San Francisco. It is a more "famous" city and is featured in movies, etc., and it's fun to recognize things once you've lived there. The views are fabulous. San Francisco has A LOT more culture and excellent restaurants. Also, the Asian culture is a wonderful part of the experience, the City is reasonably diverse, and wine country is nearby. If you are only coming for a short time, living in San Francisco is really a once-in-a-lifetime experience that I highly recommend.

Fort Lauderdale may be humid in summer but it is the nicest city of the 3. They have plenty world-class language schools. Everything indoors is air-conditioned. Only a bike is needed to get anywhere you want to go. The ocean water is warm for swimming. There are even free english language classes at community college. Its a clean, safe city. Very friendly. Stay at a youth hostel for only $17.00 per night. Perfect for language student.

Don't let the advertisement for Fort Lauderdale fool you. 300 meters on a bike there in July would have your shirt stuck to your back with sweat. San Francisco has good public transportation that I used two years ago as a visitor. Find a place to live near the intersection of Lombard and Van Ness and you will be in walking distance of excellent places to eat, drink, and meet people. Van Ness provides good access to the city bus system. Underground transport not possible because SF is built on little but rocks.

Whoa, Cindy! If you revisit this thread, I'd like to point out that Berkeley is NOT a suburb of Oakland, as Oakland is not. They are cities in their own right, with their own (quite pleasant to live in) atmospheres, and if you've spent any time in either, you know they don't resemble suburbs any more than SF does, in terms of services, density, architecture, etc. Really, I can't believe someone who lived in SF would call Berkeley a suburb. Or maybe you never crossed the Bay Bridge.

It's late, and I'll admit to some fatigue, but I don't see anywhere on this thread that I ever said "Berkeley is a suburb of Oakland." <BR> <BR>I would say that Berkeley is a suburb of SF, because Berkeley is considered a part of the Bay Area, and I think of the Bay Area as SF and surrounding nearby cities. To me, "suburb" does not necessarily mean a place must be ugly, tacky, devoid of culture, and lacking in any redeeming value apart from the more dominant city. Berkeley also strikes me as a suburb in the sense that lots of people I knew commuted from Berkeley to SF, another common feature of suburban. I didn't know of anyone who did it the other way, although there undoubtedly are people who do. <BR> <BR>No need to speculate about the authenticity of my experience in San Francisco. I really did live there, I spent reasonable amounts of time in the East Bay and Marin, and the whole area is great. We considered buying a home in Berkeley and doing the commute, but decided to move to the Washington, D.C. area instead. <BR> <BR>Take care.

I live in the San Francisco Bay area. Berkeley is not a suburb of San Francisco anymore than San Jose, Oakland etc. are. They are separate cities located around the San Francisco Bay. <BR> <BR>I have also lived in San Diego and Ft. Lauderdale and have visited Boston several times. <BR> <BR>All things being considered, I would definitely choose San Francisco. San Diego is very nice with a great climate but San Francisco is truly a great city and is quite unique. There is no place in the world with such a well integrated and diverse ethnic culture. Public transportation is very good in the Bay area. The only downside is that housing is very expensive. <BR> <BR>San Diego would be my second choice but lack of good public transportation is a negative and the city itself is not nearly as interesting as San Francsico. <BR> <BR>In all fairness Boston is also quite interesting but I think San Francisco has a lot more to offer. <BR> <BR>Ft. Lauderdale does not even come close to the other three cities. The only advantage to Ft. Lauderdale is the beach. The weather is horrible in the summer and the city lacks many things.

Boston has new high-speed train to NYC/Washington DC. Pricy, but possibly an opportunity to see beyond Boston itself. And there's always the "slow" train to NYC for a weekend outing. Both cities are easy to do without driving in them -- and both have the Gray Line type of over-view tour buses. You might also be able to "hitch a ride" with other students to areas near Boston such as Bar Harbor or Newport, RI, with its historic mansions. And, I'm certain a number of bus tour groups must operate day trips to those areas near Boston.

Sorry Cindy, *I* was fatigued when I wrote "Berkeley us NOT a suburb of Oakland"--of course, I meant to say that it's not a suburb of SF. <BR> <BR>Okay, I don't doubt the authenticity of your Sf experience, but I repeat, *Berkeley is NOT a suburb*--of SF or anywhere else. This isn't a knock on suburbs of any kind; I never suggested that uburbs are necessarily tacky, ugly, devoid of culture or of any redeeming value other than their proximity to a central city. And that's not what I meant when I mentioned the services, architecture, etc. Look, the SF may be the "center" of the Bay Area, but the East Bay has its own center, which is made up of Oakland and Berkeley together. Neither of these cities would fit any urban planner's definition of a suburb, and they have suburbs of their own. Quite aside from culture, their infrastructure is urban in every way, and believe me if you had indeed lived in Oakland or Berkeley (as I did for around 20 yearz), you would not think of them as "suburbs." I am not just being protective of my hometown here, either: this is a matter of definition, and I'd bet that you'd find few people in the Bay Area (including the many that commute to SF for work) who would consider these cities suburbs (or suburban). Suburban=not urban.

OK. Fair enough. In fact, this is good news. I've always told people that I live in Bethesda, MD, a suburb of Washington, D.C. But Bethesda has its own downtown and commerce, so maybe it isn't a suburb at all. Now I can just say I live in Bethesda. :-)

San Diego and Ft. Lauderdale would not be fun without a car. Transportation is a big factor in the U.S. <BR> You should come to Chicago, we have one of the best transportation systems in the U.S.--plus plenty of great universities (DePaul University being one of the best, but I'm biased).

Nice try, Cindy! (But tell people what you want.) I've spent time in Bethesda and have a relative who grew up there. Maybe you could argur against its being a suburb, but is it an urban center? I don't think so. Consider: If you took away DC, would there be a "reason" for Bethesda? Does it have a university? Its own art museum? Independent public transportation? Its own airport? A port or its economic equivalent? I'm not dissing Bethesda here, just pointing out that Oakland/Berkeley (the borders of which bleed and are almost fluid) does have all this, and would be an urban center even without SF. <BR> <BR>I guess if you live in the City and only visit the East Bay and see people commuting from it, and especially if you haven't lived there long enough to notice or don't pay attention to the local politics of th East Bay, I could see how you could view it as similar to Marin Co. cities in relation to SF, but it's definitely a different animal! <BR> <BR>BTW, I also love the weather there--no extremes--and agree that the fog can be romantic. IMO it's one of the very best places in the country to live, all in all (though I don't live there now).