EA Admissions Rate

Colleges & Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
41

<p>Cue7:</p>

<p>Regarding a striking difference in acceptance rate (something like 2:1) for early application and RD: that is the case for ED and RD comparison for Chicago’s peers (like Penn, Columbia, Dartmouth, Cornell, Brown, etc). ED is a binding decision: students give up their right to pursue other opportunities in exchange of an admission boost, and the schools get to increase their yield: quid pro quo.</p>

<p>Are you sure such a striking difference in acceptance rate is also the case for EA? </p>

<p>For an unrestricted EA like Chicago’s (not SCEA) to have an admission advantage of that magnitude you are quoting (like 2:1) is unthinkable. They may as well go for the ED round then.</p>

42

<p>so only two from AZ?</p>

43

<p>Hyeonjlee: What’s interesting here is, if Nondorf accepts so many early, Chicago’s EA policy bears a striking resemblance to most schools’ ED policies. </p>

<p>If you look at the numbers, if the rumors are true, Chicago is accepting about 28% of the applicants in the EA round, and will then only be able to accept around 15% of the applicants in the RD round. That’s a pretty significant disparity. </p>

<p>Moreover, given how low the RD accept rate is at Chicago’s peer schools such as Columbia or Yale, a good number of these students will essentially be “locked” into their EA acceptance. To be blunt, a student’s best option may be Chicago come april, because the acceptances aren’t exactly flooding out of places like Princeton and Stanford. </p>

<p>Again, accepting a LOT early seems like it could be a very shrewd move on Chicago’s part. They can essentially lock up a lot of very, very strong students, and completely change the perceived selectivity of the school.</p>

<p>Phuriku, I think you’re right, Nondorf probably won’t go for an ED policy, but, I don’t think, for the reasons you state. In thinking about the benefit of admitting a high number in the EA round, Chicago is actually using OTHER schools’ uber low acceptance rates and policies for Chicago’s benefit. A talented kid may not want to do Yale SCEA, so he applies to Chicago as an “EA safety,” but then gets shut out at Yale, Harvard, and Stanford (not inconceivable when these schools sport about a 7% RD accept rate). This kid, who in the past, may have gone to Y or H, now comes to Chicago. </p>

<p>Moreover, Nondorf can just pass off the high number of EA admits as a predictable response to a 50% larger, just-as-talented applicant pool. If you get 50% more apps and (you can say) the pool is very strong, it makes sense to then send out more acceptance letters in the early round. </p>

<p>It’s a pretty big win-win situation for Nondorf if Chicago does indeed accept ~1600 early. Chicago’s yield should rise to around 40%, and the accept rate will probably be around 19%.</p>

<p>This is assuming, of course, that the RD applications only go up about 15%. It’s not inconceivable that, if early apps went up 54%, RD apps (through the common app) go up, say, 30%. This means the overall accept rate would be around 16-17%. </p>

<p>All I know is, big changes seem to be underway over in Hyde Park. Chicago traditionally lagged behind Northwestern or Wash U in terms of “generic” perceived selectivity, but within the span of about a year, if Chicago’s numbers do indeed increase substantially for the RD round, Chicago’s selectivity would be right in range with Dartmouth, Brown, etc. (both these schools have around a 13-15% accept rate I think).</p>

44

<p>On another note, what happens when the Nondorf outreach machine REALLY gets going? He’s only been at Chicago for 6 months or so. Everywhere else he’s been (Yale, RPI), he has a proven track record of shooting up admissions numbers while improving the quality of the incoming classes. </p>

<p>Lets say this year, Chicago gets around 18K apps. Then, lets say the Nondorf juggernaut starts rolling, and Chicago drums up an additional 2-3K apps a year through aggressive outreach. If Nondorf also concentrates on increasing yield so that it’s consistently around 42-44% (not inconceivable if this year the yield is 40%), Chicago’s overall admit rate plummets to around 10-12%. </p>

