<p>The binding ED not working argument makes no sense. The yield would be (near) 100% for ED, if the current yield is about 38% for EA one could weather a considerable drop off in applications and fill as many spots, and improve the yield percentages at the same time. The university's numbers would benefit, but not the applicants' choices. As for rounding, I included the actual EA number, the actual official overall number is not included (it might be 5.66%). Or, if one is talking about the overall number discrepancy between the earlier article 79/1322 and the official 6%, the differences is 0.000242057489.</p>
<p>I see you guys have swallowed the party line, hook, line and sinker, and that your minds are closed on the topic. And you don't know how to analyze admissions numbers. There is a difference between "actual data" (to which I provided a link) and early season press releases. I'd like to think you can do the calculations without my having to do it for you. Even the New York Times etc. couldn't sway you, so I won't try. Any discussion of the negative impact of EA on Chicago (or any other school) is something you just don't want to hear, and you assume criticism of this lothesome policy (not unique to Chicago) is criticism of the school's academic reputation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is a difference between "actual data" (to which I provided a link) and early season press releases. I'd like to think you can do the calculations without my having to do it for you. Even the New York Times etc. couldn't sway you, so I won't try.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is hilarious. Of course there is a difference. So what? NYT article? What article?</p>
<p>Come on Byerly, can't you do better than throw out unsupported assertions? I've seen not one shred of evidence to back up your assertions, not even the math you allude to.</p>
<p>Are you off meds or something?</p>
<p>BTW, what is a "lothesome" policy? Never head of the word. More not making sense?</p>
<p>I believe the fairness issue was fully addressed in the article referrenced in the original link:
[quote]
University administrators, including Zimmer, Provost Richard Saller, John Boyer, Dean of the College, and several faculty committees participated in these deliberations to evaluate what would present the most balanced opportunities to College applicants. These groups analyses confirmed that Chicagos Early Action program does not create an unfair advantage for the more affluent students or any disadvantage for those less financially privileged.</p>
<p>We carefully reviewed our Early Action program in light of our fundamental commitment to making a University of Chicago education accessible to talented students, regardless of family financial resources, said Kenneth Warren, Deputy Provost for Minority Affairs and Research and the Fairfax M. Cone Distinguished Service Professor. In many respects, our program, in contrast to early decision programs at other institutions, allows us to admit more students of limited means, while enabling those students to be sure they are getting the best possible financial aid packages.</p>
<p>Michael Behnke, Vice President and Dean of College Enrollment, noted that the Office of College Admissions has a fair and balanced system of providing financial aid and that students who apply late in the application process are not put at a disadvantage for receiving aid.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We did research and found that more needy students are applying EA, rather than less. They also have exactly the same scores as RN candidates, meaning that the two pools are very similar in abillity. They yield at a slightly better rate -- maybe 40%.</p>
<p>Geesh Libby,</p>
<p>There you go again, throwing real data into a speculative exercize. :)</p>
<p>I simply do NOT believe any of that is true - except, of course, for the "better yield rate for those applying early" part. Please provide a link to the hard data, and prove me wrong.</p>
<p>I see you are leaving out words to "suit your purpose." She said "...at a slightly better rate..."</p>
<p>Some EA applicnats will be the strongest because they will not need a higher SAT score or a higher GPA from senior year to increase their chances. However, there are some very strong RD applicants who did not get into HYPS early (you cannot apply EA to Chicago and early to any of the 4). The concentration of strong applicants is higher early for all schools, but the number of strong applicnats is greater in the RD round (as seen by higher % of the class admitted RD), but the number is somewhat diluted at most colleges. Why EA affects low income applicants, I do not know. ED hurts low income applicants because they cannot compare aid and merit scholarships. EA applicants can compare everything and are not obliged to attend the university. Applying EA should not help your chances because the college commits to you, not you commiting to the college. EA yeilds are up at colleges like UChicago because many applicants who get in EA do not wish to go anywhere else and are done with the application process.</p>
<p>that was a rather beautiful comeback idad...the slightly indeed is such a very slight and subtle difference..heh......</p>
<p>anyhow, why should this matter much? Its clear that EA is different...i like the way venkater puts it. Its the college who commits to you not you to the college...</p>
<p>"ED hurts low income applicants because they cannot compare aid and merit scholarships."</p>
<p>For the record, ED was not an option for our middle-class family either.</p>
<p>While the discussion is interesting, I've not been convinced that EA is a loathsome practice.</p>
<p>And I hope that if Chicago IS trying to increase yield, that they do it through their self-selecting application process, which is refreshing, rather than by beefing up athletic programs, which would make them LESS appealing to some.</p>
<p>Meanwhile the notion that the "setting is clearly a negative" is ridiculous--the setting is GORGEOUS and the community interesting. And to imply that an admissions officer who is gracious enough to post is lying is unhelpful and rude.</p>
<p>Perhaps the discussion of the effects of EA on yield would be better in a more general forum than in one associated with a single school.</p>
<p>One cynical parent on the Parent's forum suggested that the real reason behind Harvard dropping SCEA was to force Princeton and others to follow suit thereby reducing their selectivity and yield vis-a-vis Harvard. The fairness argument was but a smoke screen. I find that hard to believe, but in the absence of any data to the contrary, I guess I may have to accept it; ...how can I just accept their word for it?</p>
<p>I still have not heard why SCEA hurt poor and minority applicants (aside from the fact that they generally get into the college process later, sometimes too late to know that Harvard is their #1 school and to apply SCEA) financially. SCEAers can compare all the aid and all the merit scholarships they want.</p>