<p>I’m also posting this on the Cornell and UCLA forums.</p>
<p>I’m interested in physics, chemical engineering, materials science and economics. I signed up for physics at all three schools, although I may consider double majoring or switching courses. </p>
<p>Pros of each school:-</p>
<ol>
<li>UMich has the most flexible double major program (it has the least restrictions).</li>
<li>Cornell is an Ivy (and in NY too. Good connections with reputable companies?).</li>
<li>UCLA has on average the best reputation with employers of the three (according to THES and New York Times).</li>
</ol>
<p>Things to consider:-</p>
<ol>
<li>Are there any extra requirements for each school (Cornell - swimming)?</li>
<li>How academically rigorous are these schools?</li>
<li>Which school has a more introverted (meaning: less party, more study) nature and which school has a more extraverted (meaning: more party, less study) nature?</li>
</ol>
<p>Cornell is probably the most traditionally prestigious out of the three. It is also probably the most academically difficult, with grade inflation and a smarter student body on average. Probably less partying compared to UCLA and Mich. </p>
<p>UCLA and Michigan are similar in some respects. Both exemplify the “work hard, play hard” mentality. There’s a lot of partying, and there’s also a lot of studying. </p>
<p>UCLA has the best reputation in the West, Cornell in the east, and Michigan and Cornell probably comparable reputation in the midwest. By in large Cornell is probably the most respected nationally but the other two are also well regarded. </p>
<p>There’s not significant differences between these three overal, so I would chose between social and geographical fit.</p>
<p>UCLA: Los angeles, warm weather, in a great city.
Michigan: Ann Arbor, cold weather, in a college town.
Cornell: Ithaca, cold weather, in a college town.</p>
<p>I disagree with Allcapella, I would say that Cornell definitely has a partying atmosphere if that’s what you want, as 1/3 of Cornellians participate in Greek life, while only 13% of UCLA is Greek. That being said, I think you could probably find both extroverted and introverted people at all three schools, as they all have sizable student populations. Although, if you care about your school being into sports, UCLA or Michigan is probably the way to go. Unless you like hockey. Cornell is really into hockey.</p>
<p>As for your desire to do a double major, I believe that when I went to Cornell, a sizable portion of the student body did in fact do a double major. I believe UCLA on the other hand, being plagued by state budget cuts, makes it relatively difficult to switch majors and double major due to a lack of funding.</p>
<p>Cornell and Michigan are identical in most respects (academic quality, student quality, prestige, graduate school and professional placement, alumni networking etc…). I do not know enough about UCLA to compare it to Cornell or Michigan, but academically, it is a peer. </p>
<p>I would go for the cheapest option, assuming cost is a concern. If not, I would go for fit.</p>
<p>I think samcmanus was trying to say that there isn’t much of a sports scene at Cornell unless you are into hockey. The hockey scene at Cornell is crazy and many the current Michigan cheers were pilfered from Cornell.</p>
<p>The hockey scene at Michigan is pretty crazy too. The following is my favorite story of Michigan hockey lore:</p>
<p>UMich is a great school. Cornell may have an edge being an Ivy - just a personal view. Not too familiar with details of UCLA programs to compare. Alexandre post above sums it up well I would say.</p>
<p>I attended both Cornell and Michigan. I did not notice a difference in the way people I have dealt with perceive the two universities (prestige) or in the quality of their respective student bodies. Like I said, I am not qualified to judge UCLA beyond the academic and statistical, but when it comes to Cornell and Michigan, I am an authority.</p>