<p>among Berkeley, UCLA, USC, Northwestern, Rice, UMich, Cornell and UPenn? And if possible, kindly rank them. Someone asks me this and I couldn’t give an honest answer.</p>
<p>I know Stanford, Duke and Notre Dame are great for both (athletics and academics), but he did not get into Stanford and didn’t apply to Duke and Notre Dame.</p>
<p>UCLA probably</p>
<p>I don’t know enough about the non-California schools to compare them, but with respect the the California schools for academics it is clearly 1. Cal 2. UCLA 3. U$C For athletics, it depends on whether she is looking at it as a student fan or an actual athlete. As a fan, the same order holds. When you are talking about the actual athletic departments, Cal and UCLA are probably tied for excellence.</p>
<p>I would disagree with the fan athletics…though it’s really only particular to football. Trojan football is absolutely insane. But Cal kinda gives you the better opp to watch a football game nearer to the field</p>
<p>I think what my friend’s son was looking for is a school which has a strong school spirit due to having a good reputation for academics, and at the same time, performs well in sports. It’s something that the student body participates actively during sports competition either as a player or as an spectator/cheerer.</p>
<p>Cal, because we give you seats on the 50-yard line for football and courtside for basketball.</p>
<p>Berkeley, UCLA, USC, Northwestern, Rice, UMich, Cornell and UPenn
Penn: mediocre sports (ivy league…). (can they even get 10000 to watch a football game?). Excellent academics.
Cornell: See Penn, except very good academics.
UMich: Good culture (Big 10). (currently) okay football/basketball teams. Don’t know about other sports. Considered a “football school”. The Big House is one of the best football gametime atmospheres in the nation. Good academics.
Rice: mediocre sports (forget which conference). Horribly gawdawful basketball team (Ben Braun…). Good academics.
USC: Decent culture (Pac 10). Excellent football team. Good basketball team. Considered a “football school”. Galen Center rarely fills up for basketball games, whether they are winning or not. Okay academics.
UCLA: Good culture (Pac 10). Awful football team (4-12 last year? Kevin Craft= interception machine). Very good basketball team. Considered a “basketball school”. Need to get all the way to Pasadena (Rose Bowl) for football games (pain ><). Pauley Pavilion is one of the more exciting game-time atmospheres of basketball. Good academics.
Cal: Decent culture (Pac 10). Very good football team. Good basketball team (Hired Mike Montgomery last year). Considered a “football school”, but Haas Pavilion does fill up for basketball games. Memorial Stadium sells out for big/Big games (70,000+); at least 60000 come to every game usually. Very good academics.</p>
<p>Not that I care about this, but FYI at Cornell the sport of choice is hockey, and they get into that rather well. The environment at Lynah Rink can be quite exciting and intense, and intimidating to opposing teams. </p>
<p>Though not necessarily mature…
[YouTube</a> - Cornell vs Harvard 2003](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q43q9xKsO50&feature=related]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q43q9xKsO50&feature=related)</p>
<p>Lacrosse is also very popular, and the school is very good in other sports such as wrestling.</p>
<p>Also there is a big difference between watching near-semi-pro professionals play sports, and playing them yourself. Cornell has a very large intramural sports program.</p>
<p>This was the same thing I was pondering before deciding a few years back. I think the best schools in terms of value/academics/sports is a tie between UCLA and Cal. The thing with USC is that it trails both in terms of academics and cost. The other schools, I didn’t apply to, so I don’t have an opinion.</p>