@Cue7 My opinion is that UChicago has only recently become competitive with the Ivy league in terms of selectivity and prestige. This became true only after massive debt spending and incessantly tweaking the admissions strategy. So you are just starting to see the effect of those actions. My guess is you haven’t seen the end of it. What’s lit a fire under them? Well they are seeing the results and like it but now they have to get the balance sheet under control for long term stability
Some Chicago’s peers have reported the yield rates for class 2020:
https://blog.■■■■■■■■■■■/blog-0/class-of-2020-yield-rates
Among the EA schools Chicago fares well. I believe Georgetown’s EA does not allow ED. Cannot find Cal Tech’s yield rate for class 2020. Its yield rate for class 2019 is around 41% - a lot of cross-admits with MIT.
https://www.admissions.caltech.edu/content/class-profile
Chicago is in a sweet spot with MIT, Cal Tech, and other EA schools. Many MIT/Cal Tech applicants apply to Chicago and vice versa.
@Cue7 : You earlier said that you think many more students just simply “float through” Chicago. Are you only saying that based upon the grading practices or do you believe many instructors have actually changed their courses to maybe teach less rigorously than when Chicago was either a) old Chicago or b) in transition? I’m just curious, because I went to Emory at one point at least pretended to be for those who were more serious academically (though still more of a pre-professional school back then, but was definitely much more of a teaching type of school, and you can still see its remnants) when it had its old much more stringent (as in, beyond things like the freshman seminar, PE, and frosh writing requirement, there were apparently specific courses, as opposed to types of courses, that students had to take…And this was under Dr. Laney who indeed admitted in a short documentary about his leadership that he envisioned making Emory more Chicago like…needless to say Wagner appears to have gone in a different direction which has had its good, but certainly has likely dampened the potential of the intellectual climate to be stronger among undergrads, if only because recruiting now draws a more “generic”, less self-selected crowd (that can easily navigate the academics and can easily GPA manage during their whole tenure if that is all they value…even as a STEM major) general education requirements (literally a year before I came in). Some instructors (even in STEM) will admit that they either decided to kind of lower the intensity of their courses based upon what they were noticing in newer cohorts of undergraduates or flat out from administrative pressure.
For example, it has been suggested that general biology courses and intro calculus courses were subjected to such pressures with the goal of improving the chances of newer pre-professionals at a higher GPA, all in order to improve the pre-med admit rate to med. school…basically a career aspiration motive. Some humanities and social sciences instructors such as Patrick Allitt would even write in their book admitting that he changed his grading patterns over time (even in the period where Emory was becoming more “selective” stats wise).
I just don’t know, there appears to be some correlation between loosening of gen. ed or cores, changes in recruitment tactics, and academic culture among faculty and students at almost any of the larger/medium private schools that were trying to “hold out” on the more Ivy type of “a la carte” academics model. Luckily Chicago is quite amazing and has always had a particular institutional culture, so will probably not change anywhere near as quickly (Emory as a noob is fragile…if one president or administrative team essentially undoes some things of a previous leader or does it much differently, you can almost immediately see effects good or bad. I could even notice differences in classes that came after me and roomed with and knew folks who came in under the older Gen. ed system and their was generally a difference in attitude and they seemed academically tougher/more resilient to me). Chicago is fortunate enough to still continue to draw a solid threshold of students within each incoming class that probably wants to be academically challenged at higher than normal levels even as freshmen.
But what I noticed was that some years afterwards at Emory, the enrollment in many of the more difficult entry level and intermediate course instructors in STEM (and some social science courses with frosh only sections like a comparative politics course offered by Dr. Thomas Lancaster) are pretty much in decline. My freshman year and before, they would fill, if not overload, and now some struggle to fill up the course half way. My first year there, there were honors course or special section offerings of many classes (I even took a couple). Now, they are gone and I find it inconceivable that the demand would be there today (other students would essentially steer their peers away from such courses).
I think Chicago is enjoying a lot more prestige and a higher rank which is very nice, but I think it should be very careful if it values any amount of the old intellectual and academic culture among its UGs as it may start diminishing. I do have reason to believe that faculty do indeed respond to the academic attitudes of students (and their changes over time), even at elite schools. Chicago’s case wouldn’t concern me if it were like some other schools I know that are employing similar admissions and recruitment tactics (one is in the south and one in the midwest) because those places never really had or were attempting to have even a slice of the intellectual feel of Chicago (though one that I speak of, like many D-3 schools, is quite rigorous academically…just not a Chicago in how it feels and who it draws), at least not among the UG student bodies. They were more likely to sell amenities and socialization in the first place. Either way, some place other than the LACs and Tech schools need to at least try to “hold out” on some of the “Ivyfication” of academics (I’ll admit Princeton and Columbia, I guess are a little different). Some elements have benefit, but some of it does more harm than good for “elite” (or whatever…is more like it at many places) higher education. Grade inflation is one thing, and having an environment where students can consistently select courses of low intellectual rigor (basically instructors who do content deflation) is another and the latter can do a lot more damage to intellectual and academic culture over time. Once most stereotypical students find these easy pathways, it spreads like wildfire and becomes the norm. You pretty have most, even very bright students, just plan courses perhaps around their social lives. The goal is to optimize the “traditional college experience” vs. grades/career…it is a natural, sensible default, but I just don’t think elite schools should make such an optimization so easy.
