This week we hit up the West Coast as we examine the two hottest schools in Los Angeles- the University of Southern California and the University of California- Los Angeles. Amidst the beautiful SoCal climate and a city rife with movie sets and superstars, private USC and public UCLA compete to find out which is most elite in the City of Angels.

1. Superior Sport

USC – The Trojans are known as “the football school” and have been awarded the NCAA national title in football eleven times, including back-to-back titles in 2003 and 2004.  They are perennially ranked in the Top 10 football programs in the BCS by ESPN, USA Today, and other publications. And Trojans have taken home the Heisman Trophy seven times.
UCLA - Meanwhile, the Bruins are known as powerhouses in basketball–also earning eleven NCAA titles. Seven of these championships were won consecutively, from 1967-1973.  UCLA is also the all-time leader in total NCAA national titles across all sports.

Meanwhile, the Lexus Gauntlet is an annual all-sports competition between the two schools sponsored by Lexus. Points are awarded for every victory (particularly in head-to-head match ups)  in NCAA-sanctioned competitions, with the school with the most points declared as the winner. (There is also a separate Lexus Gauntlet awarded to the winner of the Stanford-Berkeley rivalry.)  In the eight years of Lexus Gauntlet tradition, USC has walked away with five titles.

Three credits to: TIE.  The two schools pulled a draw in NCAA titles in their respective predominant sport.  On the one hand, the Lexus Gauntlet record gives the Trojans the edge, but UCLA also has the most NCAA titles of any school. Too close to call!!

2. Terrific Traditions

USC – Trojans can’t withhold their affections for Traveler, the magnificent white horse ridden by a student in full Greek armor at every football game, and Tommy Trojan, the iconic statue of the school’s mascot found on campus. But Songfest, an annual talent show in which frats & sororities compete against one another to benefit the charity TroyCamp, is a highlight of the social calendar. When it comes to hatin’ on their crosstown rivals, some USC students once set loose thousands of crickets on the UCLA campus.
UCLA - Like the Trojans, UCLA also has its own child-oriented charity called UniCamp.  Students donning blue and gold love exhibiting card stunts (flashing the university logo, for instance) at basketball games and occasionally dousing Tommy Trojan with UCLA-colored paint.

Three Credits to: USC, for the campus-rockin Songfest.

3. Hottest (LA) Hood

USC - Located in University Park, USC is adjacent to the Los Angeles Coliseum and sits on Figueroa Street, which connects the school to the Staples Center and historic Chinatown.
UCLA - The Bruins are located in the Westwood Village section of Los Angeles, a wealthy and scenic section of town that is home to several vintage movie theaters and stretches of beautiful homes.  Oh, and the Playboy Mansion is just a hop, skip, and jump away!

Three credits to:  UCLA - who doesn’t want to party with Hef?

4. Ass-kicking Alumni

USC –  Neil Armstrong, Will Ferrell, Whitney Port
UCLA – Lo Bosworth, Francis Ford Coppola, James Franco

Three credits to: Let’s see…Whitney is SO much cooler than Lo on The Hills, and while Will Ferrell can make me pee my pants, I’d rather have James Franco in them. It’s another close one, but I’m going to have to go with UCLA because others have walked on the moon, but only FFC could have directed the masterpiece The Godfather with such genius.

5. Acceptance Rate Agony

USC- 22% of over 35,000 applicants were accepted for the class of 2012.
UCLA-  22.7% for the university with the largest number of applicants in the United States (over 55,000!)

Three credits to:  USC…by a nose!!

And the diploma goes to: …its a TIE! Seriously, its too close to call who wins this rivalry. Both schools boast terrific academics, athletics, and high-profile alumni–how can you choose? For all of you Angelenos out there, what do you think?

Dear Mr. Bianco:

What is wrong with you?

1) Demographics:

You are terribly presumptuous in thinking that the show only appeals to a younger audience (20s and 30s age range). The demographic is wider than you would think — haven’t you noticed the subtle ways they’ve advertised baby diapers, baby toys, etc.? Obviously appealing to the baby demographic, which you failed to consider when writing your critique.

My ol’ granny lives in a nasty retirement home. It smells like urine, but that’s not the point. My ol’ granny watches 30 Rock all the time. Perhaps that’s anecdotal, but I’ve been over there many times, and enjoyed an episode out in the main area with a bunch of other old peeps. They all laughed, just like my infant cousins laugh at the show. We all know (that means you), that when my granny and my infant cousins laugh at something, it’s universally funny.

2) Tina/Liz and Reality/Fiction critique:

OK, I won’t even go into that fact that this whole dichotomy is tiresome, and that you, Mr. Bianco, could learn a few things if you read literary theory and thought about the problematic divide between “reality” and “fiction.” I won’t go into that here, but I will raise a point about your comments about the show’s inability to hang onto reality.