<p>I’m assuming that Yale, Princeton, etc., either through slight college expansion or what not, are going to try to keep the accept rate roughly around 8-10%. Once it dips below that, students may simply become disheartened and choose not even to apply. </p>

<p>There was a time, not long ago, when Chicago’s accept rate was FOUR TIMES the accept rate at Yale or Harvard. In a few years, Chicago may be within 2-3 percentage points of these schools. I wonder how this will affect the nature of and perception of the U of C? It’s really hard to call it “self-selective” or more of a niche school when 22K+ students are applying and the accept rate is a hair breadths away from Yale’s.</p>

45

<p>There are other factors that will affect yield besides the kids who get in EA and decide to reach higher in RD – financial aid, for one. It’s already a hot topic on some of the threads, here and on FB.</p>

46

<p>^^ Exactly, which is why I’ll still apply to schools like Cornell or Penn to be able to compare my packages.</p>

47

<p>I don’t think it’s a given that this year’s EA crop will have a higher yield. </p>

<p>If the higher applicants number reflects the success of the new marketing drive to ferret out all the hidden Chicago enthusiasts, then yes, the yield of this crop will be good. </p>

<p>On the other hand, if it is a result of a more “ubiquitous” blanket marketing drive that simply increased the name recognition and awareness of Chicago’s enviable USNWR position coupled with the awareness that the acceptance rate that is much higher than that of its peers, then it’s questionable whether this crop will produce a higher yield. It just means that there were a lot of bargain hunters looking for an acceptance at a good school at a discount (i.e., higher acceptance rate). These kids will simply move on when there is a even better deal later (more prestigious name, better FA, etc). </p>

<p>We will see comes April. Until then, jury is out whether this is truly a qualitative leap also in addition to being a huge boost in terms of the number. My guess is, the overall quality of the applicants/admitted students will be higher, but NOT by as much as the increase in application numbers would indicate.</p>

48

<p>Do you happen to have any information if anyone at all was admitted from Poland? I’d be thankful.</p>

49

<p>Zero from Poland I believe.</p>

50

<p>What about Texas?</p>

51

<p>one more thing:</p>

<p>does anybody have any feel for whether the kids applied and were accepted in this EA round are better qualified kids compared with, say, the class of 2013? Based on a few examples I see, its does not feel that way - actually it looks the opposite compared with my impressions from last year. </p>

<p>I have a sneaking suspicion that they are intentionally increasing the standard deviation of the scores and such among the admitted kids - which is actually a smart way to encourage more kids to apply and thus lowering the acceptance rate and increasing the yield (among the low end of the stats). Look, in order to encourage more kids to apply, you need to show the real proof that there is “hope” for those kids with borderline stats. “Jonny in my school with borderline SAT and GPA was admitted by HYP, so what the heck, I should sent my app too. you never know” Many, many, many HYP applicants are “what the heck” applicants buying HYP lottery tickets. I am sure other top 10 schools would also love to have them also. </p>

<p>For instance, Duke made a much ado about “liking the kids with bumps and not caring that much about scores and such” this year, which, I believe reflects their desire to beef up their prestige image by encouraging bargain hunters and lottery buyers. It just happens that their ranking has been sliding last few years. There are some anecdotal indications that ED decisions and the kids’ stats show a possibility that indeed, it could very well be the case that the standard deviation of scores is increasing. Keep the high stat kids to make sure that 75% marker is high. Accept some borderline stat kids to keep the “promise” alive. Result: much wider 25-75% range. The kids who are short changed are the kids with median range stats. The bell curve is getting wider and flatter. </p>

<p>I am just guessing and I could be entirely wrong. But, I wouldn’t put it past any red blooded college admission deans whose career advancement at least partly depends on increasing the perceived prestige of the school. Maybe I am too cynical, but hey, I worked in devising elaborate global marketing strategy in fortune 100 companies, and I know first hand how much of what appeared to be just “natural reflection” of the business trend is orchestrated and strategized to the Nth degree with a reams of people in the back room analyzing every possible consumer reaction scenarios.</p>

