<p>well, why are they each other's #1 feeder</p>
<p>Wisconsin @ Madison, Michigan @ Ann Harbor, Wash U are also in the midwest</p>
<p>as u see, NYU is definetely not the #1 feeder to Columbia's grad programs and Columbia is prob not the #1 feeder to NYU</p>
<p>what's the reason behind NU and UChicago being the #1 feeder for each other????</p>
<p>b/c they are both great schools</p>
<p>barrons wrote:
"Last time I checked Dartmouth, MIT etc were not in the Big Ten and have nothing to do with this."</p>
<p>Surely, barrons, you recognized them as examples--examples from that list which you, yourself, supplied--to illustrate your faulty logic in using that list... In other words, you brought them up in this thread--so fair game, right?</p>
<p>"I said faculty and facilities and by most legit factual indicators the data speak for themselves."</p>
<p>Just so you know: you're using a quantitative measure--# of NAS faculty who have received awards, grants--that does not lend itself to a "legit" comparison in the way that you intend because UWisconsin employs over 2-times the number of faculty that Northwestern does... Adjust the numbers for faculty size and the schools are about equal in this regard, (i.e. # of awarded faculty/# of faculty.) And as I mentioned, Northwestern focuses at least as much on instruction in specialties that don't necessarily require funded, academic research, (e.g. theater, journalism, music, etc.) as it does on hard sci, social sciences, etc. Frankly, I'm surprised that NU even made the list that you cited.</p>
<p>Furthermore, those Wisc. profs are spread slightly thinner amid Wisconsin's 42,000 students than NU's profs are among 15,000 students, (#awarded faculty/# of students.)</p>
<p>Sorry to get technical.</p>
<p>I don't get why we are talking about U Chicago. No one goes there thinking "I'm going to a Big 10 school". When you say "I'm going to Chicago" no one ever recognizes that it's Big 10. That's nice that it's considered in the Big 10 academically, that doesn't matter though.</p>
<p>Anyways, all the Big 10 schools are good schools. Here are the peer assessment scores for all the schools, you look at the numbers, and the lowest is a 3.5, which still means that people rate this school as "good-great":</p>
<p>University of Michigan—Ann Arbor * 4.5
Northwestern University (IL) 4.4
Univ. of Wisconsin—Madison * 4.2
U. of Illinois—Urbana - Champaign * 4
Univ. of Minnesota—Twin Cities * 3.8
Pennsylvania State U.—University Park * 3.8
Purdue Univ.—West Lafayette (IN) * 3.8
Indiana University—Bloomington * 3.8
Ohio State University—Columbus * 3.7
University of Iowa * 3.6
Michigan State University * 3.5</p>
<p>A2Wolves, the reason I include Chicago is because we are discussing academics and the Big 10's acadmeic arm is called the CIC, which is the Big 10 schools plus Chicago. Remember that Chicago was part of the Big 10 athletic conference from 1900-1935 or so.</p>
<p>Yeah, we rock! LOL!!!</p>
<p>Oh yeah, Chicago got kicked out of the Big Ten because of how sorry their athletics were, I remember that, haha.</p>
<p>"Remember that Chicago was part of the Big 10 athletic conference from 1900-1935 or so."</p>
<p>former-members are not members.</p>
<p>Chicago is not part of the BIGTEN.
Chicago was part of the BIGTEN.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, time goes forward not backward.</p>
<p>the academic BIGTEN also called CIC isnot the BIGTEN Conference.</p>
<p>Whether you call it the Big 10 or the CIC, from an academic point of view, they are the same. And since the OP was asking for academic rankings, I find it very much a propos to mention Chicago.</p>
<p>Just like it is appropriate to throw MIT into the mix when discussing Ivy stats (due to its location and quality both being in the midst of the Ivies), it's appropriate to throw Chicago (and maybe even Notre Dame) into the mix when discussing the Big 10, especially because they are already playing fast-and-loose with the title Big "10." And I believe Chicago voluntarily dropped out of the Big 10--they weren't forced out. Hard to imagine that they were once a football power...producing the first Heisman Trophy winner and they were the "Monsters of the Midway" before the Chicago Bears inherited the title. I say it's time for the U of Chicago to butch up its image, recruit a bunch of steroid-munchers, and get back into the Big 10! Whadda ya say?!</p>
<p>According to the NU website they have 2500 full-time faculty. UW has about 2900. Redo your numbers.
"Faculty
Approximately 2,500 full-time faculty" They also chose to highlight the fact that among these are a number of NAS members.
