My D’s two top schools going into the application cycle two years ago were UChicago and CMU (deitrich). She wasn’t interested at all in an HYPS - they just didn’t seem her style. For her it was about being a “serious school” and I think perhaps she had heard too many stories of kids at Harvard or Stanford not actually showing up to class. BTW - this is NOT to say that you can’t get a serious eduction at either place. Nor was she interested in P or Y. Her third choice was UW-Madison and she was in there already by the time she was waiting on ED2 (she had applied EA and got deferred). For my son it came down to an HYPS and UChicago. Had UChicago NOT had ED2, I believe he would have bypassed the SCEA application and gone ED1 because he honestly felt that his chances at UChicago, while not high, might have been better due to the family history there (not so much “legacy” as “familiarity”). He was definitely straddling the fence: both schools had top academics but he felt that one school dominated a bit more on the academics front and the other a bit more on the music front.
? Nothing I said either argued or implied that HYPS doesn’t have these types of students. I was talking about belief, which doesn’t have to be grounded in any sort of reality.
UChicago, unlike HYPS, has a full fledged marketing campaign playing up the “life of the mind.” I was simply pointing out that there is a large contingent of students here that drank the kool-aid, so to speak. They were attracted to this kind of environment and saw many other schools as insufficiently intellectual. Thinking of these students as HYPS rejects is a bad theoretical framework for thinking about who chooses to come to UChicago because many of them had no interest in attending most other elite schools.
@DeepBlue86 at #299 - the very fact that we are now comparing UChicagos’s Fin. Aid to Yale’s . . . I’m guessing Nondorf would be quite pleased.
However, I don’t think anyone has said that scrappy lil’ University of Chicago has quite been able to catch up to the 300 years of deep pockets at Yale! There might be several reasons why Yale does a better job on the Pell Grant front. For instance, more aggressive recruiting from that lowest income group, a deliberate decision specifically to admit from that group (perhaps a violation of the “need blind” policy; perhaps not), better outreach to that group. I don’t think UChicago would have introduced Empower if it thought it was beating Yale on outreach to those groups in need. In many respects, Empower might SPECIFICALLY be designed to reach the Pell Grant crowd, whereas Odyssey is for a slightly higher (and perhaps a bit wider) income category.
We’ll see what happens this year - the first year of Empower. As I mentioned prior, the number admitted TO was more than a handful and there’s going to be huge overlap between between those admits and those admitted under the Empower Initiative (since TO was announced within the context of that). So, no - UChicago isn’t quite at the level of Yale - or Harvard - yet. It appears to be striving toward that goal, however.
In all this flurry to enroll the lowest income, it’s important to remember “fit.” Schools should avoid even any hint of an admission for any reason but that the student was a super choice and a great fit for the place - because that’s going to maximize their probability of success. And that is precisely what every student coming to a UChicago admitted event actually hears. Not sure what Yale tells its admits, but it enthusiastically publicizes the number of Pell’s and First Gen’s at least among the SCEA-admits. That’s kind of off-putting (if not outright offensive). I’m actually glad UChicago does NOT do this . . . can’t think of a better way to disintegrate a community than to institutionalize - even inadvertently - socio-economic differences.
As a prior poster said earlier, no one knew, nor did they care about, the financial aid status of anyone else at the UChicago Admissions event. Thank God.
“11% Pell grants and 20% Odyssey scholars, you would think most Odyssey scholars would be Pell grant eligible…”
@CU123 - Nondorf mentions in his NYT piece that most Odyssey scholars do NOT qualify for Pell Grants. Not sure the criteria for the Pell, but the income max is $50,000 and most are in the $20,000 range. It’s possible that an Odyssey scholar is just over that max . . . just as disadvantaged economically (perhaps even worse, depending on number in household etc.) but simply not eligible because of an arbitrary cut-off. Odyssey appears to be much more flexible.
Edit/update: It’s possible that Odyssey and Empower together are supposed to target up to 40% of the incoming class this year. Guesstimate.
If SCEA is too restrictive (which, I agree, it is), what do you call ED1? The lack of objectivity and logic by some is truly embarrassing and depressing.
We are now officially through the looking glass, @JBStillFlying, if you’re seriously asserting that Yale consciously looking for promising candidates among those least able to afford and least likely to apply to college, and showering them with grants to make this possible for them, is “perhaps a violation of the ‘need blind’ policy”.
