<p>Yeah, there are more than a couple of typos in that article. Georgetown has a 18.1% acceptance rate in 2011.</p>
<p>Looks like we will have to wait for the official number to be published in a University publication. I was estimating 12.8% so 13.2% could be right. :)</p>
<p>13.2% is our official 2016 acceptance rate-- we released this information to the Daily Beast, the New York Times, and to the Chicago Maroon this afternoon. See here for more information: <a href=“https://blogs.uchicago.edu/collegeadmissions/[/url]”>https://blogs.uchicago.edu/collegeadmissions/</a></p>
<p>@david05 I would rarely be accused of functioning as the pr office for Stanford, but that figure for Stanford is correct:</p>
<p>[Class</a> of 2016 admit rate at historic low | Stanford Daily](<a href=“http://www.stanforddaily.com/2012/03/30/class-of-2016-admit-rate-at-historic-low/]Class”>Class of 2016 admit rate at historic low)</p>
<p>But Brown’s paper said theirs was 9.6% not 9.3%:
[U</a>. accepts 2,760 to class of 2016 - The Brown Daily Herald - Serving the community daily since 1891](<a href=“http://www.browndailyherald.com/u-accepts-2-760-to-class-of-2016-1.2722116#.T30pMY6re00]U”>http://www.browndailyherald.com/u-accepts-2-760-to-class-of-2016-1.2722116#.T30pMY6re00)</p>
<p>However, UChicago’s admit rate continues to drop faster than that of any other top school in the country. </p>
<p>While Harvard and Stanford had a similar drop in admit rates and stayed in their same relative position, UChicago closed the gap a bit.</p>
<p>The difference between UChicago’s admit rate and Harvard’s</p>
<pre><code> UChicago/ Harvard/ Difference
</code></pre>
<p>Last Year 16.3/ 6.2/ 10.1
This year 13.2/ 5.9/ 7.3</p>
<p>Next year closer still</p>
<p>I’m confused by the acceptance % for UChicago. Maybe I’m doing the calculation wrong, but with a reported 3344 acceptances from a pool of 27277, I get 12.26% (3344/27277, yes?). Can somebody set me straight? Thanks.</p>
<p>@spike9 good point. it does come out to 12.26%.</p>
<p>The figure was reported incorrectly. It’s 25,277, not 27,277. So 13.2%.</p>
<p>@phuriku also a good point</p>
<p>I have a feeling this year’s yield is gonna jump a good amount. Just a feeling from seeing how keen very one in the 2016b admits facebook group is.</p>
<p>I have the same feeling. Yet the admissions committee admitted enough people so that they’ll get their class target (1350) if they maintain the yield from last year (40%). This year’s class is going to be overflowing, and I think it’s a really dumb move by the admissions office. There’s a reason the wait list exists.</p>
<p>^That’s bad as there’s only so much resources–no one wants overcrowded classes or forced doubles. Moreover this made the acceptance rate unnecessarily high/kept it from falling to where it should be. (But who is to say I didn’t benefit from the admissions office’s stubborn error? ;p)</p>
<p>In some perverted sense, I hope I’m wrong and I hope the yield doesn’t rise. However, I’ve predicted elsewhere that it’ll go up to 45% this year, and I’ll maintain that prediction. I mean, UChicago jumped four places to #5 in US News, and it’s finally starting to get the respect that it deserves. More than anything, I’m confused why people think it WOULDN’T jump, most of all the admissions office.</p>
<p>I really hope the yield does not increase, It would be great news for us waitlisted (or at least not inherently bad news).</p>
<p>@truth123, Stanford’s application number in dailybeast is wrong with a typo, not 26,631, should be (26,631+10,000).