At one point you write: “But as often happens lately, the jokes come at the expense of our attachment to the characters and to the show’s fraying links to reality.” Huh? What’s this mean? You devolve into a silly attack against Tina/Liz, and it makes me wonder if you harbor jealousy with the fact that (a) Tina Fey is probably WAY funnier than you could ever WISH to be and (b) you have some lame-o script for a sitcom wadded up in your tiny little office at USA TODAY.

3) Liz’s “sudden instability:”

When was Liz Lemon SANE? When? If memory serves me (and I have superb memory recall when it comes to 30 Rock), in one of the previous episodes Liz was drunk at a lunch meeting with super powerful big-wigs of the company. Have you seen her ex? Again, have you SEEN her ex? You suggest that Liz Lemon is more unstable in the last episode than in the other ones. That might suggest a bit of sexism, which Fey is poking fun at…if that’s the case, you’re a jerk, man. Besides, she wasn’t even pregnant, so there!

4) Decline in Ratings (according to Bianco) = Decline in Quality of Show

The decline in ratings might not be a result of the decline in the quality of content, but related to the fact that it’s intelligent humor. Ever considered that, Mr. Bianco? With that said, I’m aghast by the fact that you failed to acknowledge that much of this episode was a bitter and sarcastic critique of the Bush Administration. That strand of the story had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with pulling at our attachment(s) to the characters in “reality.” Of course, Fey is pushing viewers to think about the nonsense of a very real reality (the political spin that we’re currently drowning in, gasping for that last breath of air as I write this, before we’re all flushed down Bushy’s toilet of darkness), and that part was entirely detached from the real characters of TV Land. That was the only funny part? Come on! You sum it up in one tiny paragraph, and so flippantly.

Your overall assertion that Liz doesn’t give a damn about the show is punchy, based upon a few stringed together critiques. And how could you suggest that its tenure is similar to Studio 60? Are you serious? Are you really serious? Your comparing a drama to a sitcom! That’s why your conclusion is so utterly fallacious, and I can only determine that you take yourself too seriously and are projecting it onto a show.

Love,

C. Ryder

P.S. Studio 60 should have been given a chance – you’re just as wrong about that, too.

Recently USA Today ran an article questioning Juno’s portrayal of teen pregnancy. It seems that some people worry the movie glorified the whole thing.

Maybe it’s just me, but I think they missed the point of Juno. One of the quotes in the article suggests that teens won’t see that Juno faced any consequences, because the baby was “handed off.” Juno ended up with her boyfriend and was able, presumably, to go on with life as usual.

Sorry, but I think that’s BS. First of all — and I don’t know how many times we have to stress this before the right-wingers get it — pregnancy is NOT about punishment. Yes, the movie ended happily, but it wasn’t because Juno didn’t face any consequences. It was because she made a big, and really tough, decision. I don’t think that even a self-involved teen is going to miss that.

Furthermore, let’s not forget the outcome of that decision: By giving her baby up for adoption, Juno made another woman’s dreams come true. Honestly, you’d think the conservatives would be happy about a movie that promotes adoption as an alternative to abortion!

Okay, so Juno doesn’t portray teen pregnancy as one of Dante’s nine circles of hell. So what? To be perfectly honest, I think it portrays it realistically. Choosing between abortion, adoption, and keeping the child is a difficult decision, no matter how self-involved the teen is. And contrary to what many adults would apparently like teens to believe, getting pregnant does not mean the end of the world. Girls survive teen pregnancy every day — maybe a little worse for wear (like Juno), but they get through it.

I know what Juno opponents are afraid of. They think that if they praise Juno’s decision-making abilities after she becomes pregnant, then teens will interpret that to mean that getting pregnant is okay. Personally, I think Juno’s struggles speak for themselves — the viewer knows that even if everything turns out all right, it was a difficult road that got her to that point.

• Don’t exercise? No problem!

• Apparently, leotards can we worn the right way…

• USA Today’s resident “cool girl” tells us all about quirky, unique gifts to get those people you only kind of know or forgot about till just now, this holiday season

• Rolling Stone ranks the top 100 songs from 2007

• Never smell again! Cleansing from the inside out! Seriously.

I know a lot—sometimes too much—about our nations state of cultural affairs. But hey, at least I’m informed about something and it IS my job, right?

There was a day though, particularly all four years of my undergraduate career (save the Thursday Style section of the NYT) that I knew nothing about current events.

Apparently, I’m not alone in this. In a recent study based on 1,800 Americans, only 18% of those from ages 18-30 read a newspaper everyday. The results found that our generation is more of a glance at the news type of group than any other.

And although we spend hours in front of our computers each day, most of the news we do watch is from the television.

