<p>lol now I get it. I'm not American that's why.</p>
<p>Academic Big Ten (CIC) - Update!!
(Based on 2009 USNWR Data using official 2007 Acceptance Rate)</p>
<p>HARDEST - Northwestern 27%
Chicago - 35%
Michigan - 50%
Penn State - 51%
Wisconsin - 56%
Minnesota - 57%
Ohio State - 59%
Indiana - 70%
Illinois - 71%
Michigan State - 74%
Purdue - 79%
EASIEST - Iowa 83%</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>where did u get the list, can u post the link??</p>
<p>Chicago's not in the Big 10</p>
<p>This thread is about 'Academic' in Big Ten no? </p>
<p>Uchicago - From my understanding was one of the founding members of the Big Ten Conference though left Big Ten in terms of athletic competitions, is still very much in tune with the other current members of the Big Ten Conference due to the long historical academic interactions/cooperations as well as location in the center of the Big Ten. (ie. NU, UIUC, Purdue, IU, Michigan, MSU, OSU, Wiscon, Minnesota, Iowa..etc. all located <5 hrs of driving distance from Hyde Park!)</p>
<p>Academic Big Ten: Committee</a> on Institutional Cooperation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>CIC official Website: CIC</a> - Committee on Institutional Cooperation</p>
<p>*Sportswise, it is now part of UAA Conference. :)</p>
<p>Acceptance rates don't necessarily correlate with difficulty of admissions. UIUC for example has an acceptance rate of 71%, but nonetheless has the second highest SAT/ACT average among Big 10 publics, only slightly behind Michigan (26-31 vs 27-31).</p>
<p>Sparkeye, let's try to keep it to the real members of the conference. It is listed under "former member" in wikipedia, the same place you are referencing. I understand what you mean about the connection through CIC, but it's not really considered part of the conference anymore. </p>
<p>HARDEST -
Northwestern 27%
Michigan - 50%
Penn State - 51%
Wisconsin - 56%
Minnesota - 57%
Ohio State - 59%
Indiana - 70%
Illinois - 71%
Michigan State - 74%
Purdue - 79%
EASIEST - Iowa 83%</p>
<p>Fair enough! I agree to both sang54 & jec7483.<br>
FYI, I am one of the few that dreaming on instead of the rumored Big Ten (11) expansion, let's bring back A.A.Stagg's Maroon! :)</p>
<p>Acceptance rates are an imperfect indicator of selectivity (as a relative measure against other schools) when it comes to state flagship schools. Most such schools are mandated to accept a high number of in-state students. Only about 7% of University of Illinois students, for example, are from outside Illinois.</p>
<p>^^^^ I agree with sang54. In some states, in-state kids are steered away from applying to the state flagship if their chances of admission are low. Illinois' high acceptance rate is not indicative of the strength of its student body because Illinois HS grads who aren't going to be competitive for admission just don't apply. Their applicant pool is mostly the top 10 or 20% of Illinois HS grads, including a lot of kids who are using UIUC as a "back-up" (I won't say "safety") when applying to Ivies, Northwestern, U of C or other top privates. Their yield on the best of those applicants is probably pretty low, which forces them to accept a higher percentage of applicants---but they're still tapping a pretty strong pool.</p>
<p>Michigan has a lot of this, too. Michigan doesn't get a lot of weak in-state applicants; they apply to Michigan State, Wayne State, or one of the "directionals" (Eastern, Western, Northern, Central). But they do get a lot of in-state applicants whose first choice is to go to a top private. And because they don't cap out-of-state enrollment (currently 35% of the student body), they get a ton of OOS applicants, too, many using them as a "back-up." That also reduces their yield and forces up their admit rate.</p>
<p>Frankly I think using acceptance rate as a factor in rating schools is pretty dumb, especially for publics. So much depends on the state's population, the quality of the rest of the state's public system, etc. I do think the quality of the student body you end up with matters; but who cares whether you need to accept 30% or 50% to get the same student body? It's useful as an applicants to know what percentage are accepted, so you can gauge your own prospects. But I don't think by itself it tells you anything meaningful about the quality of the school.</p>
<p>"Illinois' high acceptance rate is not indicative of the strength of its student body because Illinois HS grads who aren't going to be competitive for admission just don't apply."</p>
<p>I am pretty sure this is true everywhere of bad students in states with good state schools, basically every state in the big ten. I am pretty sure that plenty of people in michigan apply to both michigan state AND michigan. It's really hard to argue that Illinois is any different. The acceptance rate is what it is.</p>
<p>The point I was making above is that some of these schools get fewer out of state applicants because so few are admitted. That (in addition to the steering noted above) can make for an artificially high looking acceptance rate. </p>
