According to this question and it's replies
What is the purpose of the "non-endorsement clause" in the New BSD license?
it seems smarter to pick the BSD license over the MIT, to prevent people using your name in an unwanted way.
If that is the case, why do people still pick the MIT license over BSD license?
A friend of mine once pointed out that licenses tell you what the license authors were scared of.
If you're scared of having your name dragged through the mud, then the BSD license will seem better. If you're scared of having your software put into a proprietary piece of software, then the GPL will seem better. Whatever the license, the author chooses it because it protects them against what they are afraid of.
Different people have different concerns and so use different licenses.
Short answer is the MIT is a simpler license.
Yes in many ways I like the clause about people not being able to use your name in an unwanted way, but the reality is most people are not too concerned about that. If you are concerned about that then you are probably using the BSD license already.
Additionally the MIT License can just be copied and pasted as is while the BSD license requires editing it from project to project. Personally I like both, and feel they are similar enough that I am not losing much picking the MIT license for my project, but that is just my personal opinion.
As you may know, the original BSD license had 4 clauses, one of them being an "advertisement clause". The non-endorsement clause was likely present to accompany the advertising clause and not allow the name of the project be dragged through the mud while being advertised.
