Which one of these U.S Uni's is better, and which is easiest to get in?

Research, employment figures, reputation, etc. are only really relevant to grad. schools (I mean, you can't expect all of those things from a college, even if it's Harvard College ). Those factors don't weigh in until you're going for a higher degree, at least imo. That said, I still think the diversity point would be grounds for making a decision on which uni. is better, at least for me. I think we disagree on this because we both have different criteria for "better."

What about Bethune–Cookman University, whats its rep like, easy to get into?

How do research, employment figures and reputation only apply to grad schools? I was under the impression that the vast majority of Americans who graduate go into employment instead of pursuing further studies.

Research trickles down into teaching and also gives you an idea of the calibre of professors that you will be interacting with. The quality of research also determines a university's reputation, which in turn determines employment figures to a large extent. Of course there are numerous other ways in which these factors (and many more) influence and affect each other.

On another note, you'd be amazed by the amount of diversity in California.

If you focus exclusively on research-intensiveness, how are you going to rank colleges like Bowdoin or Swarthmore, which aren't research universities, but are very competitive? Also, I think it's fair to say that most students who go to colleges as elite as NYU and Berkeley go to grad. school at a significantly large rate than students who, say, attend community college

As for California: Yes, my family lives in Cali., so I'm aware that it is "diverse." But it might surprise you the diversity that it isn't found within the state, which unis. like UC-Berkeley and UCLA lose out on (there are 49 other states in the U.S., too).

I think we're talking about two different things here. You seem to be talking about the difficulty of getting into a university, I'm talking about the academic strength of a university. And I'm not only focusing on research - I'm also focusing on employer reputation, alumni and university reputation. I've never even heard of Bowdoin or Swarthmore. In the same way, NYU doesn't have the brand names that UCB and UCLA enjoy by any means. I don't know why you're talking about graduate schools; I already stated that research, employer reputation, employment figures and alumni have a massive influence on undergraduate prospects.

With regards to Bowdoin and Swathmore, I think it's safe to say that research-poor universities will never compare with their research-intensive counterparts because research is the building block of a university's academic strength, and hence employablity and prestige. Look at the rankings - the ones at the top are undertaking world-leading research.

Bowdoin and Swarthmore or colleges that are better than UCLA and UC-Berkeley in terms of academic strength (in fact, both are at the level of the Ivies). But they aren't heard of often because they aren't Universities, so there isn't a lot of research conducted at both schools. The reason I don't think your criteria matter is because research is conducted in grad. school- it's like you're giving credit to a college for something it didn't do. Maybe you don't understand the difference between a university and college in the U.S. ?

Or maybe we will just never agree ?

Hmmm, I've done some research - they look pretty impressive tbh. I think the crucial thing here is that they're not universities - they are colleges. Thus, your argument that "research strength doesn't matter when comparing universities" is completely redundant as these simply aren't universities. Research strength is a massive factor when it comes to university reputation and overall strength; obviously that is not the case for American liberal arts colleges.

No, no. I never said "research strength doesn't matter when comparing universities." I said it doesn't matter when comparing undergraduate studies at a university (a.k.a. college). To go to a university for its "overall strength" would be foolish because an undergrad. student won't experience the strength found in the grad. programs. In short, if you're going to college (as the OP is), you must consider the college's strengths only. And, as I have shown, both NYU and Berkeley are equal in terms of academia. The deciding factor which separates the two, then, is diversity. Thus NYU beats Berkeley

Of course research strength matters! It forms the building block of a university's academic strength, reputation and brand name - and that's how universities market themselves. It's not because: "We have the nicest classrooms and the most understanding teachers who will help you with all of your problems". It's: "We're the world's leading university in Economics research. Come here and you'll be taught by the guy who wrote that Macroeconomics textbook your reading". That's what makes a university impressive. Employers look at the brand name. I can't see how you can draw a line between research and "academia" - they are inseperable and intrisically linked. I think you forget that universities were originally conceived to be centres of academia a.k.a. exploring the world we live in a.k.a. research ----> teaching the next generation our progressing knowledge so they can build upon that.

Are you saying NYU and Berkeley have the same level of academic strength because incoming students have similar SAT scores? Because you have nothing else to go by (even though Berkeley actually have a higher range of scores). I already debunked that theory in my previous post - entry tariff scores are of no relevance to a university's academic strength as the university has no influence over them. Again, research strength, employment figures, alumni, employment reputation and brand strength are much more relevant. And UCB and UCLA far exceed NYU in this respect - again, look at the domestic and global rankings.

Diversity is great, but it isn't the be all and end all. Too extreme, and it'll just lead to cultural segregation (it's seems to be quite an issue at LSE for example). And you're approach is so simplistic. There is are a multitude of other, more important factors that I would take into account when choosing a university besides demographics.

Once again, if reputation is as important as you claim, how do colleges like Swarthmore and Bowdoin stay so competitive considering they don't do research? What's more, Swarthmore and Bowdoin are both better than Berkeley and NYU in terms of academia (there was an article I read a couple years back about how Swarthmore's student body has the same entry tariff scores as those at Harvard College). If research and academia were inextricably linked like you claim, then colleges like Swarthmore and Bowdoin wouldn't even exist.

Universities have no influence over entry tariff points ?... A University may not be able to control the tariff points of the individual student, but it can control the tariff points of the accepted student body. Furthermore, domestic and global rankings use the exact same criteria you use (research, alumni, etc.), which I have proven aren't relevant to a college. Are you going to claim to be reputable because your college has amazing alumni? I hope not. Are you going to claim to be brilliant because some doctoral student above you wrote a ground-breaking research paper? Again, I hope not. College is far different than a University here in the U.S., and you are definitely talking about the benefits students enjoy in graduate school. Unfortunately, that's not what the OP asked us about.

