There were 450 +/- EDI and 400 +/- EDII. That’s more than half of the class of 2021 at a 99% yield.
ED I - 450
EA - 350
ED II - 400
These are pretty solid numbers, most likely rounded from internal sources.
At the original calculations floating around it was not assumed 1600+ students. Now we know it’s 1650.
@JBStillFlying I believe the issue is how the RD is calculated. Doubt we will ever know. Where were the differed applied ?
My RD includes deferred but even had all 13000 early apps been deferred you can’t have 48000 - 13000 new regular applications. That’s what your numbers and the assumption that 2% admit rate applies to the entire pool imply, taken together. One is wrong. Perhaps admissions is selecting out certain regular decision apps to come up with that 2% rate. If so which ones?
28,000 x 7.8% = 2,184 - 850 ED/EDII = 1,334 EA/RD offers
1,334 @ 60% yield = 800 accepted offer
800 + 850 = 1650 2021 students
The problem is, and why I originally stated, I do not see how the 2% RD adds up.
Presumably the 2% admit rate is so low because the RD pool includes all the deferred as well as new applications. Last year the same number was 4% so it has halved. Everyone’s assuming that it’s the total pool not a segment. The only segment reported on separately was deferred to RD.
@FBS at #182 but that’s the percentage they’ve made public. Your source is confidential and could easily have been incorrect unless he/she is still holding to those numbers. Then it’s a guessing game as to who is inaccurate or worse.
@JBStillFlying I agree and there could have been other variables involved. The EA number could have been anticipated admit at full yield. Have no idea and no way to tell at this point.
No matter how the numbers come out, ED really changed things this cycle. It’s going to be interesting to see the full stats of the class of 2021.
My original comment regarding EDII timing was that it was simply brilliant and I still believe it to be.
1334 means 984 RD. Now, we know that EA to Deferred was .5%. And some portion of RD - perhaps all of it - was 2%. These admit rates have been repeated several times by admissions and my own family heard them as well. The question becomes how to arrive at feasible RD application numbers from your 1334 and what admissions actually said. Perhaps it can be done.
Update agree with 185! Just shocked at what some of those percentages they’ve been tossing around could imply!
The analysis of you crackheads is truly impressive and makes me proud to claim you all as U. of C. students, alums or parents!
I’ve no doubt missed a stroke or two in this evolving discussion. However, I don’t believe there’s an answer to the question that matters most to me - whether being an ED applicant gives you an edge you wouldn’t have as an EA or RD applicant. That is, holding all other things steady, is it just a bit easier, relatively speaking, to be admitted ED? And is ED1 more advantageous than ED2? It seems to me that the statistics we are discussing here, whatever they turn out to be in actuality, can’t tell us that, because we don’t know the composition of the respective pools quality-wise, whatever their numbers.
To me that would be the information I would really want to have if I was a kid with good credentials and a liking for UChicago. While it sounds scary to say that leaving your app to the RD stage means you get only a 1 in 50 shot, we really don’t know just how much your chances are realistically lengthened by that choice. We can assume that the 50 will include greater numbers of less impressive apps from kids who never had a chance. If you’re a top quality applicant who didn’t quite make it at an earlier stage into your favored school you surely know this. If you’re a more ordinary applicant you may still want to roll the dice at little cost - you might get lucky or might be better in the eyes of the admissions people than you think you are. For kids truly deterred by statistics, would it matter much to your decision that your chances are actually 1 in 25 rather than 1 in 50?
I have enjoyed the speculations of all of you and am all for having as much hard information as possible as soon as possible. However, it seems to me that the essential information will likely never be known and may be unknowable. What we do know doesn’t actually help those of us who are kids or their parents very much.
@Marlowe1 I actually disagree. There should be enough information in what they’ve told us to start assigning some Bayesian probabilities to the admit rates. It might also require things like guessing the make-up of those different admit pools (the results pages on CC might be of assistance on that one, assuming that the posts are at all representative).
I’d take them at their word that the RD admit rate was 2% and I believe that referred to the entire pool (including those deferred from EA/EDI). I believe they admitted a smidgen of those Early-deferreds who stayed in the RD round and .5% sounds a lot better than saying they admitted only 30, or 40, or 50, simply because it’s unheard of for a school to admit so few from the deferred pool.
Whether your chances are 2%, or 4%, or 6% or 8% that is just plain low. However, there is valuable information there! If some pools are 2% or 4%, and the overall rate is 8%, then - ERGO! - other pools have a really high relative rate of admission! Conclusion - apply as part of those higher admit pools, unless you have an extraordinary talent or a particular hook that is very much in demand at the top colleges (not just at UChicago - you most likely need to be a competitive applicant to go non-binding on the premise that it is on these pools that UChicago is going to be spending its merit aid).
You may not even need cardinal values, merely ordinal ones, if the difference is significant (i.e. 30% ED vs. 4% EA or 2% RD).
Well in the end, if you are a unhooked high school student with excellent stats, looking to go to an academically challenging school, then it seems that UChicago ED should be a very high consideration for you. Of course you’ll need to know how to write a good essay or two.
That seems intuitively correct, JBS and CU. Perhaps that is what Bayesian analysis would tell us, though a knowledge of those procedures somehow eluded me in my undergraduate and subsequent life, which has been more devoted to the expressive than the analytic. However, the University OUGHT to be privileging the first-choice kids who are applying ED - more so for ED1 than for ED 2, but more for either of these than for EA or RD. Perhaps, as you suggest, JBS, a systematic tabulation of the stats provided by the kids in these other threads would bear this out. It would be nice to know just what the degree of advantage is in each pool. But however one extrapolates the numbers to take account of differentials in the quality of the various pools, the chances must be better mutatis mutandis in the ED pools.
Misuse of latin tag in post above. I was being way too fancy for my own good. But if one must resort to latin, amend that mutatis mutandis to ceteris paribus - or “all things being equal” in plain English.
@marlowe1 not sure that stat comparison among the various pools would tell us much. Accepted stats are high anyway and UChicago superscores so what they report may be inflated (think of super scoring as the standardized test version of “best ball” LOL). What you might see - and I haven’t looked - is that the ED kids are represented by a large group of smart kids with great stats, essays, recs, etc. who didn’t apply for financial aid so have good SES as well. If a demographic shows up, it would be white/SE Asian/East Indian (international as well). EA enthusiasts for Chicago might have more interesting characteristics, demographics, etc. Perhaps a larger proportion of AA, Hispanic, under-represented Asian, etc. (because a high stat URM shouldn’t have to apply ED to be considered, and many in QuestBridge etc. obviously can’t). You might also find something more striking - like a special talent - about these kids (after all, thousands of them applied so why would UChicago pick the same group as the ED kids?). RD might have a lot of kids who are looking at UChicago and HYPS. They might have applied SCEA somewhere and are weighing their options. Naturally, there are all types in all groups - these are generalizations.
Mutatis mutandis has segued into the more annoying (and very contemporary American) phrase: “that’s a distinction w/o a difference”.
UChicago super scores the ACT, however everyone super scores the SAT, so I’m assuming when some group does a comparison they almost always use the SAT.
Why is the new SAT superscored? That’s a mystery in general. However, as UChicago superscores everything it’s not relevant to that school in particular.
UChicago tends to see a lot of ACT scores relative to other top uni’s simply due to its Midwest location (still draws heavily from the Midwest). Superscoring the ACT obviously helps keep those reported stats pretty high.