My goodness, are UCLA people LAME

<p>That stat is true, though, TrojanMan (even if it is skewed). I've seen it everywhere.</p>

<p>I was born and raised in a USC family, and now will be attending USC for grad school. I've been around the USC-ucla rivalry all my life, my moms side of the family being huge ucla fans, and my dad having gone to USC. It's as simple as this... Ucla has a HUGE inferiory complex sports wise. That's what those myspace groups are founded on- sport rivalry. Ucla has no doubt had a great OVERALL athletic tradition (it helps that they are public and can get past scholorship limits much easier with the lower tuition), and I think ucla has the most combined mens/women national championships, although USC has the most mens national championships (ucla wins a lot of softball and gymnastic NC's). </p>

<p>but lets face it, 99% of the emotion between USC and ucla comes from football. USC has one of the top 3 richest histories in college football (along with Notre Dame and Alabama), and ucla has been an overall- fairly good football school, maybe top 20 all time- but nowhere in USC's league historically, and they never will be. To USC fans, ucla is like your little brother, there's so much more for USC to shoot for, but you don't want to lose to your little brother because it would be humiliating. For Ucla, they would take a 1-11 season if it meant a win over USC. This is why you will find MANY hardcore USC football fans who would say USC's biggest rival is not Ucla, but Notre Dame.</p>

<p>Anyway, it's all about an inferiority complex, there's many many many more examples to show it but I think I pretty much covered the main stuff.</p>

<p>
[quote]
USC has one of the top 3 richest histories in college football (along with Notre Dame and Alabama), and ucla has been an overall- fairly good football school, maybe top 20 all time- but nowhere in USC's league historically, and they never will be. To USC fans, ucla is like your little brother, there's so much more for USC to shoot for, but you don't want to lose to your little brother because it would be humiliating. For Ucla, they would take a 1-11 season if it meant a win over USC. This is why you will find MANY hardcore USC football fans who would say USC's biggest rival is not Ucla, but Notre Dame.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>UCLA will always be a basketball school and USC will always be a football school that's just simple fact. From a pure football standpoint, ND will always be our main rival because of the history and tradition. The UCLA game is for city bragging rights and nothing more.</p>

<p>“Also to up Marshall, I have a friend that transferred from UCLA and now attends Marshall and she said the UG business schools are not comparable. She is a very smart student and she said she was learning nothing in the biz-econ program that could be applied towards her future and that the career preparation in terms of internships and job placement was an absolute joke.”</p>

<p>Something smells funny about that comment. BizEcon is primarily a junior and senior degree. Most of your upper division classes are taken in your senior year. Why would this person transfer to USC in his senior year? IF USC were to take him, he would have to spend practically his whole life in school trying to get his bachelors degree. If he transferred sooner, I doubt he had enough experience in BizEcon to really compare the two programs.</p>

<p>Hey, I love USC but don’t insult my undergraduate degree!!!! ;)</p>

<p>
[quote]
Something smells funny about that comment. BizEcon is primarily a junior and senior degree. Most of your upper division classes are taken in your senior year. Why would this person transfer to USC in his senior year? IF USC were to take him, he would have to spend practically his whole life in school trying to get his bachelors degree. If he transferred sooner, I doubt he had enough experience in BizEcon to really compare the two programs

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I really have no idea, maybe AP credits? She was on scholarship there I believe so I wouldn't be surprised. I'm fairly sure she didn't take senior level courses because she transferred after her sophmore year, but maybe it my fault in assuming it was the "biz-econ program" due to my lack of knowledge. </p>

<p>She transferred with nearly a 4.0 so I assumed she was credible - I mean why else would she transfer? She told me that she was taking management and economic courses and felt it wasn't applicable when she graduated and entered the business world. She also complained about the internship and career opportunities, citing there was little help from the school. </p>

<p>Even with her transferring she still loves UCLA equally to SC. She still has a lot of friends over there and is always visiting Westwood. </p>

<p>Honestly I didn't care to delve into it any deeper. She brought it up, and I said, "Ah I see, that's interesting" and that was that.</p>