I agree, diversity isn't the only factor that the OP should take into account. It is the most important factor for me, considering both NYU and Berkeley are similar in other respects- both are very liberal, prestigious, and are in great locations (actually, Berkeley is in a rough neighborhood from what a friend tells me). Who knows, though. I'm sure the OP's standards aren't the same as yours and mine

You haven't understood what I'm trying to get at. Your fascination with irrelevant liberal arts colleges and entry tariffs leads me to the conclusion that I won't get anywhere with pursuing this argument. That and your confusion of the whole "brand" concept with the perspective of a student instead of an employer.

Let's just agree to disagree.

Irrelevant, hm?

But yes, I think it's better to agree to disagree

Diverse doesn't mean academic. Anyone who really claims NYU is strong for academics compared UCB is smoking crack. The lower sats?? Its a state school!

I think the attacks on NYU are a bit unwarranted, as it is certainly a good school, but I must agree with your basic points. It should also be pointed out that Berkeley, unlike most schools, does not superscore the SAT (i.e. combine the best subscores from different sittings of the test).

In terms of academic strength, Berkeley blows NYU out of the water. NYU has an edge in a few niche fields, perhaps (e.g. theatre), but really only Harvard, Princeton, and Stanford can match Berkeley in terms of sheer faculty firepower...which brings me to my next point.

Research strength isn't everything at the undergraduate level. Many universities are excellent at the undergraduate level but simply not that great at the graduate level -- Georgetown, Washington U in St. Louis, and Dartmouth are a few examples. On the flip side, you also have universities that are great at the graduate level but less so at the undergraduate level; professors can be a little too wrapped up in research, and many place teaching fairly low on their list of priorities. There is much to be said for choosing a smaller private university for undergraduate studies; it's personally reasonable to choose, say, Brown over Berkeley. I attended a fairly small private university for undergrad and am attending one of the larger publics discussed in this thread for graduate studies, and I think it's a very good combination.

That most emphatically does NOT apply to NYU, however, which has roughly the same number of undergraduates as Berkeley and is notorious for dissatisfactory financial aid, red tape, and poor faculty attention to undergraduates (e.g. several of the university's renowned programs like the Institute of Fine Arts are limited to graduate students). Given that Berkeley is top 5-10 in pretty much every field, requires most of its professors to teach both undergraduates and grad students, has a fairly good quality of life, and has a good reputation for student research, I'd choose it in a heartbeat given negligible cost differences.




Graduate placement from NYU is inferior to that from Berkeley. Actually, it's not even close. A few data points:

mind sharing the links for this stats?

For undergraduate studies, yes. UCLA and UCB are public state schools, so they heavily recruit within California. It is much harder to get into these schools if you aren't a Cali. resident, even if you have the required grades and standardized test scores. For example, 81% of Berkeley's student body are in-state students, and the number is 91% for UCLA. NYU's is 25%, which is acceptable compared to other top-notch schools (Harvard=25%, Cornell=35%, Columbia=27%).

Don't get me wrong, UC-Berkeley and UCLA are great schools. But for undergraduate studies they are pretty much exclusively California schools. On the other hand, NYU is much more diverse (if memory serves, NYU has the most international students out of any uni. in the U.S.)

The OP asked which is school is better, and I think a diverse student body is better than one filled with Cali. residents I don't know if you can honestly say Berkeley is better than NYU in terms of academia, either... I mean, they pretty much overlap:

NYU's medium SAT scores:
Critical Reading: 610 - 710
Math: 630 - 740
Writing: 620 - 720

Berkeley's medium SAT scores:
Critical Reading: 600 - 730
Math: 630 - 760
Writing: 610 - 740

Given the similarity between the two, yeah, I would definitely say NYU is better because it can claim to have a diverse student body which UC-Berkeley can't. California may be large, but it makes up only 13% of the U.S.' total population. So Berkeley's 81% figure for in-state students is very biased. But that's what happens at public state schools.

I think the attacks on NYU are a bit unwarranted, as it is certainly a good school, but I must agree with your basic points. It should also be pointed out that Berkeley, unlike most schools, does not superscore the SAT (i.e. combine the best subscores from different sittings of the test).

In terms of academic strength, Berkeley blows NYU out of the water. NYU has an edge in a few niche fields, perhaps (e.g. theatre), but really only Harvard, Princeton, and Stanford can match Berkeley in terms of sheer faculty firepower...which brings me to my next point.

Research strength isn't everything at the undergraduate level. Many universities are excellent at the undergraduate level but simply not that great at the graduate level -- Georgetown, Washington U in St. Louis, and Dartmouth are a few examples. On the flip side, you also have universities that are great at the graduate level but less so at the undergraduate level; professors can be a little too wrapped up in research, and many place teaching fairly low on their list of priorities. There is much to be said for choosing a smaller private university for undergraduate studies; it's personally reasonable to choose, say, Brown over Berkeley. I attended a fairly small private university for undergrad and am attending one of the larger publics discussed in this thread for graduate studies, and I think it's a very good combination.

That most emphatically does NOT apply to NYU, however, which has roughly the same number of undergraduates as Berkeley and is notorious for dissatisfactory financial aid, red tape, and poor faculty attention to undergraduates (e.g. several of the university's renowned programs like the Institute of Fine Arts are limited to graduate students). Given that Berkeley is top 5-10 in pretty much every field, requires most of its professors to teach both undergraduates and grad students, has a fairly good quality of life, and has a good reputation for student research, I'd choose it in a heartbeat given negligible cost differences.




Graduate placement from NYU is inferior to that from Berkeley. Actually, it's not even close. A few data points:

Hey guys,

Which University is easier to get into? And which is better?

UCF
NYU
UCLA
UC Berkeley