Even more importantly though, it isn’t the ways in which we are receiving our news, but the fact that we are getting it at all. It is sad to think that of the many times I spent hours mindlessly surfing the internet, I never once really went to the New York Times homepage or even USA Today, which is slightly fluffy, to find out really what was going on in the world.

These days, despite the fact that many times I feel over informed, I am glad that I have any idea at all what’s happening in our country. Sometimes it’s nice to have a balance between reality and celeb-reality. It’s easy to forget what’s really happening in the real world when Britney wears another awful outfit, Paris tries to be modest and Lindsay’s nudey pics are right around the corner.

It’s time to open our eyes to news – both real and superficial because last time I checked, knowledge of Britney’s custody battle doesn’t help anyone but K-Fed.

Here’s hoping our generation decides to turn the other corner and read some real news for once.

I had a poignant moment during my very last all-nighter of undergrad:

I was finishing my very last assignments ever of my Salem College career and somewhere around 5:30 am I jumped up, ran from our camp in the basement of a different dorm, and bolted to my room to brush my teeth.

I could no longer ignore the fact that I had not brushed my teeth and they felt as fuzzy as the fleece I was wearing.

It was sick. I was sick. I had a problem. I could no longer function—or write—during the day. But I had made it to the end.

And then, I slept. For about two days straight.

To say that I mastered the all-nighter during my four years would be an understatement. I was pretty much the ninja master of staying awake for hours on end, typing furiously at my keyboard and screwing around long enough during the normal hours (until at least 3 am) to HAVE to make it until class the next day.

Damn you, facebook.

My best friend and I would down coffee, pop adderall (hey, at least mine was prescribed) and sleep in shifts. The second semester of my senior year was so grueling I was pulling at least one a week just to keep up. Writing and editing the first four chapters of a novel is no easy feat.

I basically triple majored. It was a dumb idea.

Not as dumb, apparently, as staying up all night. Because (SURPRISE!) it’s bad for you AND your GPA. Thanks for the breaking news, USA Today!

Any college student who has pulled an all-nighter knows that there are many, many unproductive hours spent during the night perusing God knows what or chatting online. You can find anything to do when you don’t want to do work. But sometimes, because of a party you HAD to go to or when you’re totally swamped, the all-nighter becomes your only option.

A recent study done at St. Lawrence University showed that students who pulled all-nighters had slightly lower GPA’s in school. Of course, I highly doubt they factored a student’s workload, extra curricular activities or overall SMARTS into the study.

We all know all-nighters are not good for your body; your health, your weight, and your performance in school are all affected by getting a good night of shut-eye.

It doesn’t take a study to understand that. Just four years of college.

But babies and Facebook? Not so much.

I don’t care how much Facebook is “expanding” its users. Facebook is really for college students and it should stay that way. Which is why I’m not too offended to find out that it has been removing pictures of females breastfeeding their kids.

The blog posted on USAToday said, “Karen Speed, a 33-year-old Canadian mother who describes herself as a “lactivist,” tells The (Toronto) Star that such photos led Facebook to delete her account and a support group she had established for breastfeeding mothers.”

First of all, what is Karen Speed, a 33-year-old Canadian mother/lactivist doing on Facebook in the first place? What is she possibly getting out of this? Finding out at which side of campus the next tailgate is gonna start? Checking up on her douchebag ex-boyfriend to see if he added any new skanks to his friend list?

Seriously, Karen. Seriously.

I think it’s great that mothers are reaching out to each other for support, but is it really necessary to post, what I think, are such personal and intimate photos on this particular site that is regularly monitored? Here is one of the pics that was removed from the site, and nipple or not – it may not be “obscene” as Facebook would say, but it’s still pretty needless on a college-based networking site.

I guess what I’m trying to say is…send your friends a personal e-mail if you want to show yourself breastfeeding without mysteriously finding your account deleted. Facebook is run by an outside company and by things called “terms” and “conditions.” Of course this would fuel controversy.

In related content, one of the pro-breastfeeding Facebook Groups is called “Booby Babies and Their Mommies.” If the name alone isn’t convincing enough that Facebook should remain a site for college students, check out their alma mater, which is supposed to be sung to the tune of (lame) Beauty and the Beast’s “Be Our Guest”:

See our breasts, see our breasts

Everywhere, half-naked chests.

While we nurse, the prudish curse

And wish we’d button up our vests.

Sorry folks, look away,

If we’re too décolleté

But this IS what boobs are made for

Not those Wonderbras you paid for.

We refuse to go feed

Hunched in bathroom stalls, indeed

We’re appalled that you would make such rude requests!

Would you agree to eat

Upon a toilet seat?

See our breasts, see our breasts, free our breasts!

No one on Facebook should regularly wear a vest, which is why, when it comes to Facebook, this is the only way moms should ever fit in.