<p>I have looked at Illinois for my younger son but I hardly see the point in him applying given how hard it is for out of state students to be admitted. In fact, just about every kid in the Big Ten region could ask "Why should I go to the trouble and expense of applying to Illinois when they let so few out of state kids in and when our state flagship university is just as good or better?" The result, I think, is that a school like Illinois, as fine as it is, has a self-selected applicant pool that is more likely to be admitted, on the whole.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am pretty sure this is true everywhere of bad students in states with good state schools, basically every state in the big ten. I am pretty sure that plenty of people in michigan apply to both michigan state AND michigan. It's really hard to argue that Illinois is any different. The acceptance rate is what it is.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Illinois posts a range of SAT/ACT and class rank needed to be considered for admissions, unlike other schools in Big 10. Illinois purposely discourages many students who do not have the grades to be accepted. The applicant pool is pretty much self-selective due these ranges being posted. Therefore, a lot less students apply, in the end. If Illinois were to get rid of these ranges, there will be an increase in the number of applicants, and thus, bringing the acceptance rate down.</p>
<p>^^^ jec7483,
Of course you're right, "bad" students don't apply to schools where they know they won't have a chance. But it's not just the same everywhere. I went to a public HS in Michigan (more years ago than I care to admit, but I still think it's this way), did very well there, and went to the University of Michigan as an undergrad. I later spent a lot of time in Chicago, had some nephews graduate from a pretty high quality suburban HS there, one of whom went to UIUC, the others to other schools. I now live in Minnesota and know a lot of kids going to the University of Minnesota. I also have family in Indiana and nephews and nieces who have gone both to IU and Purdue. There are real differences. </p>
<p>In Michigan kids were definitely tracked; you only thought about going to Michigan if you were one of the top students in the school. For the next tier of academic achievers, Michigan State was at the top of their list, though there certainly was some overlap, kids applying to both. [Compare their stats: Michigan middle 50% ACT 27-31, 92% in top 10% of HS class; Michigan State middle 50% ACT 24-27, 29% in top 10% of HS class; that's about as clear a "tracking" signal as you can get]. </p>
<p>Same in Illinois, only a bit more extreme, I think, because there's more of a gap between UIUC and the other public schools in the state. Also, with a bigger population base there's just a larger number of top-performing HS students for UIUC to draw on, and especially in the more affluent Chicago suburbs there's a larger population of students and parents more attuned to the Ivies and other top privates using UIUC as a "back-up." </p>
<p>That's been much less the tradition in Minnesota where the University of Minnesota has always been "the people's school" where pretty much any minimally qualified kid could go to college and get a decent (though perhaps not top-of-the-line) education; and by and large, people went to Minnesota whether they were good students or mediocre students (but I agree, not "bad" students). Minnesota's become a lot more selective lately, in a way that is actually shaking up some old alums who aren't so sure they like the idea of their alma mater becoming so selective that they couldn't get in if they were to do it all again; the old way was good enough for them, and they're not sure standards should be higher for their kids. </p>
<p>But look at the numbers: Illinois' acceptance rate is 71% (very high) yet its middle 50% ACTs are 26-31 (also quite high); 55% are in the top 10% of their HS class. Minnesota's acceptance rate is 57% (significantly lower) but its middle 50% ACTs are 24-29---better than in the past, but still a couple of notches below UIUC, with 44% in top 10% of HS class, also significantly lower than Illinois. So how is it that Minnesota turns away a larger fraction of its applicants but ends up with a weaker class? I can only conclude that the applicant pool at Minnesota is significantly weaker because it's still getting applications from a lot of second- and third-tier students who, if they were in Michigan or Illinois, wouldn't dream of applying to the University of Michigan or UIUC.</p>
<p>In Indiana where my nieces and nephews live, it's more like how Minnesota used to be. Indiana, one of the smaller Big Ten states in population, actually has two large public flagships, IU and Purdue. Neither is selective: IU accepts 70% of its applicants, Purdue accepts 79%. Purdue's middle 50% SAT is 1020-1270, 31% in top 10% of HS class; not strong. IU's is about the same, 1030-1260, 31% in top 10% of HS class. I can only conclude the applicant pool at both schools is broad and comparatively weak. Indiana appears to be committed to the old model of a "public flagship for everyone"; as long as you're minimally qualified, you have a strong chance of admission to either IU or Purdue; there are places for most who want to attend.</p>
<p>No more Bo Schembechler and his M hat.
No more Woody Hayes and his overcoat (although Tressel & his vest sweater are on the pathway to legendary status).
No more Hayden Fry.</p>
<p>Who came into the Big Ten to hold down the fort?
You know who I'm talkin' 'bout.</p>
<p>JoePa! JoePa! JoePa! JOE PA !!!</p>
<p>All hail Joe Pa! Big Ten title and a national championship this season.</p>
<p>depends what school you're applying for minnesota. Carlson school of Management now has a 15% admission rate, and the college of biological sciences has an average ACT of 30. CLA and Design on the other hand are very easy to get into. I think 23 is the average there.</p>
<p>i know this is da big 10 n stuff....but jst curious...does U of Iowa hav a good undergraduate business program...i mean...its ranked somewhere near 30 right...so ..cant be tthat goood..!? or m i wrong...!?</p>