<p>@kleib when UChicago used to get less early apps than other top schools, people said it was because it was less popular. now that it gets more early apps than other schools, people try to say it’s because it’s less popular. you can’t have it both ways. no matter what, uchicago is rising faster in admissions than any other school in the country and will pass up most of the Ivy League schools over the next few years.</p>
<p>See - right away you guys think I’m bashing. </p>
<p>First of all I have never said anything about more or less popular. I said UChicago is an excellent school. </p>
<p>I was merely stating the facts - you can not compare EA stats with ED stats.</p>
<p>ED acceptance is binding and EA is not and you will gets hundreds more applicants (if not more) during an EA round than you would during an ED round. </p>
<p>When you have a binding ED agreement, you will get less people apply. If UC went ED next year, they would not receive 8700 applications.</p>
<p>It has nothing to do with how great UC is (it is), I merely stating that you should not be comparing EA and ED stats.</p>
<p>Kleibo, I agree with you (and I did not think you were bashing). It is a nice milestone of sorts for UChicago to get so many EA applicants, but comparing EA with ED (or even SCEA) is not an apples to apples comparison.</p>
<p>Thank you philikikool, I knew I couldn’t have been the only one who read that article!</p>
<p>As far as EA rates go, I couldn’t be more proud of the direction in which UChicago is headed. Higher popularity among high school students, plunging acceptance rates, and increasing yield rates all translate to positive things imo. Above all, they could lead to a more confident and happy student body, which in turn also means positive things. UChicago all the way!</p>
<p>UChicago is clearly on the way up. I look forward to the day when chypsm is the common acronym. After all, the education at chicago already is on the same level.</p>
<p>There appear to be plenty of admits who have already submitted their deposits. The high number of admits to me seems to reflect a very strong pool – although I’m biased, as I am one of them :). There is definitely a good bit of self-selection in the pool, as people are admitted based on fit and fewer people just decide to throw out an app to UChicago vs. a Harvard. I don’t feel much for the RD applicants because there is absolutely no downside to applying early for anyone. I just want to say, I’ve never been more proud of myself and I feel validated as a student. Deferred applicants shouldn’t feel bad though, there is a certain amount of luck in it no matter how qualified you are. I think being from New England helped me.</p>
<p>1411/21773 = 40.9%.</p>
<p>How did the dean derive 44% yield? summer melt?</p>
<p>If this were facebook, I would “like” philikikool’s last comment. XD</p>
<p>And texaspg, I did my own calculations as well which ended up being the same number as yours. So I, too, am confused where that 44% came from. </p>
<p>Congratulations djz750! Look forward to meeting you next fall. :)</p>
<p>I’m not seeing the 44% number anywhere. Does someone have an actual link to the article or data sheet? </p>
<p>From what I thought, Chicago had around a 40-42% yield last year. If you check the Maroon article, UChicago accepted a total of 3440 out of 21774 applicants last year. Assuming NO waitlisted students were accepted (a hard assumption to make), that means Chicago’s yield was about 41% last year.</p>
<p>This year will probably be about the same. Hopefully as Chicago improves in the coming years, the school can bump its yield up a bit more.</p>
<p>All I know was it was in the maroon and i went to an eckhart consulting info session (didnt apply) and they said “we helped them get to a 44% yield.” IDK where the number comes from I just know that’s what they released.</p>
<p>Grace just acknowledged that 1532 (?) EA number NYTIMES is using is correct and it was released to them by UChicago. She said they are not allowed to share deferred and rejected numbers</p>
<p>If a hundred kids accepted and did not show up on campus, it would account for the 3% difference. Without knowing that for certain, it is hard to support 44% yield number. It is quite possible Chicago will get there this year?</p>
<p>They have not released (officially) the yield number from last year even now. I don’t understand the wait. They had a record low meld which was the cause of putting students in grad housing. They are looking to increase the number of students in the future but they do not have solidified plans to build a new dorm to my knowledge…though some are anxious in anticipation to build a new one. Chances are that the class of 2016 will be smaller than the class of 2015. At least some admins will he rather upset if it isn’t.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/education/early-admission-applications-rise-as-do-rejections.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/education/early-admission-applications-rise-as-do-rejections.html</a></p>
<p>“Amid huge budget cuts to the vaunted University of California system, East Coast schools like Haverford and Duke are seeing much more interest from the West. At Harvard-Westlake, a top prep school in Los Angeles, 22 students applied early to the University of Chicago this year, compared with 4 in 2007, said Tamar Adegbile, an upper school dean. Eight were accepted.”</p>
<p>Stanford got almost 37000 applicants for the class of 2016, I guess UChicago should get about 26000 this year.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/13/bloomberg_articlesLXR71A0YHQ0X01-LXR9Q.DTL[/url]”>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/13/bloomberg_articlesLXR71A0YHQ0X01-LXR9Q.DTL</a></p>
<p>Would the RD rate really fall below 10%?
This is frightening indeed. :(</p>
<p>Northwestern is up 3%. Stanford is up 7%. UChicago should be reporting soon–maybe Tuesday?</p>
<p>So wait I’m still confused. Isnt a 17.3% EA admit rate good for RD people because there’d be more seats open? Or did I totally botch that?</p>
<p>No, its bad because it means UChicago is getting a lot more apps and becoming much more selective</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You would be correct if the NUMBER of students accepted in the early acceptance round is LOWER than that of the past year, thus lowering the acceptance rate. I don’t think this is the case.</p>
<p>The acceptance rate is lower because many more students applied (25% EA increase). So, this is definitely bad news for those who were deferred and those who have applied to RD. Not only the surge of popularity that increased the EA pool is probably likely to result in a larger RD pool, there were that many more EA deferred students who are now competing in the RD pool.</p>
<p>Duke is reporting a 6% increase in overall applications. No word from UChicago or Ivies yet.</p>
<p>So far…
Stanford +7%
Duke +6%
Northwestern +3%</p>