Chicago’s admit rate is a bit high, compared to my prediction @12.8%. Maybe the admissions office is too conservative, maybe Chicago wants to enlarge the class size, they may have a reason.</p>
<p>Phuriku:</p>
<p>Lets assume for a moment that, especially when it comes to final admissions decisions, UChicago’s admissions office makes decisions carefully, and don’t make too many “dumb moves,” as you say in a previous post.</p>
<p>If we can safely assert that the admis office is pretty pragmatic, can you come up with any RATIONAL reasons for why the admissions office accepted so many students? What are some ways that accepting so many students can benefit the university? Why is this good for the school’s institutional health?</p>
<p>I think once you look at their actions as rational rather than “dumb moves” you can make sense of their reasoning. I have some ideas. What are yours?</p>
<p>Cue7: I understand that there are certain benefits that arise from an enlarged class size. Financial benefit is one of them; another is that with a larger class, more people have a chance to know an attending student (and in the future, alumni), thereby enhancing the University’s name brand.</p>
<p>However, I’m assuming here that the University is NOT trying to enlarge the class size. Frankly, the University doesn’t have room for a bigger class, with all the dorms + International House + wherever they put the extra students last year all filled. Not to mention that the University has explicitly stated to the NYT that it’s aiming for a class size of 1350 this year. If Chicago wanted to make its class size bigger, then why would it tell NYT that it was actually aiming to make it smaller this year? Something doesn’t add up. Also, I’m really tired of the University’s lack of transparency.</p>
<p>If the University wanted a slightly larger class size (up to 1500), I’d be fine with it as long as 1) we had enough space to house them, and 2) the University was transparent about its intentions. It seems that both 1) and 2) fail.</p>
<p>As far as I can see, this is just a miscalculation by the admissions office. They’re expecting a yield of 40%, and I don’t think that’s what they’re going to get.</p>
<p>Based on those comments in the university’s wait list announcement this year, I’m starting to think the target class size these days is 1,400 not 1,350. </p>
<p>That does surprise me given the Maroon’s discussion of the housing crunch this year. And someone at the University told me in the fall that they had to put people in New Grad this year because they didn’t have enough dorm space. No new dorms have gone online this year so I imagine they will have their work cut out for them finding beds if the yield rate goes up. (I would assume they have considered this possibility and have some sort of a plan.)</p>
<p>@phuriku just saw your post. true, they did tell the Choice Blog the class size was 1,350 back in the fall… so I guess that 1,400 comment to the waitlist students was just a rounding off in conversation.</p>
<p>I hope the Maroon will have some sort of discussion on Friday about these things.</p>
<p>I also asked the University of Chicago Magazine to do an updated story about the size of the College and the general good news these days as far as improvements in all the stats (graduation rate, freshman retention rate, admit rate, yield rate.) Hope they do it!</p>
<p>@david05 yeah, I misread your comment and then later saw all the typos in the Daily Beast! LOL! Maybe they need a proofreader or fact checker!</p>
<p>Phuriku:</p>
<p>Good analysis. By this point, however, you should know as well as anyone that UChicago doesn’t come close to its peers in providing transparency. No one really knows key stats about the school - like detailed career survey reports, avg. gpa at the school, grad school placement, etc. - that are publicly available at many other peer schools. </p>
<p>Moreover, as UChicago’s admissions policy is changing quickly, as are its goals for the incoming class, its hard to discern what the school is doing. UChicago certainly isn’t Yale or Dartmouth, schools that have maintained constant class sizes for 15-20 years. </p>
<p>Also, think about the NYT story a little bit - UChicago is “aiming” to have a class size of 1350, as it told the NYT. When a school is oversubscribed, however, the story always comes out that the school is “more popular” than anticipated. In actuality, a school could be very conservative with admissions decisions to avoid this problem. Given that UChicago has certainly NOT been conservative in its decisions this year, an overflow problem has an easy, appealing headline: “For second straight year, UChicago sees increase in popularity as more students enroll.” </p>
<p>You have to let go of the frustration regarding lack of transparency - this is how UChicago has operated for decades - it’ll take a lot more time to change this culture. Also, you need to keep in mind that the administration will make decisions that are in the school’s best interests, and these interests don’t always converge with factors such as student happiness on campus. Sometimes the interests converge, but sometimes they don’t. </p>
<p>This year, it looks like UChicago has determined that having another year of overflow (and whatever benefits come with that) outweighs temporary negative student feelings about the overflow. Following that analysis, the school decided to admit ~100 more students than most posters thought they’d admit. </p>
<p>Overall, it’s not a dumb move at all. It’s perhaps not in the best interests of the student life for the incoming class, but UChicago has never been on the vanguard about its care for its students. You just have to come to terms with this fact.</p>