The school gets it application numbers back up, @CU123. The matches made are more thoughtful and more considered. To my knowledge, UChicago is the only school with a EA v EDI choice, and I am not sure that the school or the kids benefit from the choice.
Kids want their decisions wrapped up by Dec. While EA would obviously admit more if EDI is eliminated, yield might decline. Two good reasons why ED1 isn’t going anywhere.
However, would they eventually turn EA into SCEA? Hmmm . . . .
@Sam-I-Am Sorry, I was being sarcastic but it doesn’t show in print.
Not much of an answer, denydenzig, at no. 106, but it does appear to be the only logical one. A frivolous meaningless competition for bragging rights unworthy of the University of Chicago.
I think EDII is a valid way to secure some real talent form the SCEA pool. HYPS and the sheer volume of applications, mathematically speaking, benefits a EDII scenario for any University, deferral is statistically a rejection.
It’s an exaggeration to say that the College’s self-selecting classes of yesteryear were grossly less qualified than more recent classes. People who say this are thinking primarily of acceptance rates and yield. But by measures such as gpa and SAT scores those older classes were comparable to the lesser Ivies - not as bad as all that, though certainly not as good as today.
@marlowe1 Agree 100%. Even in the years when Chicago had a much higher admission rate, it was still classified as “most competitive” precisely because few students applied who weren’t already very highly qualified.
Read some of Ted O’Neill’s comments about admissions. He was Chicago’s Dean of Admissions for years. He argues that it used to be harder in some ways to be admitted as the Committee had the time to very thoroughly discuss each and every application. They were selecting a Chicago “type” and that type of individual needed far more than high SAT scores and GPAs.
Back in my day, people were frankly scared to apply to Chicago as its “Uncommon” application was notoriously long and the many essays required were very challenging. I also recall my interview with an admissions officer at Chicago. It lasted 90 minutes and I left feel exhausted. Back in those days, interviews often ran over.
@exlibris97 that sounded a bit like the UChicago version of “in my day we walked to school uphill both ways” :))
This year’s segmented admit pools are a return to “self-selection”, IMHO. Esp. if the admit numbers for EDI and EDII are what I’m seeing on related threads . . .
@JBStillFlying Chicago explosive growth in application numbers is, by its own admission, down to two factors: it joined the Common App and abandoned the Uncommon App; and it retained consultants who designed outreach and PR campaigns. Chicago’s former President also acknowledged at one point that he was in a race with Columbia, and felt personally aggrieved that Columbia should have more applicants. The result? Thousands of applications. But I’ve seen zero evidence that today’s Chicago student is in any way superior or better qualified to those of the 80s.
But why then did Uchicago have such a higher drop out rate ? When they admitted 40 percent, they obviously must have brougth in a portion of considerably less qualified people.
@exlibris97 - haven’t seen any outside evidence one way or the other but thinking this through, there might be a marginal increase in “quality” (assuming they truly didn’t take a dip from ED/EDII admits). The truth is that they are drawing from a wider variety of applicant now, including those who are admitted to HYPS (we all know a dummy or two admitted to this set of schools but the fact remains that they tend to attract some extremely bright kids). Competition usually results in a higher quality product, but then it’s quite possible that those from 30 years ago really were Ivy-caliber but chose UChicago anyway (don’t know one way or the other). Whether those Ivy league admits are a better fit at UChicago, and whether they choose UChicago (most of them probably don’t) are, of course, pertinent factors. You still have to be pretty intellectually curious to thrive at UChicago and anyone NOT like this wouldn’t enjoy his/her experience and is likely not at all a good fit, regardless of where else accepted.
@Chrchill they admitted way more than 40% by the 80’s or 90’s. Boyer mentioned in 1999 that their admit rate was at a low of 47.5%, compared to about 70% just a few years prior.
We were told at the admitted student Open House a few days ago that 1/2 of 1% of those deferred EA were admitted in the RD round. Than being said, S was one of those deferred and then accepted RD. I commend UChicago for maintaining the EA option and hope they continue to recognize its value to students despite its possible negative impact on # applicants/yield. I encourage students to apply with whatever admission path feels right for you and your family.
FWIW, my D ended up hosting a prospie and interacting with some of them. She related that all seem to have applied to the Ivy’s and were weighing their options. She was I’m sure a good host to them but she definitely got the impression that they were more prestige conscious than for example herself and her friends who had had UChicago as their top choice.
@JBStillFlying Regardless of the admissions rate, you have still not addressed the question of whether there is a qualitative difference between Chicago students of the 80s and 90s and those of today. There I would rely on the opinions of Chicago professors and individuals such as Ted O’Neill, Chicago’s long-time Dean of Admissions. They state emphatically that there is no difference.
The “numbers” game is fun but in a way is a betrayal of what once made Chicago special. For decades Chicago aspired to attract those UNIQUE individuals who were attracted by Chicago’s unique proposition. Now it “markets” itself to anyone. It still may wind up attracting unique individuals, but it does so at the cost of shattering the dream of thousands of students. That wasn’t the “Chicago” way before.
Actually @exlibris97 you probably CAN use admit rate to get at whether there is any qualitative difference. Simply compare the effective admit rate of 30 years ago to ED rate today. You would need to subtract the number of washouts from the first pool (as they never should have been admitted in the first place). Depending on the number of applications, that 70% rate might reduce to about 35-40%, which is about what the ED pool is looking like. Today’s class size is 3X larger, but that’s because there were, in fact, 3X the number who would do well at UChicago than UChicago was matriculating (i.e. the undergrad program was nowhere near at full capacity).
This from another blog : " . i just saw Dean Nondorf at an admitted students event and he gave some preliminary acceptance figures: EA/ED acceptance was “in the teens”, regular admitted was 2%, and accepted after being deferred 0.5%. He also said that statistically it is the most competitive class thus far. Overall acceptance is under 8%"’
EA/ED “in the teens” means that EA was super low. Think he’ll ever release anything about EDII? :-w
@Chrchill He said regular admit was 2%?!!!
That’s insanely low…lowest in the country! I guess they filled almost all their spots in the early rounds.
yes the 2% RD has been confirmed numerous times by lost of people.