From a game theory perspective, I expect the ED2 group to have the most competitive admissions.
Right, That’s what I just said in the other thread. The supply of super-high-quality ED II options is very limited; Chicago could get some great applicants. They are people who probably would have applied to Chicago RD anyway, but this will make them commit if accepted.
How about an EED option. Extremely early decision. Apply in June. Get your result in Aug. Commit by September. Once more than fifty schools go to this option, one school can offer EEED. :))
Let’s make college admissions great again 
ED plays a fear factor more or less. A student may fear to miss the ED opportunity which has higher admit rate and requires 100% interest. School may get less stellar students who may not get in in EA/RD.
I have seen cases committed ED students have resented their decision later for various reasons. Schools have much to gain to adopt ED but not necessary get better students.
Time will tell. Maybe it is a move mirroring the significance of going to Common Application years ago.
Wow. So glad my kid is already done with admissions.
I’m so excited for kids who were not only duped by the US News rank and hate it here, but who feel like they were boxed in by ED and if they had time to decide they would not have come.
Though I suppose that’s what Nondorf wants. Thanks a lot, dude.
Yeah, highly status-conscious and risk-averse is not a great profile for intellectuals. Throw in resentful and it gets even worse.
@eddi137 Don’t be delusional, Chicago is not and never has been at the same tier with HYPSM. It is at the same tier as Columbia, Penn, maybe Duke too. In fact not even these schools have ED I or ED II programs. The only school that has this is Cornell which is a tier (or two) down from Columbia, Penn etc. If Chicago was secure enough it would not resort to gimmicks like these. And the most absurd part is that Chicago has nothing to be insecure about so why do all this?
@Penn95 I have not said or indicated Chicago is in the same tier as HYPSM as now or so. What I have said is Chicago always prides itself or aspires to compete with them. At least it has been trying until now.
Adopting EDs like the schools you have mentioned basically indicates Chicago is trying something new.
I would not use the “never has been” sentence. Things can change and have changed.
If you look back the history of the higher education in US since 1900s when American universities started taking off globally. At the turn of the 20th century great European universities were dominating the scientific research forefronts.
By 1910 Harvard, Chicago, Columbia were ranked 1, 2, 3 by the first academic ranking. Then by 1925 Chicago, Harvard, Columbia were 1, 2, 3 by the second ranking. Then WWII started Chicago, Columbia, Berkley were major players in the Manhattan project which was one of the largest scientific projects in history.
If you check the inaugural USNEWS ranking (1983) Chicago was the 6th after SHYP and Berkley. At that time USNEWS only considered academic reputation.
Stanford has benefited (partially started) from tech boom. MIT was not even an original member of AAU which is the gold standard of US research universities.
Chicago has lagged Harvard (sort of significantly) or so after 1960s gradually. probably Columbia too. Sadly those great European universities have faded away sort of.
@VeryLuckyParent : I don’t know if that’s a threat except to the really high stats schools that you mentioned like Vanderbilt. Most ED students to a place like my old school, Emory, are honestly things like pre-business (plan on going to GBS), or the hardcore pre-health kind and those that come for the more “liberal arts” type of thing still alive at a place like Tufts or Emory generally won’t have the ridiculously high stats needed for Chicago. Tufts also still gets kind of a niche clientele. Also, even the the types that get in Emory and Tufts ED/ED2 are not as likely to get into Chicago or schools with stats like they have(maybe they can get into some schools in the same or just below the Chicago tier, but with lower stats than Chicago, which are plentiful) . They are great students (maybe same caliber as a Vanderbilt overall when you look at other attributes and post-grad. performance), but the stats aren’t there and Chicago’s current scheme makes it among the handful of very stats sensitive schools outside of HYPMCt (the other 3 with identical stats are WUSTL, Vanderbilt, and Columbia. Other schools sharing a tier with these schools are generally at least a little lower in the stats arena. Stanford, which is with HYPMCt, is among the schools with lower stats, which are pretty much identical to Duke, Penn, JHU, NU, ND, Brown, and Dartmouth, and I guess Rice. As in, I don’t think their bottom quartile has crossed the 1400 line yet. They don’t seem to be doing bad despite this).
They may take away some maybe willing to apply as a reach, but I feel those are likely to apply ED1 in the first place. Because I know at Emory, the chances of students getting in ED2 are nearly identical to RD, which is still much higher than Chicago. To do Chicago ED2 with the stats that many Emory/Tufts have is like a HUGE risk because if they don’t get in, they will have to apply RD elsewhere, where the chances decrease even more in most cases (larger applicant pools of course). I think many places such as Vanderbilt “may” be affected because they have a similar admissions scheme and in the RD pool, share many cross-applicants AND admits. But even then, the types that consider a place like Vanderbilt are generally a bit different from those seriously considering Chicago (as in those willing to fully commit). Complete different vibes they have. If based on vibes, Emory and Tufts may be hurt more (but because of stats…maybe not), but I guess if many applying ED2 to somewhere like Vanderbilt are more rank sensitive than normal (I doubt this…again, much like Duke, Penn, GTown, Stanford, and ND, they have a quite distinct vibe from other privates), then maybe they will be affected.
