“On a side note, anyone have any analysis on why ED would allow for higher pay at a University that meets 100% of demonstrated need. I understand the correlation between higher test scores, but full pay is a real stretch in my opinion.”
@fbsdreams this is why they had the confidence to offer EDI and II. They actually offer pretty good “need based” aid.
There are schools out there that definitely trade off crappy aid for ED. CMU is one example - and they admit it on their website. Keep in mind that “demonstrated need” might have different definitions among the schools; also, the line between “merit” and “demonstrated need” might be a bit blurry for some of these. However, we have no doubt that our kid’s aid package at CMU - had she applied ED - would have been significantly worse than at UChicago.
“I think the advantage of EA this year was that it obscured how great the ED advantage was vis a vis RD. Once they get more people opting into ED and/or fewer RD applications, it’ll be easier to get both rates (and the differential) to sane/acceptable/respectable levels.”
If more opt into ED they can just defer that pool as well. The advantage of offering a slew of early admissions plans is that they can defer or waitlist as they please. They will ALWAYS have a bunch of RD’s, even if the majority are deferred from earlier pools. Honestly, if you were deferred from UChciago or deferred from somewhere else, you are going to be a candidate for RD.
I really find the “those who disagree with the safe space/free speech letter are best off not applying” claim both offensive and misleading. Lots of the UChicago faculty took exception to that letter* and lots of kids who were and are quite happy at UChicago were dismayed by its rhetoric.
I completely understand why someone reading the letter might choose not to apply – it’s a real turnoff. But for people whose kids have not even matriculated to be telling others what kinds of kids do and don’t belong at UChicago and to be making that judgment based on ideology is completely out of line.
But, LadyMeow, it was you who gratuitously introduced the Ellison letter. As for sneering, read your own post, with its obnoxious characterizantions - “toilet training”, “arrogant sneering letter”, “simplistic rhetoric”. You introduce out of the blue a hot-button topic of this sort, use that sort of dismissive and jeering language, and then expect there to be no pushback. On this board we try to be civil. When someone goes too far, he/she usually gets called for it.
@Cue7 I’m not suggesting that my hypothetical scenario is what actually happened. It sounds, for example, like UChicago hadn’t planned from the outset to let EA deferrals switch to ED2 (although they do seem to have embraced it), and also may have been surprised by the drop in RD apps. Otherwise, though, unless I’m missing something, the scenario isn’t obviously contradicted by known facts, cold though it is. As (and if) more facts come out, we’ll be able to make more informed assessments.
@fbsdreams I have no more than anecdotal evidence, but I believe non-full-payers are often very leery of applying ED, since it means that you can’t compare aid offers if you’re admitted and you have limited bargaining leverage if your view of “demonstrated need” doesn’t match the university’s. We also know that early pools skew towards better-prepared, higher-SES kids. It would therefore follow that an increase in the proportion admitted ED should increase the proportion of full-payers in the class.
UChicago must have made the sober determination that they prefer higher yield to lower admit rates. Its a clear trade-off. The quality of early applicants must also have been amazing.
Speaking of hot button, the safe space letter lead many folks we know to apply to UChicago early and avoid schools that seemed to have taken the safe space issue to unprecedented extremes. . Double edged sword.
The letter is still a hot-button topic? I didn’t know. As I said, its tone was a key reason that a high school junior didn’t apply, which might help explain why there were fewer RD applicants. That’s the only reason I mentioned it.
As for the level of maturity and humor in evidence on this thread, I’ll plead guilty to making fun of UC for sending us so much paper, but if “Brown is like a pet store” represents a knee-slapper, then readers may be forced to conclude that the fun really did go there to die.
I don’t have anything more on-topic to add, so I’ll let you carry on. Genuine best wishes to UC students & parents.
I’ll amend your statement, @Chrchill, to read “UChicago may have made the sober determination that they prefer higher yield, more full payers and guaranteed higher aggregate stats to lower admit rates, a more economically diverse student body and the chance to snag many of the highest-quality applicants aiming for the top-ranked schools but unwilling to apply to UChicago ED. It becomes a clear trade-off after you’ve maxed out the number of apps you can generate through marketing.”
This was one of the attractions of UChicago for my D, after seeing the train wreck of how Yale (sorry @deepblue86) handled the Halloween costume issue, and how Columbia handled Mattress Girl. Her reaction was “Finally, a college with some sanity!”
“I completely understand why someone reading the letter might choose not to apply – it’s a real turnoff. But for people whose kids have not even matriculated to be telling others what kinds of kids do and don’t belong at UChicago and to be making that judgment based on ideology is completely out of line.”
@exacademic, you have again misinterpreted and jumped to conclusions. I certainly didn’t say that anyone who disagreed didn’t belong at UChicago! But best off if they didn’t apply - sure. That’s true for a good number of them because they wouldn’t be happy in such an environment. It’s not for them. Look at your own words on the subject. “Dismayed” students. You posted earlier that you daughter was “depressed”. And now I’m “out of line” for expressing this opinion. You are making my point for me.
“The letter is still a hot-button topic? I didn’t know. As I said, its tone was a key reason that a high school junior didn’t apply, which might help explain why there were fewer RD applicants. That’s the only reason I mentioned it.”
@LadyMeowMeow, yes it was, given the timing of when it was released which was right before application season. And I completely agree with you that this was a reason applications were down. It wasn't the only reason. But it had to impact RD (many of which might have been more marginal candidates to begin with).
@chrchill we had the same experience. That letter didn’t seem to affect early apps at all, except to make the pool larger.
@Chrchill at #194 don’t forget the ethnically offensive Vietnamese dish that used ciabatta instead of baguette (itself a blend of French and Vietnamese but whatever . . . ).
OK - from my D17 who just returned from the overnight visit and via my hubby who is by now passing on 2nd hand information: Nondorf did say that EA’s who were deferred and opted for RD had an admit rate of less than 1%.