I think the yield rate of 66% is amazing. Chicago is finally getting the due respect from those bright students who have their choices. To me, it is an indication that Chicago is no longer viewed or used as a hypsm back up. I personally know a couple of bright students who had options to go to Stanford and Harvard respectively, but chose going to Chicago for challenges academically. What makes one case interesting is the fact that the student who declined to matriculate to Stanford is a legacy with tip top stats and he chose Chicago because Chicago became his first choice since his visit to Hyde Park. His dad is being supportive even though he told me he wanted the kid to go to S because it’s closer to home. I understand it’s anecdotal, but it’s still indicative of what has gradually changed in a positive way for the U of Chicago.
Chicago’s yield trending is positive for sure. I think it is doing better and better against peers like non-HYP ivies, Duke, NW, JHU, WSHU, etc. But I am not sure about its cross-admit against HYP and MS and Cal Tech. It will be very interesting to see its cross-admit data against MIT and Cal Tech since those two schools have exactly the same EA policy.
Do you happen to know if any merit scholarship was involved for those few students who chose Chicago over Stanford and Harvard? I have seen some cases which big merit-based scholarship was awarded to some Chicago admits and eventually they chose to come to Chicago instead of HYP and MS. But I also believe some of those students really had Chicago as their first choice and would matriculate regardless of other options.Merit scholarship just sweetened the deal.
@eddi137 I can tell you from personal knowledge that merit played a factor in some of the students who are going to Chicago who also got admitted to other places (though I personally didn’t receive any). I can also tell you that there were students who received a ton of merit and still turned Chicago down.
@eddi137 : Is it fair to constantly worry about those places whose yields are so high that they obviously aren’t competing that well against each other (HYPSM) or simply do not share as many cross-admits as one would like to believe? Chicago has found its slice of the pie (students who like it) like those schools have and has successfully yielded them. This obsession with perfect yield and aiming for a freaking 0% admit rate because of it is annoying. If you are over 60% or especially over 65% and have great stats, intellectual attitude, and academic programs, rejoice! Maybe all cross-admits with other places are not the best fit for Chicago. Let them go elsewhere.
Even H and S are clearly getting different students. They can’t both have sky high yields and low admit rates yet be getting the same students with the same interest. They obviously are not cross-admitting the same students though perhaps the CC universe would lead you to believe otherwise.
Chicago’s strategy to appeal to a wider audience has obviously paid off and obviously the school has and always has had amazing academic quality. However its acceptance rate benefits quite a bit from its EA policy (if it was ED or SCEA prob about a third of the students would be applying) and its yield is definitely boosted at least a little bit by merit-based scholarships. All ivies have either SCEA or ED and do not have merit scholarships.
@Penn95 Nothing is stopping the other Ivies from going EA or offering merit scholarships. They don’t do it because they have determined that it’s not in their best interest. ED schools actually are benefiting greatly from near perfect yield from their ED pools and filling almost half their slots with ED applicants. Two luxuries that Chicago doesn’t have. So they play the game differently. BTW, I know of several schools that offer both EA and merit scholarships that are very generous yet have yields much lower than Chicago. Chicago’s strategy only works if the product they are offering is seen as valuable by students
In Summary, everybody is playing the game that works for them. No one is more altruistic than the other
Well, after a conversation yesterday with Admissions, it appears that Chicago will now have four application plans…next cycle will allow ED, EA, EDII and RD applications. The current website only reflects this news on the Financial Aid page, however, so I called to confirm.
@runnersmom please tell me that is a joke. that is absolutely absurd.
Nope…call Admissions. I am an independent counselor and one of my partners was at an on-campus information session yesterday. I was so surprised I called Admissions to hear it myself. As a parent of 2 UChicago graduates of the College (2007/2011) and 1of the Law School (2016), I was flabbergasted (and disappointed).
@runnersmom wow. I am about to send an email to nondorf and lobby my friends who work in the admissions office to stop this from happening. I hope you can also join me in telling them why exactly this move makes us look ridiculous.
Rots of ruck with that! I doubt they announced it at an information session and started to build it into the website because it was just a trial balloon subject to further debate.
@runnersmom Hahaha, Hahaha, Hahaha. Hahaha. This is true guys. I called and confirmed.
Chicago is now segmenting its applicants and letting applicants pick which box they want to be in.
ED - You are my first choice. Let me in and I will come
EA - you are not my first choice, but maybe second or third. I may still come here if my top choice rejects me, but not sure and may need financial aid.
ED2 - My first choice rejected me, you are now my top choice. I am ready to commit ( This pool is going to be interesting)
RD - I am a free agent. Unwilling to commit. Show me why I should come
It helps the school without limiting an applicants choice, but makes the choice very hard and forces you to signal your intentions very clearly.
I would say I am disappointed if it is true.
Chicago always prides itself as a true competitor in many fronts including the college admission. Adopting ED (ED2 ? LOL) will place itself to a different tier from HYPS. If it wants to truly compete with HYPS it should go to SCEA, otherwise it should stay with EA to buy some time.
My gut feeling is that the ED/ED2 aims solely to improve the yield rate and admit rate, and maybe to save money (no need to throw to ED/ED2 admits).
I don’t know what to make of it, but my kids think it’s just another brick in the path of “sameness” that the University seems to have embarked on over the last 5 - 8 years.
My guess is after a few cycles, EA will disappear as an option. This is the school transitioning to an ED school, but by limiting the downside risk for now. Once they get a good view of the applicant pool for a few cycles, they will remove the EA option altogether. Maybe even ED2. For now, given that they are the highest ranked school offering ED2, this will negatively impact all the other schools offering ED2 in some fashion, specially the ones that are in the top 20, like Vanderbilt, Emory, Tufts and some of the LACs, because it will now siphon off some of those students