According to this Washington Post article Chicago received 15000 applications in EDI round. This is given as an estimate not an official figure. Has anyone else heard of a similar number? It sounds like a very high number of early applicants, in fact the highest among private institutions included in the article.
That’s been true for UChicago for awhile now, at least among the privates. Last year’s 13,000 was not published but taken from EA/EDI admitted student events in early 2017 so it’s a good number. The same will hopefully happen again within the next month or so. UChicago doesn’t make its early numbers public.
It is interesting to note that the ratio of early applicants to total applicants is quite high for UChicago which may be a sign that applicants are taking note of Chicago’s disproportionately favorable acceptance rate for early applicants compared to regular cycle applicants. This strategy seems unsustainable and might result in Chicago missing out on some of the talent who may choose to apply elsewhere during RD.
@ccdad99 The problem is that many applicants with competitive profiles are getting shut out of both ED (as such applications are surging everywhere) and in the RD rounds (because very few elite schools have enough slots left for unhooked applicants in the RD round.)
For an unhooked applicant, relying on the RD round for good news is becoming increasingly untenable.
Given the nature of the current process, if something doesn’t change soon, the elite colleges are in the driver’s seat here
Not sure why the strategy of accepting a large chunk of students via ED would be unsustainable or why it would be reasonable to assume the college is missing out on some talent. The last two incoming classes which were admitted under the ED model have been by all reports the most “talented” classes ever admitted. Certainly a quick look at simple metrics like SAT scores (in which it appears UChicago’s average score is second only to CalTech) seem to back that assertion up. Freshman retention at 99% also supports the idea the class was a good fit. In other words, the ED model produced a class of top notch students that are a great fit. That’s a win, not something that’s unsustainable.
If the current model is attracting and retaining talent that’s equivalent to or of greater talent than the other top schools and that talent is so enamored of UChicago that it’s willing to commit ED, sounds like a good model. Frankly, UChicago is a bit of a unique animal and for the kids who are undecided or who have another first choice it might be better to not fight to attract those kids anyways. With a little over 3.5 million high school graduates per year and approximately 67,000 with an ACT over 33/98th percentile, it’s not hard to believe that UChicago couldn’t fill its 1700 first year slots three times over with top qualified students who are in love with the college and who would be a great fit. Let’s continue to welcome that self selected group into the college and stop worrying about the others. There are plenty to go around.
No need to chase after the students who only want UChicago as an alternate to their first choice. There are enough top quality candidates who have UChicago as their first choice that it’s reasonable to pick from that group first.
I meant early 2018 in the post above. But IIRC in early 2016 - for the Class of 2020 - There were CC reports of approximately 12,000 early applications. Notably, this was months before UChicago announced any switch to binding admission. All 12,000 were EA applications. They have just always had a huge number of early applicants.
@JBStillFlying Thanks for the statistics about Class of 2020. I guess those who want Chicago want it early
@milee30 Not every applicant can and does apply early. It might be in Chicago’s best interest to keep the RD applicant pool at a “healthy” number to pick among the best. I don’t claim to know what that number is. I don’t dispute the argument that recent admitted classes are top notch, but it does not necessarily mean they could not be better
I’m also not arguing that there aren’t a few more top notch students that UChicago may be missing out on, there’s really no way to know that. But… we have a system that is producing absolutely first rate best of the litter fantastico supercalifragilisticexpialidocious incoming classes. Not only are the students first quality but they are a great fit with the school. Why would it make sense to change this system to catch some undefined number of students who would prefer to be at other colleges anyways?
I’m not seeing where the overall body of students at any school is quantitatively “better”. And based on their application choices, they would prefer to be at other schools - let them go.
It might be a problem for Chicago if its peers/competitors of similar size start attracting twice the number of total applicants.
Total applicants does not necessarily equal pool of top notch students. UChicago is already attracting more top notch applicants than it can possibly admit. Why not choose from those top notch students for which UChicago is their top choice?
Who really cares if another college attracts 50k or 500k apps? Only a small portion of those apps will be from top students. UChicago is doing a great job of attracting top students who want to be there and are a great fit. Doesn’t really matter how many apps another college gets, especially as few will be top students and from their app choice apparently they prefer colleges other than UChicago anyway.
IOW, it’s a great big country. UChicago is already attracting more elite level students than it can handle. Doesn’t really matter how many more are out there after UChicago has accepted those elite students that love the college and who will be a great fit.
If the admitted student profile was lagging the metrics of other college peers, then it might be worth worrying about how to attract the top students. But that’s not the case. UChicago’s admitted student profile is already more impressive than most of the peers, so it’s already attracting the elite students. Let the other colleges have the remainder who don’t want to be at UChicago anyway.
“It might be a problem for Chicago if its peers/competitors of similar size start attracting twice the number of total applicants.”
