<p>I'm trying to decide between UC Berkeley and UCLA with Art History as my major. I really could go either way on this right now. If you guys could help with any information on either program, school and city life, anything would be very appreciated. </p>
<p>Also, this may sound really stupid, but I have been reading on here that Berkeley is very competitive. What exactly does that mean? Like with grades or something, like is it harder to get good grades because everyone excels? </p>
<p>@ UCB
I wouldn’t call paying 100k + dollars and wasting 4 years of your life to work at McDonald’s “right”; but, that’d be one more unemployed hipster coming out of Cal and one less from UCLA… so…</p>
<p>This thread is a year old. One of these days people will check the dates before posting. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>For future reference, however, Berkeley has one of the top art history programs in the country. Harvard, Columbia, and (only at the graduate level) NYU are its primary competitors, with a few others (Princeton, Yale, Michigan, Chicago, Northwestern, Hopkins, Penn) also being quite good; UCLA sits just below that level. UCLA, on the other hand, has access to noticeably better art museums. Unless an undergrad has specialized interests that are much better matched at one than the other, I doubt one would notice much difference between the two at the undergraduate level.</p>
<p>There are only two instances in which I would recommend one over the other without hesitation. The first is if a student is interested in art conservation, in which case UCLA is a no-brainer. Conservation opportunities are much more limited at Berkeley, and it is essential an applicant have several hundred hours of experience for graduate admissions.</p>
<p>The second instance is if a student is interested in both art history and business, which makes a good combination; he would be better served at Berkeley.</p>