And how “off-putting (if not downright offensive)” of Yale to “enthusiastically publicize the number of Pell’s and First-Gens”! Think of how Yale “disintegrated the community” by “institutionalizing socio-economic differences” like that! Such poor taste - no one will know their place anymore. Maybe more of those people will apply, get in and make the full-payers even less comfortable. Let’s hope they have the sensitivity to do the decent thing and pretend they can afford Yale on their own.
Anyway, my dismay and astonishment are tempered by the certain knowledge that if the vaunted Empower initiative is successful in attracting a meaningful number of the poorest students, and Nondorf toots his horn about it, you’ll be out there on the barricades explaining how, once again, UChicago is boldly leading the way into a glorious future.
SCEA and ED1 are equally restrictive. Both are nonbinding if you don’t get admitted. If you do get admitted, the choice you have with SCEA is more of an illusion than reality in most cases. Furthermore, SCEA cannot apply EA elsewhere, ED1 can
^ Agree with @ccdad99. SCEA gets you on the front end; ED gets you on the back.
@DeepBlue86 - did I overlook a substantive comment in your post #305?
UChicago is a powerhouse in economics, so, hopefully, its fans are schooled in some basic economics.
An applicant has an option to choose a college. An option is the right, but the obligation, to choose. It has an intrinsic value as well as a time value to the option holder (the applicant, in this case). The cost of the option is borne by the option writer (the college, in this case). Economically, it’s in the college’s interest to reduce the cost of this valuable option. SCEA/REA places restrictions on this option (similar to the restrictions placed on a stock option that can only be excised under limited circumstances), making the option less valuable to the applicant. But it’s still an option, and therefore still has value. ED, on the other hand, takes away this option completely, making it worthless to the applicant. Now, which one is worse?
^ An option is the right, but NOT the obligation, to choose.
ED is not an option. It is a binding contract. There are binding contracts in the world of basic economics.
My kid is one of those students; did not apply to any Ivy, or any other school (intended to await the outcome of ED1) 1550ish SAT No hooks etc
Of course. ED takes away that right, so it’s no longer an option with value.
@1NJParent The answer to your question is closely related to how close to zero the SCEA restriction brings the value of the said option
@1NJParent - it’s never an option. Just like promising to deliver 50 bushels of grain is not an option. A binding contract is not an option. One may CHOOSE to enter into the contract or not. THERE’S your option. LOL.
Differences among the elite schools do not need to be “very great” in order to be “great enough”. An orange is quite a bit like a tangerine, but the difference is great enough that you might prefer the taste and texture and method of eating one of them to that of the other.
Over many years kids have been coming to the University of Chicago because they perceived a difference in that sense between it and its peers, each of which is also different from the others but a bit more like them than Chicago is like them. The differences, however they began, were reinforced by the people who perceived them and came to the institution because of them. Thus for many years the rich, the pleasure-loving and the incurious did not come to Chicago, and the rather more serious and the rather more studious and the rather less prestige-sensitive did come. If that is still happening, as @HydeSnark says it is, then it’s reinforcing a difference that is “great enough” to be meaningful. You could look that up in Weber.
But beyond objective differences and even perceived differences, consider the simple matter of name and brand. I may be blinded by my own history as a hinterlander, as @JHS says I am, but I am convinced that many a kid, and not only ones from small towns in the heartland but also from the metropolises and the coasts, are put off by the thought of being tied to the name of a prestigious school. Too much baggage, too many assumptions, whatever the underlying realities. No doubt this is a minority reaction but, I believe, a significant one and not merely of the timid and unambitious. Such a kid might come to Chicago.
I have great respect for UChicago for its rigorous approach to academics, and I sure hope the lack of the rigor and critical thinking displayed by some of its fans on this board is not a reflection on the university.
After I wrote that post, I thought “there’s a small possibly that she was being ironic - maybe I was unfair.” Silly me. You should be embarrassed.
^ actually, I’m more concerned about being timed out. 
Probably a good time to remind everyone to keep it civil.
This precisely shows the lack of understanding of basic economics. The promise to deliver 50 bushels of grains is a forward/future contract, not a financial/economic option. A completely different instrument.
@1NJParent - why are you insisting that all admission plans consist of options? They don’t.
NB - perhaps you don’t see the consideration for the agreement to commit. But others do. It’s called “signalling value” - and it actually IS a positive value.