What you said would certainly be true if they all had the same admissions strategies and the student bodies had the same stats (thus the schools being able to share many admits), but otherwise it isn’t much of a problem. Tufts and Emory, if affected by lower ED2 applicant pools, will likely make it up in RD (because most will be denied or wait-listed Chicago and thus turn around and reconsider those schools) unless ED2 there has less stringent admissions than RD (I don’t know too many schools where this is the case…usually ED1 is kind of like that).
@bernie12 Thanks for sharing your insights. My thinking was that the schools that offer ED2 try to capitalize on applicants who don’t get into the their first choice schools but would still be good potentials for them. For example, I know of a student who applied SCEA to Stanford, got denied and then accepted ED 2 to Tufts and went there. I am sure there are students whose stats would make them less competitive at UChicago and those kids may not apply, but all those HYPSM and Ivy denied kids that were applying to Tufts, Emory, Vandy, NYU etc to assure themselves of a spot in a “competitively ranked” university, will now probably choose UChicago. They did not have that option before. That will surely affect the applicant pool at these schools. By how much, I can’t say, but I have to believe there will be some tangible effect.
@VeryLuckyParent : I think many use ED1 at their first choice as a test round. So it depends on how high they are starting. I know a lot of Emory students, are for example, starting with Duke, Cornell, or Penn as a test case (as in, they try their hand because their stats are in range and their EC’s are excellent) and then drop down to Emory after they try that. Most people who are going for HYPS for ED1 are likely not going for Emory ED2, they will likely only entertain it for RD. I think you are right for those few that use HYPS as their “test case”, but also liked Emory/Vanderbilt/Tufts and maybe considered them for ED2, but I feel that is more a problem for Vanderbilt which is better matched with Chicago in the first place, at least in the style of admissions. A person who thinks they have a shot at Vanderbilt based on stats, likely feels the same way about Chicago so more of them may give Chicago a shot.
Although, all of this concerns me. The concept of Chicago being now a “catch all applicants” university when you used to (and probably still should - As high ranked as Chicago is, its academics are up there in the “comparatively rough” category versus many of the schools not really in its tier but have similar or identical app. numbers today) have to kind of “think twice before applying”, and certainly before committing, worries me. To preserve some of the good aspects of their academic culture, they need to do well to avoid students who look amazing on paper (high stats), but are there for the rank and qol, and much lesser so the academics offerings. There are two such schools, which I usually name but won’t this time, who indeed have this, and have stats of HYPM, but have post-grad award outcomes and performance more similar (or less) to Emory and Tufts, schools with incoming stats 100 or more points lower on M/V. Chicago needs not come down to that level over time so should be careful. Luckily it has always been in a position to get the special students that stand out far beyond their stats would indicate. Chicago is also fortunate enough to have an academic environment that pushes the types of students they end up getting (Emory and Tufts I guess do the same and make for outcomes much more competitive than the incoming stats would predict).
@bernie12 Great insights. Let’s hope Chicago doesn’t go that route. The US needs quirky universities like Chicago to thrive and prosper.
I haven’t yet heard a convincing response to the key question: why is Chicago doing this? Why isn’t a 7.9% accept rate and a 66% yield rate good enough?
I don’t buy the argument that Chicago is losing too many students to Columbia, UPenn, Duke, etc. Out of the 2400 offers Chicago makes, only 800 choose to go elsewhere - I can’t imagine there are hundreds in that group of 800 going to Columbia etc. Even if there were, it’s a small pool of students to lose - come on the yield is at 66%!
Also, this probably won’t save the school much money - it’s hard to know what an unforseen group of applicants - ed and ed2 will look like socioeconomically. It’s risky to try something like this - with so much possible backlash - as a cost cutting measure.
So, I repeat: why is this happening?
ED I: I’m really wealthy and can afford $70,000+ and visited your school and think it’s so cool; also my family totally “gets” UChicago and isn’t pressuring me to apply to Ivies. ( Less likely: I’m a high stats low socio economic student and bought into the No Barrires thing and love, love UChicago so I’m going to risk not comparing fin aid- I really hope I don’t regret it).
ED II: Man, I messed up applying to that Ivy early (or MIT or Stanford) now I’m rejected and I have to get into a really selective school because I’m prestige conscious and will never live it down if I don’t get in somewhere I can brag about plus I’m loaded so I don’t need to worry about fin aid.
EA: I really want to go to UChicago but I need to compare fin aid or merit offers. Please, please take me. ( Maybe too: Well, I really like it but still going after my first choice- and I’ve got my act together enough to do EA here and EA somewhere else or maybe ED to my first choice)
RD: Man, I’m hot stuff and can wait it out. I know that I’ll have choices. I have nerves of steel. ( Maybe too: I’m totally clueless and just applied everywhere in the top 10 to see what would happen.)