52

<p>

</p>

<p>Hyeonjlee - Do you have any data to back up your claim? Duke has, for years, stated that they are not looking for perfection. This sentiment is stated on their website and is not new. I don’t think it’s a matter of building prestige, and I’m not sure how “encouraging bargain hunters and lottery buyers” would build prestige anyway.</p>

53

<p>As I said in my post, I may be completely wrong since I do not have scientific data on this.</p>

<p>My observation is based on some reports that are coming in from candidates and parents who are going through this process this year. I heard from several parents and students that they particularly emphasized this year in their presentation to prospective students and parents that candidates with flawed package would be looked at in a “holistic” manner (we all know what this mean, don’t we), and the admission officers emphasized over and over why they should apply early.</p>

<p>So, “embracing” the candidates with bumps may have been their philosophy all along, but they seem to be REALLY trying hard to communicate this to prospective applicants. </p>

<p>Regarding why they would encourage bargain hunters - I was using this phrase figuratively. No they don’t want to admit a whole lot of them - the candidates with sub standard qualifications. However, encouraging a lot of applicants to apply anyway even though they have very unfavorable odds of getting admitted does result in a larger pool of applicants, and a lower acceptance rate. In short, it creates a higher demand for the goods, while the supply is constant. This is a very classic, elementary, and easiest way to instantly increase the brand prestige. Businesses do that all the time. Colleges do that all the time too. Why do you think they are sending all this brochures and marketing materials to students all the time? Most colleges want to have MORE and MORE students to apply precisely to create this “prestige” image. </p>

<p>Now, having waved all these carrots, they have to back up their claim. Can you imagine what would happen to the lottery industry if the public never sees any winners? Well, having dangled all these carrots, they actually have to give some of them away. As such, there will be cases of students with borderline stats getting in - they will the proof and encouragement for other such applicants in the future.</p>

<p>Next spring, if we indeed see Duke’s bottom 25% marker for SAT go down, while the top 75% marker stay the same or higher, this would be a more or less indirect proof that indeed they are playing this game.</p>

<p>This may all sound too cynical, but all big business dealing with mass consumer goods have very elaborate and methodical marketing schemes: very sophisticated. Nothing is left to chances. At least this is how elite global enterprises do their marketing. And, I don’t see any reason to believe that top elite universities are anything but elite businesses when it comes to maintaining and increasing their brand aura and prestige.</p>

54

<p>Hyeonjlee: I don’t know if the reason for picking Chicago (because the applicant was a “true” Chicago candidate, or the applicant is attending simply because Chicago is so highly ranked) is as important.</p>

<p>Please note, in my projections for the class, I assumed that Chicago’s EA yield would stay constant (around 40-42%), and that the OVERALL yield would improve because Chicago would rely more heavily on the early pool. </p>

<p>Having said all this, I agree with what other posters have said - the biggest problem for Chicago’s yield is Financial Aid. I believe only about 50-55% of Chicago students receive financial aid, and most probably don’t get enough. It’s hard to pick Chicago over a Cornell or Duke or Penn when these other schools provide better financial aid.</p>

<p>Now, with THAT being said, if Chicago’s financial aid improves, I think if it relies heavily on the EA crop, it’s overall yield will benefit significantly because its peer schools will post such impossible RD acceptance rates. Yale, Harvard etc. will have RD acceptance rates of 5-6%.</p>

55

<p>Cue7,</p>

<p>I agree with the importance of FA. that said, I would also say that even without the improvement in FA, better brand power and prestige in and of itself will have an effect in increasing yield - definitely not as much as it would be combined with better FA, but still some measurable improvement. </p>