<a href="http://www.northwestern.edu/about/facts/%5B/url%5D">http://www.northwestern.edu/about/facts/</a></p>
<p>Alex: Many Mich kids or even other top students from outside states apply to Umich as a safety because of its rolling admissions.</p>
<p>Look at ENROLLING avg's and compare them to Northwestern's. Never look at applicant avg's since for state schools they are always higher (even the best students always apply to their flagships) and in Umich's rolling case, the best students from all around the country give Umich a try as a safety and so they can have an early decision that is NON binding from the rolling admissions.</p>
<p>I hate to break it to you AcceptedAlready, those are thge mid 50% ranges for the class of 2010...the students who ENROLLED. If you read carefully above the stats, it clearly states "Middle 50th percentile of the class".</p>
<p>there is no way those are enrolled</p>
<p>then, ur saying that Michigan's sat averaged increased by a good 50 pts in one year, i dont think so buddy</p>
<p>and i dont think that michigan's sat scores would be equal to cornell</p>
<p>something doesnt seem correct</p>
<p>I have said all along that Michigan's number's aren't far behind the likes of Cornell and Northwestern. Michigan's averages were very close to theirs in the 1990s. In the 2000-2004 period, Cornell and Nothwestern separated themselves a little bit, but Michigan has bridged much of that gap over the last 2 years. Michigan's 2007 numbers are expected to be even more impressive. Nothing about Michigan's admissions has been normal. In 2003-2004, Michigan accepted 62% of its applicants. In 2005-2006, Michigan accepted 47% of its applicants. Do you think only private elites can have rising numbers? Well, let me tell you, the elite publics are experiencing even more drastic leaps. I have been saying it for a while. </p>
<p>Anyway, I assure you, as an alumni recruiter for the University of Michigan, I have an official document right infront me of that states the following:</p>
<p>2006 Freshman Class Profile (in other words, students who enrolled):</p>
<p>High School GPA (unweighed):
Freshmen with 4.0: 28%
Freshmen with 3.9 or higher: 52%
Freshmen with 3.8 or higher: 67%
Freshmen with 3.7 or higher: 75%
Freshmen with 3.6 or higher: 85%</p>
<p>High School Call Rank:
Top 1%: 28%
Top 5%: 78%
Top 10%: 92%
Top 20%: 99%</p>
<p>Middle 50th Percentile Range:
GPA: 3.7-4.0
SAT Critical Reading: 610-720
SAT Math: 650-760
SAT writing: 610-720</p>
<p>Like I said...and as the website clearly states, those are the "middle 50th percentile of the class".</p>
<p>Barrons,</p>
<p>Half of that number is in the med school. According to the US News, Wisc has student/faculty ratio 13:1 while NU's is 7:1. Since Wisc is almost 4x bigger in ug student population, it's around 2x the size in #faculty. By the way, the distribution of class sizes at NU is very similar to those of LACs.</p>
<p>Stats of most prestigious schloarships by undergrad students:
Rhodes since 2001
NU 1
Wisc 0</p>
<p>Marshall since 2001
NU 7
Wisc 0</p>
<p>Gates Cambridge Scholarship (2006)
NU 4 (tied with Princeton as the most)
Wisc 0</p>
<p>NU ug students had won significantly more awards even though it has a lot less students.</p>
<p>That does seem to be the numbers for enrolled. UM admission office is pretty efficient in putting 2006 numbers out quickly. ;) Like Alexandre mentioned, the privates also had increase in stats but many of them are just slow in putting their numbers out. Northwestern still shows class of 2009 numbers on their website.</p>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>The stats you put for NU is 2009 at best. NU is always slow in putting their numbers out.</p>
<p>Yes, but Sam, my point is that the difference between Michigan and Northwestern isn't that great.</p>
<p>I agree.....</p>
<p>wat about act scores, michigan is 26-31, and northwestern is 29-33</p>
<p>Holy Mothers, you folks def. need another hobby... LOL
Let's not split hairs.... By popular demand, i will slightly modify my ranking just to make every one happy.</p>
<p>my original post:</p>
<p>Overall Academics</p>
<p>Michigan</p>
<p>NW/Wisconsin/UIUC</p>
<p>Penn Stae/Purdue</p>
<p>Indiana/MSU/IOwa/OSU/Minnesota</p>
<p>my ** new ranking **</p>
<p>Overall Academics</p>
<p>Michigan/NW/Wisconsin/UIUC</p>
<p>Penn Stae/Purdue/Indiana/MSU/IOwa/OSU/Minnesota</p>
<p>Now every1 is happy :)</p>