The other schools are slowly approaching those numbers - we’ve seen some pretty impressive ones so far from schools that aren’t quite UChicago’s caliber!
@ccdad99 : None of any elite school use ED2 to “Unfairly Favors Wealthy Applicants” – https://www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2018/12/4/early-decision-unfairly-favors-wealthy-applicants/
I am curious why the number of undergraduates increases by 676 from spring 2018 (5919) to autumn 2018 (6595) according to uchicago registrar data. (off the book??)
Four elements of rankings:
(1) Sent out the most number of mailings to attract applicants (y’all apply so we can reject you - check! Make sure we don’t tell them they have tiny chance in RD. If we tell them we are 80% ED school, we will lose most of the RD applicants.)
(2) High Yield Rate (commit to us early or we’ll reject you - check! Well, we will have 100% high yield rate if we are 100% ED school. But we will lose all the RD applicants if we do that. It is best to leave a few spots open for those uninitiated RD applicants. That is why we don’t make public our admission data. Our data is “estimate”.
(3) Test scores (if you have low scores, don’t ruin our rank! – check! We don’t want your low score. That is why we are SAT/ACT optional.)
(4) Wait lists, deferrals, spring admits, gap year admits. (off the book. – check!)
Great jobs!! 
;
Superb posts, @milee30. You catch the point many miss: it’s not about the number they attract but the kids they want. Knowledgeable about the school and its unique factors, able to meet the bar, wise in their applications, and committed enough to apply early. They don’t take the kids they don’t want/don’t have full confidence in.
The savvy is in being all four of those. I do feel it takes the attention off what works for individuals, when folks turn this to improving rankings. You have to be what they want, to get an admit. The focus should be on that, imo.
@nrtlax33 Which ranking is this you speak of? Is this some unsophisticated version of a college ranking? #1 is getting a whole bunch of applications in? Some admins sitting around wringing their hands trying to figure out how to be even more selective than they already are, and diabolically intending to reject them. The ranking that most people use don’t even include the admissions rate anymore.
I don’t suppose outcomes, social mobility, graduation and retention rates, faculty resources, peer assessments, would factor into this imagined ranking.
And I don’t suppose that breadth and depth of their academics, intellectual environment, student body, contribution to society by many affiliated with the school, and beautiful campus would entice many to attend.
Your post is funny.
The difference between spring and fall enrollment as pointed in #12 is so easily explained. Senior class graduated and a new larger freshman class came in. No need for off the book shenanigans.
All colleges including Harvard do outreach through mailings. Chicago is admittedly pretty aggressive about it but in my mind that is a good thing. I actually loved the gargoyle mailer and dear diary video that accompanied it.
Yield rate has not been part of USNews rankings for a while now. So no, it plays no role in calculating the rank of a college
Chicago went test optional only this year. They were already pretty high in the one ranking that most students and parents care about: USNews. Having said that, I actually don’t like the way they implemented it. This was a gimmick which confused kids and made the process less transparent.
Chicago seems to use wait-lists as a PR tool to gently deny applicants so that there is minimal blowback the coming year from future applicants and their schools. Being wait-listed and then denied makes one feel that they almost made it.
@nrtlax33 Check out the stats on the number of early applicants in Class of 2020 that @JBStillFlying gave (Post#11)They were already getting a very high number of early applicants. More importantly, that class had a very high yield of 66% without any ED (EA and RD only). There is no doubt that any ED program will increase yield, but I find it hard to believe this was the primary reason to switch to ED when their yield was already higher than many elite colleges using ED.
https://www.chicagomaroon.com/2016/05/31/university-admits-record-low-7-9-percent-to-class-of-2020/
Furthermore, as pointed out in an earlier post by @uocparent , USNews no longer uses selectivity in its ranking system. Since their rankings are based on stats from previous year’s admission cycle, Chicago’s yield post ED era (Class of 2021 onward) never made it into USNews ranking calculations. In other words, Early admission strategies we are discussing here have had no impact on Chicago’s USNews ranking.
ED favoring wealthier applicants is a valid point that has been brought up on this forum multiple times. It remains to be seen whether Chicago’s Empower Initiative is genuinely an attempt to remedy some of this or simply window dressing as others have commented.
@surelyhuman “…Being wait-listed and then denied makes one feel that they almost made it.”
So true! My kid had this very experience (WL the denied) decided to re-apply to the top-choice school the following year, and was offered a place!
milee30 - you do get that many students can’t apply ED for financial reasons right? Students who are just as bright and would contribute greatly to the school? U of Chicago may very well be their first choice.
@Leigh22 - UChicago has been very good about meeting full demonstrated need. So when you say “financial reasons” are you referring to inability to pay (which might not be technically true), a preference for looking at merit aid (in order, say, to save money for grad school), or parents who have decided to budget the funds for different (and equally important) purposes?