That is… except me. And I’m in no rush. No rush at all. I have tons of friends who are getting married. And some of them, the ones who have been together for 5 plus years, or the ones who have been dating older guys for a while, those situations I understand. But the girls who are getting engaged during their junior year of college?

Cut me a break. It’s unnecessary.

You do not have to get engaged to be in a secure, stable and mature relationship. Going through years together shows much more commitment than a big rock.

Of course, I want the big rock one day, but I also want to be emotionally ready for all that marriage entails. Marriage is meant to be a lasting union, not a trend that everyone has to follow.

This isn’t fashion, ladies. You can’t decide you don’t like your hubby next season when suddenly you feel like he’s out of style.

I have a friend from high school who I have just found out is 23 and getting a divorce. And they were one of those relationships everyone thought would work. I also know another girl who is now a senior in college and on her second engagement.

I want to get married young enough so that I can enjoy being married before I’m ready to settle down with a family. But I don’t want to be young enough that my fiancé and I have yet to experience the real life situations that make a couple grow together.

But this, THIS is GOOD NEWS. I am no longer so incredibly disheartened by the marital status of everyone in their 20’s because apparently, the trend is going out.

USA Today says that “the trend toward delaying marriage has emerged over several decades as economic and social forces have made it more difficult for those in their 20s to reach independence. Sociologists and demographers say other factors are also at work, including increasing numbers of cohabiting couples, more highly educated women who have fewer highly educated men of comparable age to partner with, and more choices open to women than in decades past.”

Praise the Lord! We are shacking up, getting an education and facing a world that while economically makes it hard for us to be financially stable has more choices open to our gender.

Finally, we are able to realize that a ring does not make the relationship. That the white dress is not just for the virginal woman and that MARRIAGE isn’t synonymous for SEX.

Wait until you’re really ready. Do it before the big day. Make a smart decision because you are a smart woman. Realize that you don’t have to marry your college sweetheart just because everyone else is.

Marriage should be forever, not just for now.

Even before the whole green movement, I discovered one of the easiest ways to help out the environment: reusable bags. The good news ladies, is that they are totally in right now! Not only can you help the earth while going on a beer run, you can be considered as chic and as green as they come.

Surely, even in the college towns, you didn’t miss Anya Hindmarch “Not a Plastic Bag” craze/controversy. Fashionistas were lining up for the $7 dollar version of the canvas tote, while they were being sold on EBay for upwards of $600 dollars. Now, international launches of the bags have been canceled in Southeast Asia because of their “concern for their customers safety.” Cuh-razy fashion folk, they’ll do anything to be in!

Despite the fact that Hindmarch’s website denies the accusations, a London paper reported that the bags were made in China using cheap labor laws and were neither fair-trade nor organic. Huh?

Personally, I like this one a lot better.

Even USA Today decided to take on the trend, with the help of Sally Singer, news director at Vogue. Now, any old tote will do. But why look smarmy when a fabulous new bag will do the trick? For my last minute grocery shopping trips, I stow a foldable bag in my purse. And for a bigger trip to the (liquor) store, I tote along one of these.

The best thing is, Singer says that the Citizens of Humanity bag has now become as popular as the jeans. I, for one, just took it from the freebie table at her little sister magazine to tote all the editor hand-me-downs that came with being a Christmas time intern.

These cotton string bags will always be some of my favorites as they evoke a very European feel. And these super cheap plaid totes, made popular when Marc Jacobs made them in Braided Leather for Louis Vuitton, are perfect for toting massive amounts of dirty clothes back home…or in my case dirty clothes and dirty dishes.

What can I say? I’m lazy AND totally eco chic.

Which is one of the reasons why black women are dating more white men then ever before, USA Today claims.

The hot button article appeared last Sunday, stating, among other things, that “American black women are among the least likely to marry”. The reason for this low marriage rate? The negative statistics aimed at young black men.

According to the article, recent numbers have shown that black men are “seven times more likely to be incarcerated than white men and more than twice as likely to be unemployed.”

Combine those figures with a growing number of black women frustrated with the ‘high rates of successful black men choosing blondes”, and you’ve got women ready for a change.

“I think a lot of black women are realizing or feeling that the pickings are slim,” one such women is quoted as saying in the article, while another one claims she witnessed “All the black men literally [pushing] (us) out the way to talk to the blondes” at a party she once attended.

The article goes on to interview a few other women, as well as give the opposite opinion a voice, but what it never does is comment on how baffling and negative the story really is.

To offhandedly suggest that black men are so bad that black women are turning to a different race to find love is an incredibly weighty assumption. Promoting interracial dating and marriage is one thing, but implying that it’s happening because one male race is outdoing another socially (or choosing a mate based on retro “whiteness = success” thinking) is an entirely different contention—one that deserves much more thought and research than a page or two in a news magazine.