<p>Improving FA does not come cheap. But increasing the “appeal” can be surprisingly doable on a much lower budget. </p>

<p>Giving better FA than HYP will be virtually impossible near term. However, convincing students to move over to the Chicago column over, say, Georgetown, Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, may be doable even without a significant improvement in FA if Chicago’s perceived prestige improves significantly among the candidates. </p>

<p>Contrary to popular myth, creating near instant brand power is not such an impossibility. It’s been done before in many businesses. It does not take a generation to build a brand image.</p>

<p>Sounds pretty much like pimping Chicago name out for prestige whores, right? You betcha. However, I challenge you to name a single globally successful brand that does not do this. I will also bet that there is not a single top 10 or top 20 school that is too lofty to do this: We have seen what happened to Chicago vis a vis its peer institutions in terms of general prestige, quality of applicants, etc when they were too noble to play this game. Chicago is just catching on now.</p>

56

<p>Hyeonjlee: I completely agree, but taking a higher percentage of the class early does serve the EXACT purpose you delineate in your post. By essentially locking kids in early who aren’t going to be getting into better (or even comparable schools), Chicago can improve its brand and recognition. Making a school appear more exclusive by raising selectivity standards ALSO raises its appeal. </p>

<p>Back when Chicago had a 60% accept rate, yes it was self-selective, but I think there was also a feel of “this is blatantly a back-up school.” As the accept rate plummets, and as yield rises and more EA admits come, this just changes the complexion of the admissions landscape for Chicago. It’s hard to say Chicago’s a backup school when it has a 17% accept rate and Nondorf’s given an extra 4 months to reach out and woo the early admits. </p>

<p>Again, I think admitting more early would be a shrewd move that does JUST what you hope will happen, albeit not in the sort of blunt way that could irk the Chicago die-hards. It’s very clever.</p>

57

<p>So I’m curious. How does this admissions “strategy” (if you could call it that) end up for the EA applicants who were deferred to RD?</p>

58

<p>I haven’t seen “substandard” candidates on the posts from accepted students…pretty impressive bunch if you ask me!</p>

59

<p>Cue 7,</p>

<p>Yes, we are on the same wavelength. Nondorf is employing a very smart strategy. We will see what happens. </p>

<p>Taypi,</p>

<p>I don’t know what this means for EA deferrals other than that you are up against what could be a lowest acceptance rate in recent Chicago history.</p>

<p>One thing you could possibly do is to STRONGLY communicate to them why Chicago is your #1 choice and come across really sincere in doing so. If indeed they are playing this game, and I strongly suspect they are even though they wouldn’t use such vulgar phrase (they are Ivory Tower, remember?), then they would rather admit a student who will matriculate rather than pick another school when given a chance: it’s all about the yield now. </p>

<p>Some schools are rather blatant about this: they even ask the candidates where else they are applying and make it known that when the candidates make a point of visiting the campus it counts for “something” (wink, wink). Among these schools, it’s no secret that well communicated enthusiasm is a not so small a part of admission decisions. Ever hear of “Tufts Syndrome”??? Some schools even “proactively” reject what appear to be “overly qualified” candidates who seem to use them as a safety and will fly away as soon as there are better options. They would rather not have these candidates ruin their yield statistics.</p>

<p>Yes, you guessed it, these schools are not currently on the top 20 list. They are “wannabes”. However, I believe the only schools who can be blaze about this kind of phenomenon are HYPSM and maybe just a few more. Chicago, in my mind, is not currently at this level compared with its academic peers: they have catching up to do. </p>

<p>If I were Nondorf, if two candidates are comparable in other ways, I would try to find a way to “predict” which will come and matriculate at Chicago given a chance and which will flit away to my competitors.</p>

60

<p>

</p>

<p>that phrase was used in a very generic, hypothetical statement about what Duke may be doing this season, even there: hypothetical, not real.</p>

<p>It was certainly not aimed at Chicago EA kids.</p>